Shared between the shame of being read and the fear of being ignored, the students are too often resigned to see their theses “stall feet” or dust themselves in the unexplored rays of the libraries of the Faculty. In this struggle, they often hire professional help and ask them to Write My Assignment, in addition to the writing tips of an experienced editor.
What exactly is”university writing”? It is primarily a text marked by a hierarchical relationship between the student and its director, and more generally between the student and the Academy. Having for the main purpose its “canonization” at the time of the defense, he must comply with the requirements and subjective preferences of the members of the jury, the ultimate readership of the Ph.D. student.
This often leads students to professional companies in order to get help to Assignment Writing Service. This constraint of the institution is reflected through different linguistic and formal conventions aiming to situate the author in relation to a community of peers (the references and concepts required) while displaying an inferiority status within that.
For example, the use of conditional and passive forms translates the uncertainty, the agreed prudence and the obligatory reverence related to the position of the student than a true heuristic of the doubt. Demonstrating a certain mistrust of the dogmas of the University, experienced writers do not hesitate to compare the cult of the bibliographic reference to clerics and Levi-Strauss to God.
Thus, the thesis appears to be conditioned by an inhibiting institutional framework that restricts the inventiveness of the doctoral student. We would split here a conditional as the argument was debated in the room.
It is clear that a thesis is an affiliation to a school of thought and the originals are hardly accepted in the den of academic conformity. But is the “university style” merely the verbose expression of a domineering institutional framework?
Is there not, somewhere, thesis directors and jury members eager to read readable academic texts, purged of these infamous logical connectors compensating for the lack of logic?
One wonders if these formal expectations of the jury are not anticipated, internalized or even fantasized by the students rather than really imposed by an inquisitive disciplinary body.
In fact, it is not surprising that by reading social science researchers, students end up talking like them. Moreover, we know that language originates well in the family and in the community. It is therefore up to the students – because they cannot choose their family – to work on their writings, not to make them more elitist but, on the contrary, more legible.
For the conceptual and hermetic language based on a frame of references shared between a small circle of insiders is another characteristic feature of the academic text. A publisher in the social sciences revokes academic writings excluding de facto the common reader by an unnecessarily sophisticated lexicon.
Table of Contents
University writing as a product of a relationship to knowledge
Experienced writers invoke the type of relationship to knowledge that defines it. They propose to map some “ideal-types” of the knowledge produced by crossing two variables: doubt and commitment.
The Researcher thus distinguishes himself from the Militant and the Author by his relation to the doubt to which he is constantly suspended. On the other hand, it is approaching by its empirical and political implication vis-à-vis the data of the social world. As for the Author and the Activist, experience and commitment are at the heart of his knowledge.
He is distinguished from the philosopher who must show a greater disinterestedness with regard to the data of the social world, of a certain “height”. The Expert is defined above all by knowledge of authority and a market framework of knowledge production.
If we follow this reasoning, the problem of readability of academic writings comes mainly from the systematic doubt and its corollary, the concern for completeness, constantly reactivated in the text. How then to communicate his results with a common language without sacrificing the complexity of his subject or the specificity of his discipline?
To solve the dilemma between hermetic technicality and simplified simplification, experienced writers advise researchers wishing to broaden their readership to get closer to the status of Author by indulging in the production of what he calls “average knowledge”: affordable knowledge for the general reader without giving up the ambition of science.
For this, writers used to advise young students wishing to expand the field of publication to separate their thesis a few weeks to write a refined synthesis. Some will object that it is better to avoid this effort by applying to write from the beginning a readable thesis.
For a readable text: a little treatise of “pagology”
To help us purge academic writings of superfluous formulas, experienced writers introduce us to what they call “pagology”, in other words, the science of the traps of writing. They warn of various recurring style mistakes in academic writing. Here is a non-exhaustive list:
- The excess of passive and conditional forms denoting the irreducible doubt of the researcher and whose excessive use ends up weighing down the text and blurring the reader. We can also cite certain adverbs such as “often”, “generally”, “most of”, which translate the same idea of the argument’s non-definition;
- Pronominal forms that introduce an ambiguity on the meaning of the action. “He was trapped” and “he was trapped” for example suggest two different things. In the first case, he was trapped because, implicitly, he had looked for it; in the other, he has been trapped by others and is consequently for nothing;
- The use of the “us” and the “on”, falsely impersonal, who want to neutralize the subjectivity of the author tends to lose all relief in his speech
The exchange with experienced writers will probably have decompartmentalized some heads and untied some feathers. It invites students to communicate more effectively on their work, with more simplicity but also more ambition, thinking writing outside the framework of the thesis and the lap of its jury.
Expanding his readership through a neat and accessible expression is this not a democratic pledge to which the researcher must aspire.