 |
 |
Hi All, Several points John that I would suggest you think about in relation to what you say below: 1) I agree that there are communications problems between academics etc and a wider audience. 2) Writing things in a simpler language should be encouraged. 3) However, we have to realise that some ideas and thoughts - including exploring emotions - often requires writing that may exclude many. Like in other areas of research you can't always simplify what are often complex ideas, although you try through using theory etc. 4) There is a great deal of social research now that is not about rationalizing human experience. However, I think it would be just as foolish to think that emotional response should be valued more highly that rational, since most prejudice comes from emotional knee jerk reaction. We need to conduct research that draws on both rational thought and emotion. After all, what affects people emotionally is often shaped by history and culture. 5) There is no such thing as the real world - only the world that we 'learn' to see and understand. We can not understand it any other way. If I believed in the 'real world' as an academic researcher I would give up tomorrow, since we could not change anything that was different to this 'real world' - which for many decades was full of racist, homophobic, disablist and other prejudiced world realities - and still is in many cases. 6) Ivory Tower ?? I have plenty of life experience to know that this is a knee jerk reaction to academic research. It was the research of other disabled academics that helped me think about my life experience in a different way and challenge the 'real world' that had given me so much negativity. And is was postmodernist thinking that gave me the knowledge to think about words more deeply than the 'real world' I was brought up in and my dictionary. Yours, Glenn. Dr Glenn Smith, Research Fellow, Royal Free and University College Medical School, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences, Royal Free Campus, Rowland Hill St, London, NW3 2PF. Tel: 0207 472 6404. Fax: 0207 830 2808. 'The views of the author of this e-mail are not necessarily those of the institution' -----Original Message----- From: John Homan [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: 27 July 2001 08:43 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Producing simultaneous interpretation in simpler language Good morning all, time to throw my hat into the ring. For many years I have had argument about communication problems between academe/professionals/bureaucrats and us mere mortals with or without disabilities in the community. As Larry pointed out, specialist jargon tends to exclude, and promotes factionalism. More serious is that it tries to rationalize everything, even those things that can not be rationally defined. This is a form of Taylorism (remember Frederick Winslow Taylor and his Scientific Management Principles) where the easily measured by check list, numbers, rules and procedures are the only matters considered, and the abstract values that shape our philosophies, culture, beliefs and quality of life are either ignored or buried in incomprehensible bureauspeak. Erthics, culture and morality can not be rationally defined. They depend on abstract values and judgement. People in the real world communicate at an emotional level, which is as precise as the gobbledygook we are fed by specialiats, academics, social workers and all the others who watch us being cold and wet in the rain through double glazed windows from the comfort of their ivory towers. Get real, and try and move into the real world and try and communicate with real people, the way they do where words have a deeper meaning than their dictionary definitions. rgds John ----- Original Message ----- From: Patsy Wakefield <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 9:59 AM Subject: Re: Producing simultaneous interpretation in simpler language > Hi Janet > > A couple of ideas I had are:- > > 1. Acceptance of a conference paper could be made conditional on a > "readability" score, most word processors have the ability to give a > readability score. > 2. Including people with development disabilities on the committee that > approves the papers > 3. The Call for papers could include a blurb on simple language and the need > for this to be used in presentations as well as in written papers. > > I think it would do a lot of academics good to have to come down from > academic writing, to write in plainer, simpler English. > > It is possible to do language translations simultaneously, so the technology > is there. A voiced translation, would probably be better than a projected > translation. > > I have to admit, that a conference we held a few years ago, never though of > thought of simpler language needs. We all tend to concentrate on sign > interpreters, other media types etc. > > Thanks for publicising this issue. > > Patsy > > Patsy Wakefield > Masters Student > Information Science Dept > School of Business > University of Otago > Dunedin > NEW ZEALAND > > ________________End of message______________________ > > Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List > are now located at: > > www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html > > You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page. > ________________End of message______________________ Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List are now located at: www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page. ________________End of message______________________ Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List are now located at: www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.