Academic writing

Academic writing or scholarly writing is nonfiction writing produced as part of academic work in accordance with the standards and disciplines of each academic subject, including:

UC Davis geotechnical engineering graduate students discuss research posters, a common genre of academic writing
Part of a series on
Research
A laptop computer next to archival materials
Research design
Research strategy
Methodology
Methods
Tools and software
  • Argument technology
  • Geographic information system software
  • Library and information science software
    • Bibliometrics
    • Reference management
  • Science software
    • Qualitative data analysis
    • Simulation
    • Statistics
Philosophy portal

as well as undergraduate versions of all of these.[1]

Academic writing typically uses a more formal tone and follows certain conventions, such as referencing other academic work and making use of established rhetorical strategies. However, the exact style, content, and organization of academic writing can vary depending on the specific genre and publication method. Despite this variation, all academic writing shares some common features.[2]

Academic style

Academic writing often features prose register that is conventionally characterized by "evidence...that the writer(s) have been persistent, open-minded and disciplined in the study"; that prioritizes "reason over emotion or sensual perception"; and that imagines a reader who is "coolly rational, reading for information, and intending to formulate a reasoned response."[3]

Three linguistic patterns[4] that correspond to these goals across fields and genres, include the following:

  1. a balance of caution and certainty, or a balance of hedging and boosting;[5][6]
  2. explicit cohesion through a range of cohesive ties and moves;[7] and
  3. compression, or dense noun phrases to add detail rather than more dependent clauses.[8]

The stylistic means of achieving these conventions can differ by academic discipline, which helps explain the distinctive sounds of, for example, writing in history versus engineering or physics versus philosophy.[9] Biber and Gray proposed that there are differences in the complexity of academic writing in the humanities versus the sciences. In the humanities, writing often focuses on elaborating and developing complex structures, while in the sciences, writing often prioritizes concise, highly-structured texts. This difference is thought to be related to the types of knowledge and information being communicated in these two fields.[10]: 4 

One theory that attempts to account for these differences in writing is known as "discourse communities".[11]

Criticism
Main article: Academese

Academic style, particularly in humanities, has often been criticized for being too full of jargon and hard to understand by the general public.[12][13] In 2022, Joelle Renstrom argued that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a negative impact on academic writing and that many scientific articles now "contain more jargon than ever, which encourages misinterpretation, political spin, and a declining public trust in the scientific process."[14]

Discourse community
See also: Community of inquiry

A discourse community is a group of people that shares mutual interests and beliefs. "It establishes limits and regularities...who may speak, what may be spoken, and how it is to be said; in addition [rules] prescribe what is true and false, what is reasonable and what foolish, and what is meant and what not."[15]

The concept of a discourse community is vital to academic writers across all disciplines, for the academic writer's purpose is to influence how their community understands its field of study: whether by maintaining, adding to, revising, or contesting what that community regards as "known" or "true." Academic writers have strong incentives to follow conventions established by their community in order for their attempts to influence this community to be legible.

Discourse community constraints

Constraints are the discourse community's accepted rules and norms of writing that determine what can and cannot be said in a particular field or discipline. They define what constitutes an acceptable argument. Every discourse community expects to see writers construct their arguments using the community's conventional style of language, vocabulary, and sources, which are the building blocks of any argument in that community.

Writing for a discourse community

For writers to become familiar with some of the constraints of the discourse community they are writing for, across most discourses communities, writers must:

  • identify the novelty of their position
  • make a claim, or thesis
  • acknowledge prior work and situate their claim in a disciplinary context
  • offer warrants for one's view based on community-specific arguments and procedures

The structure and presentation of arguments can vary based on the discourse community the writer is a part of. For example, a high school student would typically present arguments differently than a college student. It is important for academic writers to familiarize themselves with the conventions of their discourse community by analyzing other works. This will help writers effectively communicate their ideas.

Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) is an educational program that aims to improve students' writing skills within the context of various disciplinary communities. [16][17][18]The Writing Across the Curriculum Clearinghouse provides resources for such programs at all levels of education.

Novel argument

In a discourse community, academic writers build on the ideas of previous writers to establish their own claims. Successful writers know the importance of conducting research within their community and applying the knowledge gained to their own work. By synthesizing and expanding upon existing ideas, writers are able to make novel contributions to the discourse.

