Academic writing (within academia and its journals) encompasses many broad fields spanning from biochemistry to social policy to art history. Within a range of such diverse fields, how does one determine what is good writing, what is credible writing, and what is fair writing? Does this mean the use of the official style is necessary, and what are the impacts and purposes of the use of the official style in this manner? Through a case study of Nathaniel Swigger’s Sexual Responsibility and the Politics of Abortion and Contraception, I will address these questions regarding the official style and academics. Primarily, academic official style is used in a context that is appropriate for academic audiences including students, professors, and all involved in academia. Swigger presents the legitimate use of official style through through external contexts (audience, etc.) and internal contexts (sentence styles, etc.). Through Swigger’s article case study, we can ascertain what it means to write in the sphere of acceptable academic official style and its impact within the sphere of human activity within and beyond academia: namely, academic audiences typically gain access to an academic article written in an academic official style. However, who does this exclude? In this article, I argue that the use of official style in academic papers makes the content within inaccessible to the public (and therefore exclusive in nature) and to those within academia that to not occupy a specific discipline.
The external analysis surrounding Sexual Responsibility and the Politics of Abortion and Contraception gives much insight to the function of academic official style. By using this paper as a reflecting pad for some of the features surrounding academic official style, we can better understand its exclusivity and limitations to outsiders of each specific field. This article was published on 20 November 2015 by Springer Science and Business Media in New York in the journal Sexuality Research & Social Policy (topics covered in this journal typically focus on sociology and medical science). Springer Science and Business Media is a publishing company that focuses on books, textbooks, peer-reviewed scientific articles, and journals; their articles are available through their scientific databases, making it content that one is unable to access unless they have a subscription to either the Springer journal of note or to the databases themselves. This specific text can be purchased for $39.95 (US Dollars) plus tax, which includes unlimited access to the full article and PDF download. This makes it unlikely for one to have access to this article unless they have access to the database or an unusual amount of money and time to devote to buying and consuming academic texts. As a student, I have access to this through the University library; many educators and students around the nation most likely have access to this, as well, either through their institution’s search pages and subscriptions and/or Google Scholar; this adds to the argument of this piece being accessible solely to those within the academic sphere of human activity. In addition, Springer does publish works outside of the political science and policy realm (humanities and technical realms but all are academic works); the companies through which he publishes for these are also globally-based, as is their reach. It is also important to note that Swigger’s text more than likely went through a process of review before publishing: editing pre-publishing, etc. This suggests the need for academic articles to strictly fit the academic boundaries and rules laid out for each specific journal, limiting the types of writing and accessibilities of academic articles published: if each article must fit certain ‘criteria’, it is accessible only to those that define those criteria and those that write for it. To others, this criteria is foreign unless one is intimately familiar with it, as it had to meet guidelines and was more than likely filtered and edited to fit the journal’s needs. Thereby, academic external contexts are exclusive to those within the academic sphere of human activity.
