“We write with the goal of showing things. We write with the goal of showing what we know about the literature, describing a process that hasn’t been described before, or just describing a theory as accurately or precisely as we can. However, those goals all differ from the goal of merely being understood. So being accurate or precise, for example, if that’s your overriding goal, then that is going to lead you to use a lot more jargon. Jargon feels like a very precise way to write about our research. Instead of saying “the process through which countries develop a market system”, you could just say “marketization”. Speaking of “marketization” is more precise . It’s denser and shorter, fitting, but it’s also less accessible. It can only be understood if someone happens to know what “marketization” means. By distancing language from the common day-to-day language that even academics use, you just make it a lot harder for people to understand what you’re saying. The best theory, the best thinking, the best contributions are not going to be seen or understood by most people unless you are writing about it in a clear way. I’m an advocate of that.”

(Matt Farmer)

Previous
Previous

Research gap

Next
Next

Constructing knowledge