Intertextuality

Intertextuality is the combining of past writings into original, new pieces of text. According to Julia Kristeva, all texts are part of a larger network of intertextuality, meaning they are connected to prior texts through various links, such as allusions, repetitions, and direct quotations, whether they are acknowledged or not.[16] Writers (often unwittingly) make use of what has previously been written and thus some degree of borrowing is inevitable. One of the key characteristics of academic writing across disciplines is the use of explicit conventions for acknowledging intertextuality, such as citation and bibliography. The conventions for marking intertextuality vary depending on the discourse community, with examples including MLA, APA, IEEE, and Chicago styles.

Summarizing and integrating other texts in academic writing is often metaphorically described as "entering the conversation," as described by Kenneth Burke:[17]

"Imagine that you enter a parlor. You come late. When you arrive, others have long preceded you, and they are engaged in a heated discussion, a discussion too heated for them to pause and tell you exactly what it is about. In fact the discussion had already begun long before any of them got there, so that no one present is qualified to retrace for you all the steps that had gone before. You listen for a while, until you decide that you have caught the tenor of the argument; then you put in your oar. Someone answers; you answer him; another comes to your defense; another aligns himself against you, to either the embarrassment or gratification of your opponent, depending on the quality of your ally's assistance. However, the discussion is interminable. The hour grows late, you must depart, with the discussion still vigorously in progress."

Key elements

While the need for appropriate references and the avoidance of plagiarism are undisputed in academic and scholarly writing, the appropriate style is still a matter of debate. Some aspects of writing are universally accepted as important, while others are more subjective and open to interpretation.

Style
Contrary to stereotype, published academic research is not particularly syntactically complex;[18] it is instead a fairly low-involvement register characterized by the modification of nominal elements[19] through hedging and refining elaborations, often presented as sequences of objects of prepositions such as what, where, when, and whom.
Logical structure
Writing should be organised in a manner which demonstrates clarity of thought.[20]
Appropriate references
Generally speaking, the range and organization of references illustrate the author's awareness of the current state of knowledge in the field (including major current disagreements or controversies); typically the expectation is that these references will be formatted in the relevant disciplinary citation system.[21]
Bibliography
Typically, this lists those materials read as background, evidencing wider reading,[20] and will include the sources of individual citations.
Avoidance of plagiarism
Plagiarism, the "wrongful appropriation of another author's language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions", and the representation of them as one's own original work, is considered academic dishonesty, and can lead to severe consequences.[22]

Academic genres
Academic journals collect research articles and are often categorized as "Periodicals" in university libraries. Here, the periodical collection of the Foster Business Library at the University of Washington

Academic writing encompasses many different genres, indicating the many different kinds of authors, audiences and activities engaged in the academy and the variety of kinds of messages sent among various people engaged in the academy. The partial list below indicates the complexity of academic writing and the academic world it is part of.

By researchers for other researchers

Technical or administrative forms

Collating the work of others
  • Anthology; collection, collation, ordering and editing of the work of others
  • Catalogue raisonné; the definitive collection of the work of a single artist, in book form
  • Collected works; often referred to as the 'critical edition'. The definitive collection of the work of a single writer or poet, in book form, carefully purged of publishers errors and later forgeries, etc.
  • Monograph or exhibition catalog; usually containing exemplary works, and a scholarly essay. Sometime contains new work by a creative writer, responding to the work
  • Transcribing, selecting and ordering oral testimony (e.g. oral history recordings)

Research and planning

Newer forms

By graduate students for their advisors and committees
  • Doctoral Dissertation, completed over a number of years, often in excess of 20,000 words in length
  • Masters Thesis (in some regions referred to as Masters Dissertation), often completed within a year and between 6,000 and 20,000 words in length.
  • Thesis or Dissertation Proposal

By undergraduate students for their instructors

By instructors for students

Summaries of knowledge for researchers, students or general public

Disseminating knowledge outside the academy

Personal forms often for general public

These are acceptable to some academic disciplines, e.g. Cultural studies, Fine art, Feminist studies, Queer theory, Literary studies

Format

A commonly recognized format for presenting original research in the social and applied sciences is known as IMRD, an initialism that refers to the usual ordering of subsections:

  • Introduction (Overview of relevant research and objective of current study)
  • Method (Assumptions, questions, procedures described in replicable or at least reproducible detail)
  • Results (Presentation of findings; often includes visual displays of quantitative data charts, plots)

and

  • Discussion (Analysis, Implications, Suggested Next Steps)

Standalone methods sections are atypical in presenting research in the humanities; other common formats in the applied and social sciences are IMRAD (which offers an "Analysis" section separate from the implications presented in the "Discussion" section) and IRDM (found in some engineering subdisciplines, which features Methods at the end of the document).

