I always talk to students about this in terms of balance. There are things readers expect — and meeting those expectations (e.g. what goes where, and how things can be said) has positive advantages for writers. However, once these are well understood, writers can learn to balance the the advantages brought by these structures against the need of their material to be shown in other structures — that is, you need to balance what you are giving up against what you are potentially gaining.
I am not an advocate of change for the sake of change or difference for the sake of difference. Because it disadvantages readers and can prevent writers from being heard, there must be a solid, well thought out reason to violate reader expectations. If you are sure you have one, fine. OTOH, journal articles (for this is what my students are working on) are more like documentaries and not arthouse cinema.
Linda McPhee
www.lindamcpheeconsulting.com
[log in to unmask]
On 22 Sep 2015, at 13:39, Pate Margaret <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
... while we were exploring different aspects of style that they might want to adopt, most expressed a feeling that they didn’t want to step outside the “norm” as they felt it was too risky at this point in their career. They felt that a more individual style might have been more appropriate for scientists who have already been recognized in their field. Maybe what we teach about I and we should also reflect this, as well as the language level of the writer. Certainly some of my lower level students want to “hang on” to a more definite “rule” about whether to use I or we as it speeds up the very difficult process of producing a paper in a foreign language.
|