FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1994674773> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1994674773 abstract "Can sociologists write? Michael Billig, Learn to Write Badly: How to Succeed, in the Social Sciences, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2013, 215pp.In my first years as editor of a small intellectual magazine I commissioned a lot of articles from academics. This tactic had several advantages: academics are accessible (they advertise their expertise and e-mail addresses online); willing (it's part of their job to get their ideas into the public sphere); and cheap (they often would not expect to be paid at all, unless they were Americans, who did). I was also enamoured of the idea that I might be able to make a modest contribution to the building of a bridge between the academy and the world of ideas beyond.It wasn't long before I abandoned this presumptuous notion. The theory was fine, and I continue to believe that good ideas should be shared as widely as possible, but in practice it was a failure. While, with a bit of jiggling, I could usually get useable, sometimes brilliant, contributions from journalists, non-professionals, students, bloggers, and activists, the submissions from academics which had seemed in embryo so promising proved time and again to be, well, rubbish. At first I thought this was because of a difference in terminology, and if I only worked diligently on translating the academese into everyday English - and believe me I tried - all would be well. In fact there was an inverse relation between effort and outcome: the more hours spent scrubbing the long words, jargon and qualifications from the text the more likely it was that the whole thing would fall to tatters in the end. It is only now, in hindsight, that I can bring myself to admit the terrible truth: academics can't write.Having read Michael Billig's wonderful new book, Learn to Write Badly: How to succeed, in, the Social Sciences, I think I now know why. It is not that academia necessarily attracts bad writers, or merely fails to teach academics how to write better. It's worse. It is precisely the way academics are trained and told what is expected of them if they wish to succeed, Billig argues, that teaches them rigorously and specifically the art of bad writing. As Billig puts it in his introduction, 'You have to study long and hard to write this badly' (pi 1).Billig, a Professor of Social Sciences at Loughborough for more than 25 years, marshals a compelling case. He analyses in detail texts from several social science disciplines, including, devastatingly, his home discipline of social psychology, but the case applies much more broadly to the social sciences as a whole and far beyond.The main charge is that academia teaches a series of styles and habits which move the researcher as far as possible from the dynamism, clarity and specificity that good writing requires. Among these are the overuse of nouns, especially those ending with '-isation or -ification' - the bigger the better; overreliance on the passive voice, which avoids the tricky task of saying who did what; a tendency both to conceal and exaggerate research findings and, despite claims that a technical vocabulary avoids the indeterminacy of everyday speech and the ideological pitfalls of 'common sense', an almost complete lack of specificity.His numerous examples are not used to name and shame individuals but to indict the system as a whole. In this looking-glass world, the very brightest, the most garlanded, are the ones who assimilate the bad writing rules most completely; and precious few, and certainly not Billig himself, as he admits, are able to resist the professional pressures that lead to hasty jargon-heavy publication. The failings are not individual but institutional.Those whose taste runs to irony will especially enjoy the passages on the linguists, 'unable to learn their own lessons', who critically analyse the practice of turning verbs into nouns yet deliver their findings in papers peppered with verbs-turned-nouns like 'de-agentialisation', 'nominalisation' and 'passivization'. …" @default.
• W1994674773 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1994674773 creator A5089830268 @default.
• W1994674773 date "2014-12-20" @default.
• W1994674773 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W1994674773 title "Can Sociologists Write?" @default.
• W1994674773 doi "https://doi.org/10.3898/newf.83.rev04.2014" @default.
• W1994674773 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W1994674773 type Work @default.
• W1994674773 sameAs 1994674773 @default.
• W1994674773 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1994674773 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1994674773 hasAuthorship W1994674773A5089830268 @default.
• W1994674773 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W1994674773 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1994674773 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1994674773 hasConcept C25343380 @default.
• W1994674773 hasConcept C2777611551 @default.
• W1994674773 hasConcept C29595303 @default.
• W1994674773 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W1994674773 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1994674773 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W1994674773 hasConcept C547195049 @default.
• W1994674773 hasConcept C77088390 @default.
• W1994674773 hasConceptScore W1994674773C138885662 @default.
• W1994674773 hasConceptScore W1994674773C144024400 @default.
• W1994674773 hasConceptScore W1994674773C17744445 @default.
• W1994674773 hasConceptScore W1994674773C25343380 @default.
• W1994674773 hasConceptScore W1994674773C2777611551 @default.
• W1994674773 hasConceptScore W1994674773C29595303 @default.
• W1994674773 hasConceptScore W1994674773C39549134 @default.
• W1994674773 hasConceptScore W1994674773C41008148 @default.
• W1994674773 hasConceptScore W1994674773C41895202 @default.
• W1994674773 hasConceptScore W1994674773C547195049 @default.
• W1994674773 hasConceptScore W1994674773C77088390 @default.
• W1994674773 hasLocation W19946747731 @default.
• W1994674773 hasOpenAccess W1994674773 @default.
• W1994674773 hasPrimaryLocation W19946747731 @default.
• W1994674773 hasRelatedWork W154699518 @default.
• W1994674773 hasRelatedWork W155056063 @default.
• W1994674773 hasRelatedWork W1722344787 @default.
• W1994674773 hasRelatedWork W1975380736 @default.
• W1994674773 hasRelatedWork W2020540199 @default.
• W1994674773 hasRelatedWork W2034772876 @default.
• W1994674773 hasRelatedWork W2044054895 @default.
• W1994674773 hasRelatedWork W2129434128 @default.
• W1994674773 hasRelatedWork W2163349175 @default.
• W1994674773 hasRelatedWork W2193290402 @default.
• W1994674773 hasRelatedWork W2326301798 @default.
• W1994674773 hasRelatedWork W2335478607 @default.
• W1994674773 hasRelatedWork W2551954601 @default.
• W1994674773 hasRelatedWork W2602269291 @default.
• W1994674773 hasRelatedWork W2604837805 @default.
• W1994674773 hasRelatedWork W262992379 @default.
• W1994674773 hasRelatedWork W34383116 @default.
• W1994674773 hasRelatedWork W589325029 @default.
• W1994674773 hasRelatedWork W820755220 @default.
• W1994674773 hasRelatedWork W2581980958 @default.
• W1994674773 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1994674773 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1994674773 magId "1994674773" @default.
• W1994674773 workType "article" @default.