Other common sections in academic documents are:

See also

References
  1. Nesi, Hilary; Gardner, Sheena (2012). Genres across the Disciplines: Student Writing in Higher Education. Cambridge Applied Linguistics. Cambridge UP. ISBN 978-0-521-14959-4.
  2. Swales, John (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Applied Linguistics. ISBN 978-0521338134.
  3. Chris Thaiss and Terry Myers Zawacki (2006) Engaged Writers and Dynamic Disciplines: Research on the Academic Writing Life, Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook, [5-7].
  4. Aull, L. L. (2020). How Students Write: A Linguistic Analysis. New York, Modern Language Association
  5. Lancaster, Z. (2016). "Do Academics Really Write This Way? A Corpus Investigation of Moves and Templates in" They Say/I Say"." College composition and communication 67(3): 437.
  6. Hyland, K. (2005). "Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse." Discourse Studies 7(2): 173-192.
  7. Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge [England]; New York, Cambridge University Press.
  8. Biber, D. and B. Gray (2010). "Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness." Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9(1): 2-20.
  9. Hyland, Ken (22 July 2004). Disciplinary Discourses, Michigan Classics Ed.: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0-472-03024-8.
  10. Biber, Douglas; Gray, Bethany (2016-05-26). Grammatical Complexity in Academic English: Linguistic Change in Writing. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-00926-4.
  11. Swales, John. ''The Concept of Discourse Community." Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Boston: Cambridge UP, 1990.21-32. Print.
  12. Pinker, Steven (26 September 2014). "Why Academics Stink at Writing". www.chronicle.com. Archived from the original on 2020-09-04. Retrieved 2021-09-01.
  13. Blyth, Mark (2012-03-09). "Five minutes with Mark Blyth: "Turn it into things people can understand, let go of the academese, and people will engage"". Impact of Social Sciences. Archived from the original on 2011-01-31. Retrieved 2021-09-01.
  14. Renstrom, Joelle. "How Science Itself Fuels a Culture of Misinformation – The Wire Science". Retrieved 2022-06-22.
  15. Leitch, Vincent B. Deconstructive Criticism. New York: Cornell UP, 1983: 145.
  16. Roozen, Kevin. (2015) "Texts Get Their Meaning from Other Texts." Naming What We Know: Threshold Concepts in Writing Studies, Adler-Kassner & Wardle, eds. Logan: Utah State UP, 44-47,
  17. Burke, Kenneth (1941). The Philosophy of Literary Form. Berkeley: University of California Press, 110-111.
  18. Biber, Douglas; Gray, Bethany (2010). "Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness". Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 9 (1): 2–20. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2010.01.001. S2CID 59059809.
  19. Brown, David West; Aull, Laura L. (2017). "Elaborated Specificity versus Emphatic Generality: A Corpus-Based Comparison of Higher- and Lower-Scoring Advanced Placement Exams in English". Research in the Teaching of English. 51 (4): 394–417.
  20. Open University, 7. Academic writing – general principles, accessed 10 January 2023
  21. Giltrow, Janet and Michele Valiquette. (1994). Genres and knowledge: Students writing in the disciplines. In Freedman, Aviva; Peter Medway (Eds.), Learning and teaching genre, Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook (pp. 47-62).
  22. Council of Writing Program Administrators, "Defining and Avoiding Plagiarism: The WPA Statement on Best Practices". Princeton University. 2012-07-27

