By Garrett O.
Most people that have
read a scientific journal article can probably relate to the confusion that
arises when trying to understand the details. Why is the content of important
scientific research so hard to understand? This is a question with many
possible answers. The technical term for this type of writing is “official style.”
Official style is often strung with complex and winding sentences, high reading
levels, increased punctuation, and the use of passive voice. Many readers are
able to identify official style writing without even knowing its defining
characteristics.
“Stress and Personality,” by authors
D. Lečić Toševski, O. Vukovic, and J. Stepanovic is a
perfect example of how the official style is used in psychological research
papers. It was originally published to Psychiatriki, which is a
psychiatric-based publisher located in Greece. Psychiatriki was created
by the Hellenic American Psychiatric Association to give Greek Psychiatrists a tool
to exchange professional resources. According to their website, the journal’s intended
use is for anything from scientific exchanges to professional aspirations. This
means that the article was written specifically for a niche audience. Picking
apart the language of the article makes this even more clear. Psychiatrists often
pass research to their peers to help treat patients more effectively. “Stress
and Personality” could potentially help a psychiatrist give a more accurate
diagnosis to a patient.
The
article begins with a sentence reading: “Stress is an adaptation reaction of
living organisms in response to internal or external threats of homeostasis.” This
sentence develops the intended audience very quickly. Unless the reader is scientifically
educated already, they might wonder what internal threats or homeostasis
might mean. Essentially, this sentence is saying: “The reason we feel stress is
because our mind is trying to protect our well-being.” The sentence in the
original article must be decoded to uncover the meaning. So, what is the
difference between the example sentence and the one from the original article? Content
wise, there is almost no difference. There are many potential reasons for why
the authors might be writing like this, but the most pressing one is to deny
access. The niche community of psychiatrists that consult this information are
one of the few that can easily understand it. The links between stress and
personality type could be useful information for many people, regardless of
their reading and education levels. However, more people poking and prodding at
the research could be a very bad day for an author who doesn’t want to be challenged
on their findings. On the same token, having medical and psychological
discoveries easily available to the public could strain the level of trust
between a patient and their doctor. With all the negatives that come with
“coded language,” it is probably beneficial that not everyone can understand all
medical terminology. It is proven that a certified surgeon and therapist
can do surgery and aid in mental health better than someone who isn’t fully
educated in the field.
Another
official style tool that is frequently seen in the article is the use of
passive voice. When reading this article and other articles that use the
official style, it sometimes feels like the information is simply “as-is.”
There are no action verbs, only anticlimactic facts laid out without any
ownership. Some examples from the article include: “Studies have recorded
considerable consistency in coping strategies…” and, “Positive affect has been
associated with positive reappraisal…” It seems like the authors are citing
someone else’s work, which is not the case. Then what is the purpose of this
language? The most obvious answer is to gain credibility. If I were to say, “I
just discovered a new nutrient in this broccoli,” I would probably seem less
trustworthy than if I said, “A new nutrient has been discovered in broccoli.” I
am not a scientist, nor do I know the slightest about the nutrient content of
broccoli, but I am automatically more credible when conveying
information rather than claiming it. In addition to this, passive voice and
third person language serve more than just this purpose. They also close many
loopholes that might be left dangling in the claims. For example, people might attack
my faulty research if I actively take ownership in it, but not if I just stated
that “Findings indicate a new broccoli nutrient.” A researcher lacking
confidence in their claims or an author seeking a position of trust and
authority are both great candidates for the use of official style.
With
the individual pieces of the official style dissected, it is slightly easier to
understand why an author would choose to adopt it. This does not mean
that the reasoning isn't frustrating at times. If an individual wants to learn
more about a specific topic, how is it fair that access is essentially denied?
Should an individual have to take advanced reading and writing courses just to understand
a summary of research? Many college students that have learned to decipher the
official style were probably never taught it in the first place—at least not
right away. In my own college experience, learning how to read official style
was mostly done using the Google search bar. There are drastic shifts in the
language of textbooks from high school to college and failing to become
accustomed to them could greatly affect understanding. The ability to learn new
information is a “right” in the United States, yet information is being
carefully masked by the language itself.
Having important information easily understandable should be a right for everyone. Communities with low socioeconomic status aren’t only more prone to mental health disorders, but they have lower rates of education. This demonstrates how important it is for psychological resources to be easily accessible. Legally binding documents such as lease and privacy agreements can also exploit vulnerable populations. I would argue that there is a time and place for the “official style,” but plain style writing should be accessible when the information could help large groups of people.
No comments:
Post a Comment