Print

Print


Hi all,

Been on leave the last couple of weeks engaged in some heavy DIY, but have followed the threads on pithy writing and swearing with interest- and thought how they both highlight the hidden curriculum aspects of language in HE (and elsewhere). Whilst I know that all linguistic communities self-regulate and establish their own norms, it’s still curious to me how HE in particular and society in general continues to privilege particular ways of talking/writing/being as in some way self-evident or ‘appropriate’. HE has yet to properly examine how this effectively privileges particular individuals in ways that are -to my mind at least - basically discriminatory. 
Reading many of the posts, wallpaper scraper in hand, whilst at the same time catching up with the British grime scene on radio 1xtra, I could not help but compare very different yet equally articulate ways of languaging - and could not help but wonder at how we continue to judge how individuals say stuff over what they are saying. Nearly all the intelligence, articulacy and - yes, knowledge - I heard in the lyrics I listened to would just be ruled out of bounds in the academy. John Lea’s phrase about how we have ‘lost the plot’ over how academic work is expressed and disseminated seems to me to be more widely applicable to the very restricted forms of language ‘permitted’ or valued in academic /HE contexts. I do think the time has come for some very rigorous and challenging self-reflection about how power and discourse work to  - through the proxy of language - crudely discriminate against large swathes of the population in ways that are not dissimilar to the kinds of racial or gender-based discrimination that are now so officially beyond the pale (to use a phrase that itself has racist echoes).
Benjamin Zephaniah said in a recent interview "I started writing poetry because I don’t like poetry. Of course I liked using words, but I wanted to change the image of poetry. I wanted to bring it to life and talk about now and what was happening to us.” (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/aug/25/benjamin-zephaniah-revolutionary-minds)  -  doesn’t that also illustrate just how basically uninclusive and unchallenged academic discourse has allowed itself to become? 

Best

John

John Sutter
Learning Enhancement and Support Manager
University for the Creative Arts
New Dover Road
Canterbury
Kent CT1 3AN
Mobile: 07813836559
Office:  01227817365
For over 150 years the University for the Creative Arts in Canterbury, Epsom, Farnham, Maidstone and Rochester has been leading the way for art and design education.  Building on its reputation for providing the creative industries with the brightest talent, UCA is the top specialist arts university in the Complete University Guide league table, having risen 43 places in three years to rank 52nd out of 126 UK universities.

On 30 Aug 2017, at 17:56, Lea, John ([log in to unmask]) <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I do sometimes think we have – collectively - lost the plot by constructing sentences in academic articles in such a way that they culminate in a series of references to other people’s work and often our own previous work (Lea 2009; Lea 2015; Lea 2017).  Authors with more confidence seem to be able to take it for granted that the reader will be well read themselves, and are guided more by composing a compelling narrative.  Witness a famous example where Max Weber referred to Karl Marx just as a talented author with no thought that he needed to actually mention his name.

 

This strange fear of plagiarism - which seems to be at the heart of it - has now been passed on to students.  Witness the colleague who showed me an example from a student writing about the Second World War, who have dated the War then decided that he should reference this to an authoritative author in brackets straight afterwards!

 

More generally, perhaps we should be more open in celebrating that there are lots of different ways in which we can go public with our academic work, and that the journal article is just one (albeit very important) way to do this.  But first we would have to attack the pecking order which says that academic article is always best, followed by book, followed by text book, followed by monograph, followed by blog, etc.  I want to say that this pecking order seems to be a rather modern invention.  Is it?

 

I also doubt very much that professors from the past got that status because they had written a string of `clever’ journal articles. Following on from Theo’s point, is it time to go further and resurrect the notion of the `public intellectual’ (reference withheld)?


Best

John

John Lea


From: Online forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development Association <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of HEALEY, Mick (Prof) <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 30 August 2017 17:07
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Getting pithy with academic writing
 

And when did you last get a review of a submission to an academic journal which did not ask you to add ‘important’ missing things and says nothing about what to drop to stay within the word limit?

 

Best wishes

 

Mick

 

From: Online forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development Association [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Phil Race
Sent: 30 August 2017 17:01
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Getting pithy with academic writing

 

Indeed Ruth. And equating word counts to credit points is just silly. It's message that matters, and ideas. 

Phil

Sent from my mobile 

Prof Phil Race

 


On 30 Aug 2017, at 16:34, Gilbert, Theo <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hello colleagues!

 

What an interesting thread!

 

:  ) 

 

 I've noticed that some fairly high ranking journals are now explicitly stating in their instructions to authors that they require plain, straightforward language use e.g. 'for an international readership'.   Worth having a look. 

 

Similarly, here is a statement issued by the august Spencer Foundation (http://www.spencer.org/)  on what it  found particularly helpful in its selection of award winning doctoral dissertations.  The statement looks very much like the way things are going -  i.e. towards a greater valuing of  simple (not  simplistic) language to pin down complex information and/or concepts and thinking processes. 

 

The Spencer Foundation on allocating awards for best dissertation.

“Clarity of Expression

Perhaps more than any other quality, the dissertations the committee identified as exemplary stand out for the clarity with which  they were written. Each lays out its argument in plain terms, using technical language as appropriate but without excessive use of jargon that clouds its meaning. While the ideas are often complex, the language is pointed and concise. From Stephanie Jones' lyrical writing about the lives of poor girls, to Katherine Charron's rich historical analysis, to Andrew Ho's crisp, plain-spoken explanation of complex measurement issues, each of the award winners communicates effectively with a broad audience of education experts from diverse fields. “

 
 
 

This way of thinking is  used in workshops for doctoral writers and for first year undergraduates at my uni and I imagine a number of others?   There are different takes on what being articulate means now.    Do you see this change too?  Do you welcome it?

Very best wishes,

 

 Theo Gilbert

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

ps  These any use on how this attention to simplicity can be tackled even for extended writing??  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbhobpYyDvg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0KaN0uNheY

 

Dr Theo Gilbert, SFHEA

Lecturer, CAE; Academic Skills Tutor

School of Humanities

University of Hertfordshire

de Havilland Campus Room R323

College Lane Campus Room 1B152

AL10 9AB

[log in to unmask]


From: Online forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development Association <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Ruth Brown <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 30 August 2017 15:27
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Getting pithy with academic writing

 

Hi there everyone,

 

I wonder whether the desire to write in an easily digestible way isn't hampered at the starting gate by the expectation of editors and reviewers that academic writing is long-winded and "clever"?

 

We promote that take with excessive word counts ... short pieces of writing can't possibly say sufficient to make a point. Can they?

 

We try to embed the link between word count and worthiness with our students, too, requiring so-many-words, rather than evidence that outcomes are met.

 

Just saying ...

 

Ruth

 

On 30 Aug 2017 9:00 am, "Leo Havemann" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

...