Further reading

General
  • C. Bazerman, J. Little, T. Chavkin, D. Fouquette, L. Bethel, and J. Garufis (2005). Writing across the curriculum. Parlor Press and WAC Clearinghouse. https://wac.colostate.edu/books/referenceguides/bazerman-wac/
  • C. Bazerman & D. Russell (1994). Landmark essays in writing across the curriculum.  Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press.
  • Tony, Becher; Paul, Trowler (1 October 2001). Academic Tribes And Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Culture of Disciplines. McGraw-Hill Education (UK). ISBN 978-0-335-20627-8.
  • Booth, Wayne C.; Colomb, Gregory G.; Williams, Joseph M. (15 May 2009). The Craft of Research (Third ed.). University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-06264-8.
  • Borg, Erik (2003). 'Discourse Community', English Language Teaching (ELT) Journal, Vol. 57, Issue 4, pp. 398–400
  • Canagarajah, A. Suresh (2002). A Geopolitics of Academic Writing. University of Pittsburgh Press. ISBN 978-0-8229-7238-9.
  • Coinam, David (2004). 'Concordancing Yourself: A Personal Exploration of Academic Writing', Language Awareness, Vol. 13, Issue 1, pp. 49–55
  • Phyllis, Creme; Mary, Lea (1 May 2008). Writing At University: A Guide For Students. McGraw-Hill Education (UK). ISBN 978-0-335-22116-5.
  • Goodall, H. Lloyd, Jr. (2000). Writing Qualitative Inquiry: Self, Stories, and Academic Life (Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press)
  • Johns, Ann M. (1997). Text, Role and Context: Developing Academic Literacies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
  • King, Donald W., Carol Tenopir, Songphan Choemprayong, and Lei Wu (2009). 'Scholarly Journal Information Seeking and Reading Patterns of Faculty at Five U.S. Universities', Learned Publishing, Vol. 22, Issue 2, pp. 126–144
  • Kouritzin, Sandra G., Nathalie A. C Piquemal, and Renee Norman, eds (2009). Qualitative Research: Challenging the Orthodoxies in Standard Academic Discourse(s) (New York: Routledge)
  • Lincoln, Yvonna S, and Norman K Denzin (2003). Turning Points in Qualitative Research: Tying Knots in a Handkerchief (Walnut Creek, CA; Oxford: AltaMira Press)
  • Luey, Beth (2010). Handbook for Academic Authors, 5th edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
  • Murray, Rowena, and Sarah Moore (2006). The Handbook of Academic Writing: A Fresh Approach (Maidenhead: Open University Press)
  • Nash, Robert J. (2004). Liberating Scholarly Writing: The Power of Personal Narrative (New York; London: Teachers College Press)
  • Paltridge, Brian (2004). 'Academic Writing', Language Teaching, Vol. 37, Issue 2, pp. 87–105
  • Pelias, Ronald J. (1999). Writing Performance: Poeticizing the Researcher's Body (Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press)
  • Prior, Paul A. (1998). Writing/Disciplinarity: A Sociohistoric Account of Literate Activity in the Academy (Mahwah, NJ; London: Lawrence Erlbaum)
  • Rhodes, Carl and Andrew D. Brown (2005). 'Writing Responsibly: Narrative Fiction and Organization Studies', The Organization: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Organizations and Society, Vol. 12, Issue 4, pp. 467–491
  • Richards, Janet C., and Sharon K. Miller (2005). Doing Academic Writing in Education: Connecting the Personal and the Professional (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum)
  • Zamel, Vivian; Spack, Ruth (6 August 2012). Negotiating Academic Literacies: Teaching and Learning Across Languages and Cultures. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-60891-9.
  • The University of Sydney. (2019). Academic Writing.

Architecture, design and art
  • Crysler, C. Greig (2002). Writing Spaces: Discourses of Architecture, Urbanism and the Built Environment (London: Routledge)
  • Francis, Pat (2009). Inspiring Writing in Art and Design: Taking a Line for a Write (Bristol; Chicago: Intellect)
  • Frayling, Christopher (1993). 'Research in Art and Design', Royal College of Art Research Papers, Vol. 1, Issue 1, pp. 1–5
  • Piotrowski, Andrzej (2008). 'The Spectacle of Architectural Discourses', Architectural Theory Review, Vol. 13, Issue 2, pp. 130–144

Bibliography
  • Baldo, Shannon. "Elves and Extremism: the use of Fantasy in the Radical Environmentalist Movement." Young Scholars in Writing: Undergraduate Research in Writing and Rhetoric 7 (Spring 2010): 108–15. Print.
  • Greene, Stuart. "Argument as Conversation: The Role of Inquiry in Writing a Researched Argument." n. page. Print.
  • Kantz, Margaret. "Helping Students Use Textual Sources Persuasively." College English 52.1 (1990): 74–91. Print.
  • Porter, James. "Intertextuality and the Discourse Community."Rhetoric Review. 5.1 (1986): 34–47. Print.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.