As for external context regarding the author, Dr. Nathaniel Swigger (Ph.D., Illinois, 2009) currently works as Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at the Ohio State University Newark campus. His current and past works focus highly on sex, sexuality, and American politics, particularly in relation to the public’s perception of the political realm of communication and opinion. The sphere of communication he occupies is highly academic; he thus fits the criteria to exist within the academic sphere of human activity. It is thus likely that his intended audience is academic, as well, and that his writing is formatted in such a way that is familiar to those whom are familiar with academic articles, making his works exclusive to those familiar and comfortable with their writing styles and with the materials within. Sexual Responsibility and the Politics of Abortion and Contraception does not stray from this as it seems to be written for those within academic fields such as psychology, women/sexuality/gender studies, etc. It is written for those that understand the outline of scientific research (whether within the soft or hard sciences, this format is rigid and certain expectations come with it): Abstract, Introduction, Materials/Methods, Results, Discussion (later discussed in more depth). Those familiar (the academic) with these outlines and the expectations for each category within these outlines to be deemed legitimate and credible. Additionally, students of theory courses, rhetoric courses, and, most likely, professionals within liberal arts studies and students in those studies (ex. Women’s studies, gender studies, racial and ethnic studies, english, and, perhaps most commonly, psychology, political science, law) could potentially be exposed to this article and other academic articles bearing similar style and subjects. This accessibility only extends to those accustomed to the general official academic style, and, deeper, to those that are most familiar with their field of speciality. As such, the academic official style can become inaccessible to those within academia if the given articles are not written for their field of speciality. For example, within social policy, as is Swigger’s article, the official style may not be as accessible within fields that don't rely so heavily on human interaction and participation in their studies. While we within academia (students, professors, etc.) can understand this article, our familiarity with official style may be more strained in fields outside of the liberal arts, where articles with titles such as PI3K class II α regulates δ-opioid receptor export from the trans-Golgi network that are full of cell biology jargon. For those in related fields (cell biology), articles like this will be comfortable and familiar in official style, whereas they may find discomfort with articles akin to Swigger’s. The public may be able to decipher each of these articles given time and context, but the ease with which this is done will be much lesser than those with familiarity with research articles, who would be able to grasp understanding and meaning much quicker and with more (potential) depth and context of understanding.
Suggested related articles to Swigger’s Sexual Responsibility and the Politics of Abortion and Contraception also hint at the potential impacts and limitations of the use of the academic official style. Recommended and related articles boast titles akin to the following: Under Siege: Freedom of Choice and the Statutory Ban on Abortions on Military Bases (Crawford 2004), Why Equality for Women Is a Necessity (Comper 1990), Stronger laws, new attitudes toward rape in the US (Mouat 1983), and Birth control pill for men poised to rock society's fixed gender roles: Onset of male contraception will bend society's views on sex and relationships (Healey 2014). Articles like this are also cited within the paper, giving it a further sense of academic credibility. All heavily relate to sexuality, sex, contraception, rape, assault, relationships, and related topics and issues that require knowledge of and/or background in topics surrounding these for a complete comprehension (in most cases). The article has currently been cited by two other articles that suggest a similar academic stylistic focus: Exploring activism: A journey with women-identified student activists at Laurier Brantford and how activism can have a positive impact on campus culture (Cifani 2016) and Cross-National newspaper coverage of women’s reproductive rights between 2011 and 2015: A community structure approach (Salmon et al. 2017). With all of these external contexts given in mind, we thoroughly see that the sphere of human activity and communication occupied here is intended for those that can easily understand and decipher academic official style within their given field of speciality. The perspective given with specialized education makes this process easier. However, motivation behind this exclusivity may not be intentional. I would like to believe that academia strives to increase humanity’s base knowledge and knowledge ‘banks’. Perhaps authors seek to have their articles spread through ‘public science writings’ or akin sources, such as Scientific American and National Geographic for the sciences. Yet, this is ultimately contradictory as the use of the academic official style ultimately makes articles inaccessible to the public and, likely, to academics not within the given field of writing. With the spheres of communication as academic being established with this external context, we can begin to understand how the use of the official style in academic writings (and lack of use, sometimes) is fitting and exclusive.
