DJ Huppatz wrote:
> Dear Gavin, Chris, Terry, Victor et al
>
> I get this sense of anxiety here over what consitutes research,
> Peer-reviewed or otherwise, particularly in the UK and Australia,
> as so much research funding is allotted to universities from national
governments.
> Presumably government bureaucracies require an objective set of rules
That's all true but I don't think it has done too much harm as concepts
of research and scholarship have been very pursued intensively in these
countries and others with similar systems and I feel it has strengthened
our academic life and encouraged innovation. We still have work to do to
strike a balance between the traditional virtues of our professional
disciplines and the new (to us) imperatives of the academy but I feel
that we are making great progress.
>
> A point of Victor's I also thought worth pursuing (it got lost
> a post back) was about writing "styles"
I feel this is important. Our recent discussion about the use of first
person revealed that whereas many serious scholars could see benefits in
thoughtful use of first person, editors and referees often hew to the
lowest common denominator and enforce the simplistic use of third person
at all times.
However it is also true that the very best scholars in all disciplines
have usually mastered the art of writing for both popular and academic
audiences and I'm not too worried that we end up sometimes with two
different forms of publication. We write for an academic audience to
establish the validity of our theories and that allows us the authority
to write for other audiences in a more relaxed style that might leave
out some of the evidence, arguments and caveats we need for our peers.
Best wishes from Sheffield
Chris
|