Harvard political-science professor Stephen Walt posted an excellent piece over at Foreign Policy earlier this week. Its title accurately conveys the gist of it: "Why Is Academic Writing So Bad?" Such laments echo. Some of Walt's commentary reminds me of Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan's century-old reminiscences about his failings as a literary craftsman. Mahan was an author who sold a metric gazillion books and articles, spreading the good word of sea power. The bibliography of his works is itself a book. But then as now, readers were no fans of his rambling Victorian style.
Grammatical and stylistic shortcomings have consequences. Having studied and taught sea-power theory for two decades now, I'm convinced that half the reason naval officers prefer Sir Julian Corbett's ideas to Mahan's is because of Corbett's fluid writing style. He's an easy read, saving students precious hours of reading time. It appears style, not substance, may decide important debates. Victory may go to the contestant who conveys ideas more fluently, not the one with superior ideas. Hence the importance of clear, concise writing. The medium may not be the message, but it carries — or obstructs — the message.
Mahan was unusually candid about the criticisms flung his way. In his memoir From Sail to Steam, he confesses to a "besetting anxiety" to be "exact and lucid." The downside to precision, he recalls, was being "nervously susceptible to being convicted of a mistake." To escape criticism, he "strove to introduce between the same two periods every qualification" or disclaimer possible. Cumbersome sentences and paragraphs were the result. He admitted to overtaxing readers' attention "as an author has no right to do," and reported being "reproached … justly" for the "diffuseness" of his writing.
There's good news — from my selfish standpoint, at any rate. (And it is all about me.) First, like Mahan, Naval War College students tend to be a self-critical lot, receptive to help with details. And second, our students face no pressure to write only for scholars. Quite the opposite. Plainspoken language is at a premium when working for senior commanders or diplomats, as our graduates will in future assignments. By contrast, civilian universities actively discourage publishing in outlets where specialists converse with laymen about arcane matters.
Op-eds, professional journal articles, and — needless to say — blog entries like this one count for next to nothing in hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions. Indeed, non-scholarly writing probably counts for less than nothing in the academy. It carries steep opportunity costs. An hour spent writing for a newspaper, practically minded journal, or commercial press is an hour not spent writing for a university press or peer-reviewed journal — an outlet where academics are the gatekeepers.
Scholarly publishers are the ones that make or break careers on campus. But if academic writing is bad, writing solely for other academics looks like a bad way to improve matters.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
marketing
We’re a gaggle of volunteers and opening a brand new scheme in our community. Your website provided us with helpful information to work on. You have done a formidable activity and our whole neighborhood will be grateful to you.
Dave
Who was more influential? JFC Fuller, or Basil Liddell Hart?
Fuller. But reading him is an exercise in masochism. Hart, meanwhile, is *fun* to read. Thus why so many people ascribe to Hart what was better due Fuller.
Personally, I still believe there is a vital role to be played by popular scholarship versus academic writing. First and foremost, readable ideas *get read*– no small thing in the world of military history and strategy. Second, as a general matter, I distrust authors who don't care to learn how to communicate with broader audiences in a clear and concise manner. Academic language is sometimes– but not always– more precise, but by virtue of its choice of elite language it's by definition "preaching to the choir." In some fields, this unavoidable– there is a difference between popular science writing and academic science writing, for obvious reasons. But in the realm of history, I have never once found an academic work that would be *less valuable* for being written in an accessible style.
