There are several news services which focus on higher education and the research world which lives in it. The two leading dailies are "The Chronicle of Higher Education" and "Inside Higher-Ed". Both provide news about higher-ed policy and funding, job listings, reviews of the state of the professoriate, salary studies, research reports, and book reviews - the kind of stuff academics interested in how their institutions run might want to read.
The Chronicle this morning has a nice article by Helen Sword on academic jargon, something we occasionally shared with one another this weekend...
Jargon (from the OED):
1. The inarticulate utterance of birds, or a vocal sound resembling it; twittering, chattering.
...
3. Unintelligible or meaningless talk or writing; nonsense, gibberish. (Often a term of contempt for something the speaker does not understand.)
Sword's article, extracted from a new writing guide called 'Stylish Academic Writing', contains some very useful advice about how to test and restrain your use of jargon. You might find it a help in controlling the temptation to join your disciplinary club by aggressively excluding others with your language. She mentions George Orwell's 1946 essay "Politics and the English Language" - famous and often discussed, you might want to be familiar with it.
Re-reading parts of Orwell's essay reminded me of the daily struggles I often encounter reading journal articles. Perhaps most difficult for me to deal with is the idea of "pretentious language" mentioned in the essay. As a scientist we often live in our own little bubble, where certain phrases are dropped purely to make one's research seem more interesting and intelligent. The sad irony is that the overuse of specific jargon makes it so the research in fact seems normal and perhaps even boring to those in the field, and impossible to read for those who are not.
ReplyDeleteI will freely admit that this weekend there were projects in the social sciences and humanities where I had absolutely zero background knowledge. And in general, these students were able to explain their projects in a way I could at least grasp the general idea quickly - and be fascinated. As I had some sort of baseline knowledge for the natural science projects I can't comment on them directly. However, I do feel like the natural sciences are a bit behind in this phenomenon of using simple language to describe to the public what is really going on. This is partially an issue of audience, but more than that I feel as though the natural sciences have a certain air of pretentiousness. Society does not help this, with television shows like the "Big Bang Theory" creating a public image that natural science is somehow greater than other areas of study. I watch too much TV, so I'll mention that the character of Ross on Friends (a PhD in paleontology) is often prodded by his friends for playing with old bones, and in one episode called not a real or useful doctor.
It seems to me by using jargon, I'm not reaching the number of people I could be. But in order for research it seems to be accepted in almost any field, certain jargon has to be used. No matter how hard I may want to explain something in simpler terms, I risk being called out for not using the jargon. Has anyone else had this problem? What do you do regarding jargon?
The idea of 'genre' is a useful way to think of when and where to use jargon. In the right audience, it can do what it is intended to do, allowing you to speak economically and precisely to an audience well prepared to interpret what you say. With the wrong audience, it's purely obfuscatory (there's a bit of jargon for you). In person, you at least might know who your audience is precisely, and be able to gauge this carefully. In written work, you can never be completely sure, and should, I think, err on the side of either avoiding elaborate jargon or explaining crucial terms which you choose to use.
ReplyDelete