With our knowledge of this external context surrounding Swigger’s Sexual Responsibility and the Politics of Abortion and Contraception, we can now understand the use of academic official strategies internally within the text and how they play into academic official style and their impacts and/or uses. Furthermore, we can understand how the uses of these strategies in academia may be limiting to both those inside and outside of academia. The organization of the paper strictly follows a typical research article within the sciences: Abstract, Intro, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, References. This suggests that the intended audience would be familiar with and comfortable delving into this kind of text structure. Sentence strategies vary throughout (appositives, noun substitutions), however, coordination and subordination are the most consistently used in sentences such as this (bolded within): “Rape myth acceptance may lead to violence (Abrams et al. 2003), but it may have a more subtle negative effect on society as well. Unfortunately, RMA is not limited to men alone and the prevalence of those beliefs in men and women may alter the political views of a large portion of the electorate.” These are particularly useful tools for making comparisons and persuasive arguments, furthering the persuasive aspect of supporting an argument and/or research within an academic, peer-reviewed article. Additionally, complex sentences are often used throughout the essay, yet, breaking from official style tradition, not many long sentences are used, making the text broken up into lots of pieces that can be deciphered on their own separate of others and in conjunction with others. This could serve several functions: editing the sentences to fit the journal requirements and the scientific tradition of writing very simply without detail in published works. In spite of this, the text is still very formal in feeling, as the sentences still vary in structure. Third person passive voice and active voice are both used in the essay in equal amounts based on section of the article; the introduction and abstract were mostly passive, whereas the other parts of the article such as the results and the materials and methods were reliant on active voice to describe how experiments and results were both conducted and determined: “In order to investigate the connection between RMA and political attitudes, I conducted a cross-sectional survey in December 2012. Using the Qualtrics, Inc. respondent panel, I surveyed a nationwide sample of 799 US adults using six items from the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance scale that focuses on victim-blaming and misperceptions about rape.” This effect is further achieved through the uses of charts, figures, and graphs that vary in difficulty from the easier, more publicly accessible (i.e. Figure 1 below) to charts (such as Figures 2 below) to footnotes with unfamiliar jargon such as “instrumental variable models… estimator… F statistic…” (Figure 4). Regardless of voice or visuals used, the academic official style seeks to be objective, with as little personal opinion brought into play as possible, which ultimately alienates the public or non-specified reader from the academic content within.
Readability statistics also suggest the necessity of a higher reading level and comprehension within academic texts. An excerpt taken from the introduction of Swigger’s article came up with the following results (readable.io 2018): the Gunning Fog Index suggests that 15.19 years (junior in college) of formal education would be required in order to understand the text upon first reading. The Coleman Liau Index comes up with a similar interpretation of 11.70 years of education, as do the Flesch Kincaid Grade Level (13.21) and the Automated Readability Index (12.48). As the majority of the American public reads at the 7th to 8th grade level comfortably (Clear Language Group 2018), the reading comprehension required by this text suggests a higher reading level necessity, which would more than likely be specialized or academic.
Sexual Responsibility and the Politics of Abortion and Contraception uses official style in a manner that is appropriate for academia and academic audiences, though it does leave room for public audiences to read it, as well, but perhaps with a bit more effort. The use of Swigger’s paper as a case study allows us to understand the impacts of academic official style in a more accessible manner, though the contexts in which it is typically used are more exclusive: it functions as a ‘midline’ paper. This analysis leaves more to be desired in terms of exclusivity between disciplines: how does this exclusivity differ in diverse fields as well as the more specific fields within the broader category (i.e., Chemistry versus Organic Chemistry or Biochemistry). To truly understand the impacts of academic official style, this must be considered. Through use of a determined external context and audience (and other related internal contexts), Swigger’s article was certainly written exclusively for those within the academic sphere of human activity and, in the process, is exclusive in nature.
Mari Sweetman, March 2018
Images and Figures
Figure 1. Figure 1 from Sexual Responsibility and the Politics of Abortion and Contraception; illustrates the simplicity and accessibility that image and figures may exhibit in academic official style.
Figure 2. Tables 4 and 6 from Sexual Responsibility and the Politics of Abortion and Contraception; illustrates the complexity and non-accessibility that image and figures may exhibit in academic official style.
Figure 3. The selected paper Sexual Responsibility and the Politics of Abortion and Contraception by Nathaniel Swigger used as a case study for academic official style uses and impacts.
Figure 4. Footnote from exual Responsibility and the Politics of Abortion and Contraception used to illustrate inaccessibility of academic official style.
Works Cited
“Measure Text Readability.” Readable.io. 2018. Web. 22 February 2018.
Nathaniel Swigger. 2016. Sexual responsibility and the politics of abortion and contraception.
Sexuality Research and Social Policy 13:263-275.
“What is Readability?” Clear Language Group. 2018. Web. 15 March 2018.
No comments:
Post a Comment