Michael Crabtree
I found your article interesting, and a very interesting lead into a bigger problem. I believe many of the comments have referenced some of the bigger societal and even service related problems. In many ways Academics and many so called career paths have promoted this on purpose. Academics love to remain and socialize with their own. One of the easiest ways to accomplish this is to create an environment where only those in the same caste can understand what you have written or said. This is how the legal system has made the right to defend oneself such a disadvantage as to practically negate a basic right in our Constitutional society. Another good example of an evolution of redefining a worldly point of view and mutating it into something only a select few can understand; the debate. More often referred to as speed debating is a prime example of his same type of methodology. I feel the Navy has failed specifically by not instilling writing methods and styles throughout one’s career. Some examples are the simplification of the personal evaluation system, awards system, and message writing. I do not agree that the senior NCO exhibits or has proven any advantages in general as I took one comment to say. I believe he problems are equal at all levels. I will add that Navy professional schools have changed over the years, and no longer support context relevant objectives working on teaching strong baselines. Then the student is responsible for applying specifics to situations and scenarios. I think your article is on the right track, and hope this will become an active topic of discussion. Unlike another reader’s comment, who doesn’t appear to agree with your topic.
Will Shakespeare
How do you know how many readers don't agree with your's or Mr Holmes' comments? If you don't know, what's the point of making such a remark? "Active discussion" but cannot disagree? Where did you come from?
Fan of Mr Holmes
Good writing is very important just like being able to attract mass appeal. Obama won over Romney because the mass media and the minority voters favoured him even though Romney was the better candidate to turn Amerika into the Master of the Universe. With Obama at the helm, America can now only be Master of the United Nations. Or Teacher of Massive Sequestration Deals.
Reason
@Dr Wat-son
Agree, clearly Holmes is going for the word count these days. Maybe he got a bigger mortgage?
Less is more.
Dr Wat-son
Actully Holmes, I used to find your writing interesting but these days I find it a drag .. you drone on and on with usually little matters of real substance to share. You should change your style if you want to win my readership.
Leonard R.
Speak of the devil, Prof. Holmes wrote:
—-
—-
How many books is a metric gazillion? I assume that's more than a mere gazillion.
Carlos G. Luna
The power of written communication is abhorrant amongst most Naval officers, especially in the SWO community. Additionally however is the ability of many senior SNCO's both in the Navy and Marine Corps to fashion a well thought out idea and to clearly edify it in written form. While the scholars may keep raging amongst the machines of the ivy laden halls of academia, the officers, chiefs, gunnys and grunts are the ones who need the 2 page executive brief, sans jargon. If only all academic papers began with the Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF) so prevelant in most daily briefs.
Patrick
Mr. De Luna, most scholarly pieces DO contain a BLUF (no pun intended). It's called a thesis statement, and often is the first sentence, and restated within the last paragraph. That's just basic Writing 101.
Matthew David Albritton
Scholars should be trying to get their work read by as many people as possible, so they can get as much intellectual credit as possible. Academic journals are expensive to get your hands on (especially if you don't pay tuition at university) and chock-full of jargon-laden articles. Consequently, academia has severely limited its ability to communicate with the outside world. Academics need to wake up and smell the coffee, and learn how to convey messages in one-hundred-forty characters or less.
Regards,
Matthew David Albritton
Nguoi Phan Bien
Plain language in one or two-page executive summary has its place. But the world of communicating ideas as it is has been vastly debased by the introduction of the Internet. And the Acedemy is the only place where humanity can salvage what little is left for real in-depth, less emotional, and critical but not war-mongering discourses.
In my personal opinion, the Internet, on balance, has done more harm than good to humanity. On the Internet, people exchange nasty fights over ideologies instead of disussing and debating ideas; Just review the "comments section" in this and any other Internet publications and you know what I am talking about; people are constantly looking for a fight for the sake of dispensing their excessive level of tostestorone in their body.
The world would enter a real Dark Age if writing for the masses could be counted for tenure and promotion in the Academy.
One can always find intelligent and sensible individuals among the masses, but the public as a whole, on average, is much less reliable as a source for intelligent thinking and behaving. If the public is intelligent, then why is it that they only want politicians say things they (i.e the public) want to hear and nothing else, and then turn around and accuse politicians lying to them. But it is they who encourage and in fact mandate politicians to lie to them. If politicians speak the truth, the public will kick them out of office.