Dear Ken
The rhetorical pauses of passive constructions can be most useful when
used with the ultimate purpose of clarity.
The US resistance to such structures might be compared to the
resistance of certain Greek philosophers to the writing of philosophy in
verse. However, what we have in Plato is the successful redetermination
of poetic language within the drama of a dialogue. The many passive
pauses of the dialogue seem easier to follow, for some readers, because
the pause is made dramatic. In the case of verse/poetry, the pauses are
like the gapes of chaos. Heraclitus is "obscure" for some, while he
speak volumes for others.
As a scholar of the ancients, I certainly would NOT want Heraclitus
turned into active US prose. Or else we would get such constructions
as:
I can't put my foot into this here river more than once at a time -
damn it!
Don't give up on the Brits - there is merit in the passive.
cheers
keith russell
OZ Newcastle
>>> Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]> 30/03/2008 10:47 pm >>>
Friends,
Commenting on Klaus's note and mine, Keith
offered comments on cultural differences and
epistemology.
Cultural differences do not justify bad prose.
Long strings of passive sentences are difficult
to read and they make it difficult to understand
the meaning of a passage. For me, this is not a
matter of British reserve. It's a matter of
clarity.
As a scholar in classical Greek philosophy, Keith
will know that barbarous language fails to
represent the speech of a people. In English,
this is a barbarous sentence:
"The thesis being proposed can be read to imply . . ."
If necessary, one can write this sentence in the
active voice without intruding as an author:
"This thesis seems to imply that . . ."
This is not the kind of barbarous sentence that
Keith offered as a counter-example (Ketih wrote:
[We cannot say "seeming is" in everyday English -
as in, "Seeming is warm today." We have to say
"It seems to me it is warm today".])
The sentence "This thesis seems to imply that . .
." has a subject, a verb, and an object that will
follow the word "that."
Klaus is a native German speaker who uses English
as a second language. I am an American-born
native English speaker who uses international
English, and I write, edit, and review for
several British publishers. My British colleagues
who only know me as a Norwegian occasionally
praise my writing or editing with the reflection
that they'd prefer native British authors to
write equally clear English. I don't think this
is a matter of British reserve -- scholars
everywhere write muddy prose. Academic life
encourages it.
In the early 1980s, Scott Armstrong asked what
make it easy or difficult to publish an article.
He found that reviewers and presumably editors
felt that an inverse relationship between clear
writing and research competence indicated better
scholarship. Armstrong (1980: 80) found a
"positive correlation ¦ between the prestige of
10 management journals and their 'fog indices'
(reading difficulty). Furthermore, 32 faculty
members were asked to rate the prestige of four
passages from management journals. The content of
the passages was held constant while readability
was varied. Those passages that were more
difficult to read were rated higher in research
competence."
Based on this study, Armstrong developed (1982:
197) an author's formula. This was "a set of
rules that authors can use to increase the
likelihood and speed of acceptance of their
manuscripts. Authors should: (1) not pick an
important problem, (2) not challenge existing
beliefs, (3) not obtain surprising results, (4)
not use simple methods, (5) not provide full
disclosure, and (6) not write clearly."
Some of the best known and most widely cited
scholars are among the most readable. There is a
clear correlation between highly readable writing
and broad impact in the social sciences. Elegant,
clear writing and strong conceptual thinking
typify the work of such scholars as Ruth Benedict
and Clifford Geertz in anthropology, Peter Berger
and Mark Granovetter in sociology, well-known
Peter Drucker, Linda Gratton and John Kay
management studies, Karl Weick in organization
theory or Robert Sternberg in psychology. This is
also the case for many Nobel Laureates in
economics - strong skills in communication
harness their technical skills to wider purpose.
Ronald Coase, Daniel Kahneman, Amartya Sen,
Herbert Simon, and many more write convincing,
lucid prose.
There is a paradox involved in writing well.
Clear writing makes it slightly more difficult
for an author to publish her or his work. Once
published, however, good writing makes it easier
for readers to understand, remember, and use the
articles they read. Many published articles are
never cited, and most are cited infrequently. The
goal of every journal editor is to publish
articles with high conceptual, theoretical, and
empirical value. Scholars in any field are most
likely to cite articles that contribute to their
work by setting the basis for what they do and by
helping them to think through their own research.
Clarity enables others to make use of the
articles they read.
Against this, we have the cultural prejudices of
academic convention. People assume that
impressive-sounding stuff -- I use the word
pointedly, as in upholstery stuffing -- is more
scholarly that clear, simple prose. Armstrong
(1980: 80) gives evidence of this from an
experiment that Naftulin, Ware, and Donnelly
conducted in 1973, the "Dr. Fox lectures": "Dr.
Fox was an actor who looked distinguished and
sounded authoritative. He was provided with a
fictitious but impressive biography and was sent
to lecture about a subject on which he knew
nothing. The talk, "Mathematical Game Theory as
Applied to Physician Education," was delivered on
three occasions to a total of 55 people. One hour
was allowed for the talk and 30 minutes for
discussion. The audiences consisted of highly
educated social workers, psychologists,
psychiatrists, educators, and administrators. The
lecture was comprised of double talk, meaningless
words, false logic, contradictory statements,
irrelevant humor, and meaningless references to
unrelated topics. Judging from a questionnaire
administered after the talk, the audience found
Dr. Fox's lecture to be clear and stimulating.
