The commentator Nick Cohen argues in an article this week that many academics – specifically in social sciences and humanities – are unable to write clearly enough for their ideas to be understood. In ‘Academia plays into the hands of the right’, he contends that academics are ignored by the ‘ordinary world’ because of the ‘obscure theoretical’ terms they use. The piece concludes: “People write well when they have something say. The willingness of too many academics to write badly has told their fellow citizens that they are not worth listening to or fighting for.”
What are your thoughts on this? Is Nick Cohen justified in attacking academics for using theoretical language? How should social scientists respond? Go to the Forum to add your thoughts to the debate.
5 Comments
yes. the theoretical’ terms are a little obscure in the area of the study of the social science ,this is something we must admit ,but in the same time we should notice that the words used in the reports are “unique”—it is some sambols which is short but can tell us a lot of inforation ,that is to say ,if we do not use this one word,then we should waste a lot of other words to describe it.To say it more clearly ,let us just take an example,If we see an “apple” ,so we say it is an “apple”,because we also meet it in our daily life,but If we give the apple to someone who have never seen apple,they will not know how to call them.so we should tell them that “it is a kinds of friutes,it is red ,it taste sweet,and something like this, so it is proper to call it “apple”,though some people can not understand it easily,so maybe it is hard to understand the words used in the works of social science,but the authors are not the person to blame.To solve this kinds of problem,the society can encourage a new trade,whose responsibility is to make the research reports easy to read,that is ,to translate the words used in the research to the ones which can be easily understood by the masses,to make the aricles become essays in the magazine.
Jargon should be considered a necessary evil. For a field to define its terms in a productive manner, it needs words its can claim ownership of in able to manipulate them accordingly. Social science is no different from natural science in this. Such language does though erect barriers between us and the public. Its for this reason that ‘popular science’ writing exists.
There are other dangers besides, like jargon’s tendency to prompt navel gazing of dubious social value. As a result, we should always challenge our usage of such terms.
Science produces knowledge. And knowledge if it is to benefit humanity should be translated in a form in which it can be understood by those who can use it. Those who can use it usually are those who are in a position to provide financial and logistical support to those who produce knowledge. No one can force a scientist to write articles that are understandable by a bigger readership, however. Still a scientist should not complain that science is not being supported by non-scientists or society as a whole if only a few scientists can understand each other. Worse, if scientists make it a point to be difficult to understand. Then again, if scientists do not need any form of assistance then let them muddle through their own jargon.
I strongly feel the same that Nick Cohen felt about the Social Sciences. There is no doubt that Social Science researchers are too abstract in their formulation and also guided by unrealistic assumptions. The public will hardly take us seriously until when we begin to work within the context of real life situations, and then our theoretical formulations become practicable.
Catriona posted this question on February 2. It is now April 21 and I find no comments and nothing in the forum that responds to it. What does this mean? Should I jump to conclusions and assume that Nick Cohen was correct – precious few in the social sciences (or arts and humanities) are interested in writing for (or writing about writing for) general readers? Or should I be more conservative and assume that this topic is simply not hot enough to draw the fire of debate and discussion?
My opinion on the matter is that Cohen has created a bit of a straw man. The reason business and “hard” sciences, for example, are farther from the chopping block is not because these fields possess scholars who are more interested in selling their ideas to the public. Has anyone read an abstract in, say, Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering lately? Here’s an excerpt from a 2010 paper:
So, maybe we’re comparing apples with oranges. The real question is our perceptions of the relevance of different kinds of research and scholarly work. What problems are they trying to solve? Some types of business research attempt to solve a range of issues with very real economic impacts. Some types of science attempt to solve problems related to public and personal health. Likewise, some of the social sciences address real-world problems that are implicitly relevant. However, any and every field also contains scholarship that attempts to achieve less palpable objectives – developing theory, deconstructing paradigms, experimenting with radical ideas, etc. Do we need to run a public opinion poll on each of these to determine whether they should be funded? Must every academic pursuit be directly linked to pragmatic concerns and packaged for consumption like a Happy Meal?
Having said this, I also recognize a certain arrogance in disciplines that pride and preen themselves on high volumes of abstraction and arcane jargon. I don’t know if this arrogance stems from insecurity, isolation, or a superiority complex (or, if all three, what proportion of each goes into the cocktail). I do know one thing that those of us who teach college students learn on a day-to-day, class-to-class basis: if you can make it relevant to people’s lives, they tend to respond positively and even passionately.
What’s the bottom line? Partnerships. Those of us who can’t write our way out of a wet paper bag guarded by fuzzy kittens should consider collaborating with those who can – science writers, journalists, creative writers.
Those of us who labor within esoteric postmodern realms or tread remote theoretical landscapes should consider forming creative partnerships with colleagues, within and outside our fields, who enjoy pursuing more concrete lines of inquiry and strive to write engagingly about them.
Finally, those of us who enjoy writing accessible prose should feel a sense of obligation beyond that arising from our personal objectives and, for the sake of our disciplines and the problems they can help solve, take up the gauntlet!