English Lessons for Academics
Still think academia isn't elist?
A Step-By-Step Analysis of Academese, for the Layperson
Despite the automatic assumption to the contrary, academics cannot write worth shit. It’s true. When it comes to writing, brevity (or at least lucidity) is the soul of wit. These creatures don’t understand the concept of comprehension. Apparently, academics are a rare breed that, unlike the rest of the human race, is exempt from the social requirement of being able to communicate with their fellow human being.
I say this, having the utmost respect for my professors, some of whom write the most obscure journal articles known to man.
(Fact: More than 90% of university professors consider their work to be above average. Statistically speaking, this is impossible.)
Example
Here is my favourite example. You can’t help but feel sorry for them, really. Poor things didn’t pay attention in grammar school.
“Instead, we argue that the pragmatic utility of an idea is more important than the epistemic authority of its proponent.” (Carr and Wilkinson, 2005)
Linguistic critique: First of all, this sentence is painfully passive. So let’s change the beginning to:
“…an idea’s pragmatic utility...”
Doesn’t make any sense still, right? That’s cause we’re not done. The words “pragmatic” and “utility” have common-use synonyms that even laypeople will understand. This is how you translate academese:
Pragmatic=practical
Utility=use/usefulness
Now for the second part, “…the epistemic authority of its proponent.” We could make that part less passive, too, by saying, “its proponent’s epistemic authority,” but we don’t wish to use the word “proponent” at all, since it’s primarily endemic-er, exclusive-to the world of academia. The synonyms for “proponent” (supporter, advocate) in this instance don’t necessarily specify what the authors mean. So instead, let’s change it to “the person who promotes that idea.” Concise? No. Comprehensible? Yes.
As for “epistemic authority,” how about, oh I dunno…“qualifications?” Concise? Yes. Comprehensible? Yes.
So, in conclusion, the sentence is this: “Instead, we argue that an idea’s practical use is more important than the qualifications of the person who promotes that idea.”
Wow, suddenly you can understand it!
And now, for your reading pleasure:
This paper has argued that the legitimacy of agri-environmental programmes needs to be re-conceptualised as an effect of specific assemblages of governing. Rather than a response by governments to epochal crises, legitimacy problems are a constitutive feature of the ‘failure’ of governing to achieve its desired effects. Such failure is by no means negative, in the sense of regulation being void of order or durability, but is productive in problematising the legitimate boundaries and limits of public and private intervention, and in creating new spaces and objects of governing. From this perspective, the rise to political prominence of seemingly contradictory agri-environmental initiatives-standards schemes and direct forms of government regulation-represents part of broader efforts to make existing neoliberal practices of governing workable. Such initiatives are more than simply a means for authorities to provide legitimacy for their actions while doing little in reality to address environmental problems. -Lockie and Higgins, 2007
(In bold: either academic jargon, or other complex terms that can be simplified.)
Sources
Lockie, S. and Higgins, V. (2007). Roll-out Neoliberalism and Hybrid Practices of Regulation in Australian Agri-environmental Governance, Society and Natural Resources, 23, pp. 1-11
Carr, A. and Wilkinson, R. (2005). Beyond Participation: Boundary Organizations as a New Space for Farmers and Scientists to Interact. Journal of Rural Studies, 18, pp. 255-265
A Step-By-Step Analysis of Academese, for the Layperson
Despite the automatic assumption to the contrary, academics cannot write worth shit. It’s true. When it comes to writing, brevity (or at least lucidity) is the soul of wit. These creatures don’t understand the concept of comprehension. Apparently, academics are a rare breed that, unlike the rest of the human race, is exempt from the social requirement of being able to communicate with their fellow human being.
I say this, having the utmost respect for my professors, some of whom write the most obscure journal articles known to man.
(Fact: More than 90% of university professors consider their work to be above average. Statistically speaking, this is impossible.)
Example
Here is my favourite example. You can’t help but feel sorry for them, really. Poor things didn’t pay attention in grammar school.
“Instead, we argue that the pragmatic utility of an idea is more important than the epistemic authority of its proponent.” (Carr and Wilkinson, 2005)
Linguistic critique: First of all, this sentence is painfully passive. So let’s change the beginning to:
“…an idea’s pragmatic utility...”
Doesn’t make any sense still, right? That’s cause we’re not done. The words “pragmatic” and “utility” have common-use synonyms that even laypeople will understand. This is how you translate academese:
Pragmatic=practical
Utility=use/usefulness
Now for the second part, “…the epistemic authority of its proponent.” We could make that part less passive, too, by saying, “its proponent’s epistemic authority,” but we don’t wish to use the word “proponent” at all, since it’s primarily endemic-er, exclusive-to the world of academia. The synonyms for “proponent” (supporter, advocate) in this instance don’t necessarily specify what the authors mean. So instead, let’s change it to “the person who promotes that idea.” Concise? No. Comprehensible? Yes.
As for “epistemic authority,” how about, oh I dunno…“qualifications?” Concise? Yes. Comprehensible? Yes.
So, in conclusion, the sentence is this: “Instead, we argue that an idea’s practical use is more important than the qualifications of the person who promotes that idea.”
Wow, suddenly you can understand it!
And now, for your reading pleasure:
This paper has argued that the legitimacy of agri-environmental programmes needs to be re-conceptualised as an effect of specific assemblages of governing. Rather than a response by governments to epochal crises, legitimacy problems are a constitutive feature of the ‘failure’ of governing to achieve its desired effects. Such failure is by no means negative, in the sense of regulation being void of order or durability, but is productive in problematising the legitimate boundaries and limits of public and private intervention, and in creating new spaces and objects of governing. From this perspective, the rise to political prominence of seemingly contradictory agri-environmental initiatives-standards schemes and direct forms of government regulation-represents part of broader efforts to make existing neoliberal practices of governing workable. Such initiatives are more than simply a means for authorities to provide legitimacy for their actions while doing little in reality to address environmental problems. -Lockie and Higgins, 2007
(In bold: either academic jargon, or other complex terms that can be simplified.)
Sources
Lockie, S. and Higgins, V. (2007). Roll-out Neoliberalism and Hybrid Practices of Regulation in Australian Agri-environmental Governance, Society and Natural Resources, 23, pp. 1-11
Carr, A. and Wilkinson, R. (2005). Beyond Participation: Boundary Organizations as a New Space for Farmers and Scientists to Interact. Journal of Rural Studies, 18, pp. 255-265