Writing Styles of the Scientists
I am presently reading Institutional Design in Post-communist Societies: Rebuilding the Ship at Sea by John Elster, Claus Offe, and Ulrich K. Preuss. Having just finished Huntington's The Third Wave, all I can say is that I am not at all impressed with my current reading. And it's not because it's not saying a lot. It's because it's written in a way that makes me start to wonder why the authors chose to write it this way. Let me explain.
Huntington writes in a way that makes it very easy for a reader to understand what he's trying to say. Elster, et al, have written this book to prove how smart they are. They use huge words that could easily have been replaced with simpler words, they make theoretical statements that seem so abstract that it takes four or five readings of the same sentence to understand what it means, and then four or five readings of a paragragh to understand what kind of point they might try to be making. In essence, they write to make themselves sound really smart.
This has gotten me to wonder if this isn't a problem with scientific disciplines normally. Who are we writing for? People who are interested in the information, the mass public, or ourselves? Or are we sometimes just writing to have people think we're smart, and if they learn something along the way, then that's a bonus?
This has started to bother me because I see it a lot, and I wonder why it even exists. I have yet to read a dissertation-like work that makes zero sense to me where I have come away from it thinking: "wow, that's impressive." No, I usually come away from it thinking, "what's this guy's problem? Does he have no ability to communicate?"
That's where I am with 63 pages into this book. It's a classic of comparative politics, but at the same time, I wonder if a lot of political scientists automatically buy into this perpetuating crap writing because the names on the book are from prestigious universities, so they continue to do the same thing in their own writings, further and further alienating political science from the mass public that might benefit from it.
Stumble It!
I am presently reading Institutional Design in Post-communist Societies: Rebuilding the Ship at Sea by John Elster, Claus Offe, and Ulrich K. Preuss. Having just finished Huntington's The Third Wave, all I can say is that I am not at all impressed with my current reading. And it's not because it's not saying a lot. It's because it's written in a way that makes me start to wonder why the authors chose to write it this way. Let me explain.
Huntington writes in a way that makes it very easy for a reader to understand what he's trying to say. Elster, et al, have written this book to prove how smart they are. They use huge words that could easily have been replaced with simpler words, they make theoretical statements that seem so abstract that it takes four or five readings of the same sentence to understand what it means, and then four or five readings of a paragragh to understand what kind of point they might try to be making. In essence, they write to make themselves sound really smart.
This has gotten me to wonder if this isn't a problem with scientific disciplines normally. Who are we writing for? People who are interested in the information, the mass public, or ourselves? Or are we sometimes just writing to have people think we're smart, and if they learn something along the way, then that's a bonus?
This has started to bother me because I see it a lot, and I wonder why it even exists. I have yet to read a dissertation-like work that makes zero sense to me where I have come away from it thinking: "wow, that's impressive." No, I usually come away from it thinking, "what's this guy's problem? Does he have no ability to communicate?"
That's where I am with 63 pages into this book. It's a classic of comparative politics, but at the same time, I wonder if a lot of political scientists automatically buy into this perpetuating crap writing because the names on the book are from prestigious universities, so they continue to do the same thing in their own writings, further and further alienating political science from the mass public that might benefit from it.
Stumble It!
posted by Duane @ 6:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home