Academic writing

Posted on | November 30, 2004 | 8 Comments

The CSAA conference is just 9 days away, and like just about everyone I seem to know in the bizznez, I’m working on my paper. Amanda Roe has kindly passed on two gems: Judith Brett’s 1991 paper from Meanjin, ‘The Bureaucratization of Writing: Why so few academics are public intellectuals’ and Tim Dunlop’s ‘If you build it they will come: Blogging and the new citizenship’. Dunlop reads blogs as a new development in the history of academic writing outlined by Brett, who begins by asking:

Öwhy are so few academics in the humanities and social sciences good writers? Or, conversely, why are so many of them such bad or indifferent writers?

Part of her explanation is that

the preconditions for good discursive prose are relatively simple: a fully imagined audience, a sense of urgency, something interesting and important to say. The biggest problem with most academic writing is achieving the first two. Many academics start out with important and interesting things to say, but very few feel compelled to say them in ways that engage an audience outside their discipline; and in the end this corrodes the importance of what they have to say.

And Dunlop himself quotes Brett’s daunting conclusion:

University academics do not write to persuade but to impress and gain approval within a hierarchy. They are trained to write for approval. From their student essays to their PhD theses, they are writing work to be submitted for examination. And, even when they have received their PhDs, they must submit work to refereed journals in order to accumulate the publications necessary for appointment and then accumulate the publications necessary for promotion and so on. At every point their writing is subject to external criteria – approved topics, accepted methods of research and styles of writing, the norms and conventions of the discipline.

This seems to mirror a point raised by bell hooks that I’ve been thinking about all week:

All academics write but not all see themselves as writers. Writing to fulfil professional career expectations is not the same as writing that emerges as the fulfilment of a yearning to work with words when there is no clear benefit or reward, when it is the experience of writing that matters.

Brett warns that ‘Feminism, Australian studies and cultural studies are more recent examples of intellectual challenges from outside the academy that are in danger of becoming the basis of new careers and so losing their engagement with broad social and political goals’. In the ‘Feeling Ordinary’ paper I want to talk about some early impressions gleaned from such a career, and how the current generation of academics and writers are approaching old dilemmas about politics, writing and audience. Blogs and email lists seem important developments that challenge earlier notions of peer-review, authorship and argument. As Dunlop argues, the responsive and participatory nature of opinion and persuasion on blogs facilitates a dialogue between writer and reader that’s perhaps a bit foreign in the landscape Brett paints.

So now I have three perspectives to help me situate my own – by Thursday week at the latest.

Category: Research

Comments

8 Responses to “Academic writing”

  1. jean
    November 30th, 2004 @ 2:51 pm

    Well you’re ahead of me…although I can embroider the above by adding that “writing for approval” not only affects the impact and audience for our writing, but shapes our topics: theoretical fashion and the subconsciously imagined rapier-like criticisms of the higher-ups keep us away from the uncool topics as well as clear, rousing prose.

  2. mc gregg
    November 30th, 2004 @ 7:16 pm

    Subconsciously imagined rapier-like criticisms of the higher-ups are exactly why I’m reading Australian articles from 1991! I think at an association conference I’m particularly wary of manufacturing debates that have already happened time and time before – especially in that void of recent histories of debate that can be hard to know about as a young researcher. I’m a bit paranoid of looking naive, poorly read and silly. A common fear I wonder? Hopefully a healthy one anyway.

  3. elsewhere
    December 1st, 2004 @ 1:36 pm

    You might also be interested in this, if you haven’t seen it already: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2707&print=1&PHPSESSID=4

    I seemed to remember a moment in the early to mid-90s humanities academy of ‘anecdotage’, when academics yearned to be journalists — a precedent made possible now in blogging?

    The paranoia you mention is an utterly intentional effect — this is what the Australian humanities academy thrives on, the hierarchicalism and jockeying for position you mention above.

    I’m an academic dropout and quite happy to be public fool myself these days as a blogger. (Btw, that was a fairly academic sounding post.)

  4. Tama
    December 1st, 2004 @ 5:22 pm

    Ah, the pre-conference paper writing; ’tis always hyper-caffinated fun. Some of the sources you’re looking at are close to issues I’m talking about at the CSAA as well in my paper “The Blogging of Everyday Life”, so I look forward to hearing your talking and putting a face to the blog! :)

  5. danny
    December 2nd, 2004 @ 9:32 am

    Melissa, I don’t think you’ve ever appeared poorly read or naive in any presentations I’ve seen of yours! But you’re right that there’s something in the fear :)

    Re: your main point, I wonder if it’s worth thinking about the role of social and cultural capital here. It strikes me that these structure the ability of academics to write much more than the institutional pressures we find ourselves in. When I assess 1st year undergrad students, I can tell immediately the ones who “have something to say” and are or could become great writers. The pedagogical process just sort of opens it up a bit more. But by and large feeling capable of “having something to say” strikes me as being established prior to the academic context, and I’m wary of holding it as an unalloyed good.

    Perhaps encouraging children to write for audiences and pleasure is important? Meaghan Morris remarked last time in NZ that she apreciated being in a Maori context as it was a culture where people were encouraged to get up to to speak, which I think is a related issue?

  6. mc gregg
    December 2nd, 2004 @ 5:28 pm

    Oooh, I’m feeling some serious solidarity here in the garret. Thanks for the tips and the links – I especially liked the Ana Marie Cox quote: ìA revolution requires that people leave their house.î

    Here in ‘straya it seems like most people are scared of interest rate hikes and quite happy not to leave the house… which makes things a bit hard for the radicals.

    Also don’t worry Tama – I’m sure to be staying well off your turf! I won’t be talking about blogs in any more detail than their role in highlighting existing conventions of scholarly performance. Looking fwd to meeting you too :)

  7. elsewhere
    December 2nd, 2004 @ 7:55 pm

    Hey, speaking of public intellectuals, this is an interesting blog, especially if you like Zizek: http://k-punk.abstractdynamics.org/

    He has a big following, if bloglines subscription is anything to go by.

  8. Glen
    December 3rd, 2004 @ 12:09 pm

    I jizzed some deleuzisms on k-punk’s post about Sex and the City… Zizek is not a karismatic kult leader, so I have a strong dislike for Zizekian-inspired reactionary krock’s of kontempt.