None of the subjects realized that the lecture
was pure nonsense."
Clear prose makes it harder to get published or
to become visible, but it increases impact once
you do break through.
There is more, though. Clear prose keeps us
honest. We've got to explain ourselves well
enough for readers to understand and evaluate the
ideas for themselves.
The chairperson of the editorial board of one
international research society recently commented
on the importance of good writing to the
society's journal strategy:
"Writing quality is important to us. Each article
must be highly readable and worth reading as a
pleasurable way to learn. Because we only publish
a few articles, they must achieve impact and
travel far. Many journals publish good articles,
accepting solid research without attention to
quality of writing. We require good writing in
addition to good research. By shaping a journal
that people want to read, we shape a journal with
impact."
So I'm going to vote with Klaus on this. I will
also point to Stanislav's comment. His example of
third person usage is a case in which third
person is reasonable. When we write about someone
or something else, we must use the third person.
To write about what we say or believe requires
the first person. To write about the final shape
or form or content of a report, we may speak of
"this report." If it's clear from author credits
and content that we are the authors, we may speak
of the report as a product -- much as we might
speak of an automobile or a mobile phone we have
designed in terms of its properties rather than
in terms of our intentions as designers.
I'm also voting with Klaus on the crucial issue
of responsibility. In scholarship, as in
politics, writers and speakers occasionally use
the third person to avoid responsibility. (The
grand example, of course, is Richard Nixon
speaking of himself in the Watergate era: "The
President is not a crook.") Even when we do not
seek to avoid responsibility, though, appropriate
first person writing keeps things clear.
The issue of passive voice is slightly different
to this, but it is related. The active voice also
traces the flow of action, and it clarifies
agency. This answers two crucial questions that
are vital if we are to understand the actions
that constitute research methods and the
metanarrative that enables us to understand the
choices and thinking of the researcher. Those
questions are: "who did it?", "what did they
do?", "where did they do it?", and "when did they
do it?"
While it is sometimes possible to understand
these questions by reading third-person, passive
prose, this is not always the case. Third person,
passive prose can often confuse an author as much
as it confuses readers. First person prose in the
active voice or -- when appropriate -- third
person prose in the active voice tends to be
clearer.
It may be, of course, that Keith disagrees with
me on this. If so, let's meet in the agora for a
chat. Or perhaps Keith and I can join some of
those reserved Britons at a pub in Sheffield.
I'll buy the ale.
Ken
--
References
Armstrong, J. Scott. 1980. "Unintelligible
Management Research and Academic Prestige."
Interfaces, Vol. 10, No. 2, April 1980, pp. 80-86.
Armstrong, J. Scott. 1982. "Barriers to
Scientific Contributions: The Author's Formula."
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5 (June 1982), pp.
197-199.
Naftulin, Donald H., J.E. Ware, Jr., and F.A.
Donnelly. 1973. "The Doctor Fox Lecture: A
Paradigm of Educational Seduction," Journal of
Medical Education 48, pp. 630-635.
--
Keith Russell wrote:
I might say to a student, for example, "The
thesis being proposed can be read to imply . . ."
Or, I could say to a student, for example, "On my
reading of your thesis you seem to be claiming .
. ."
--
[responding to me, and to Klaus Krippendorff, who wrote:]
"the first person pronoun I denotes the speaker,
the author, and the WE when there are more than
one. using I enables the reader to know who is
accountable for what was done or is said.
ignoring first person pronouns when an action is
reported, a choice is behind what is stated or a
claim is made leaves open who is accountable for
it and this is a linguistic game to avoid
accountability and claim unquestionable truths. i
do not think there are unquestionable truths and
i am opposing this stance.
"making it difficult to be accountability is a
practice in science writing relative to which i
believe chris rust started this thread. to claim
objectivity means hiding one's contribution to an
argument or report. it suggest that reality
spoke through its data, not I/WE. when reality
speaks what it says becomes undeniable,
unquestionable, and the reader is expected to
accept what is said as factual accounts. i think
we should rule out the devious practice of using
that linguistic trick (of disclaiming
accountability by not using personal pronouns) to
invoke objectivity when one is responsible for
what is written.
--
Stanislav Roudavski wrote:
"While I unreservedly acknowledge the advantages
of direct speech as discussed by others, I would
like to highlight one usage of the third person,
which seems not only stylistically permissible
but also more rigorous. "This paper states" might
indicate the awareness of the author that he/she
presents a point from a particular angle, in
particular circumstances. Attributing the voice
to his/her paper, the author might wish to
indicate the contingency and temporality of
his/her opinion. Indeed, today's I is very likely
to disagree with tomorrow's I at least on some
issues. Hopefully."
--
Ken Friedman
Professor
Dean, Swinburne Design
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia
+61 3 92.14.68.69 Tlf Swinburne
+61 404 830 462 Mobile
email: [log in to unmask]
email: [log in to unmask]
|
