Scientific research articles are known for being long,
confusing, and credible- just like the official style is at first glance. The text I am exploring is a scientific
research article on epithelial ovarian cancer called Ovarian Cancer. I figured I would have luck finding the
official style being used in this realm of texts and I was quickly proven
correct. I found this specific article
in the online Science Direct database; however, this article was also published
in The Lancet, a print medical journal in 2014. The authors of the article all stemmed from
cancer institutes or centers for cancer research and follows the exact general
pattern any other scientific research paper would. All these factors together make this article
a perfect opportunity for the official style to prosper and is commonly
accepted in this genre of texts. But I want to explore how the official
style is used, despite the claim that writing in science should be direct and
concise, when the official style has only made this article more complex, does
not establish credibility that was not already present and restricts
readability in academic/scholarly texts like this one.
Ovarian Cancer
has the official style throughout it.
One strategy that is used is having complex and long sentences. This can be seen with the average words per
sentence being 24.51 and an example sentence with 39 words is:
Findings of epidemiological studies have shown that the risk
of ovarian cancer is reduced by states of anovulation, such as pregnancy or the
use of oral contraception; or through tubal ligation-reduced reflux of
menstrual products onto the ovary. (1376)
This sentence has a
complex vocabulary and grammar structure, like the use of a semicolon. The vocabulary used has specific medical
terminology, or jargon, like platinum-based cytotoxic chemotherapy,
antiangiogenic drugs, palliation, stromal tumours, endometriosis,
supraphysiological ovarian stimulation, etc.
These limit who is able to understand the jargon and who has that level
of education, further excluding a vast majority of readers from this text.
After looking in the text a little, now we need to
understand the motives of the publishers for wanting a work like this made and
how it establishes credibility. The
original publisher, The Lancet, is an “independent, international general medical journal” that
has been in business since 1823 that is recognized worldwide for its
longstanding and incredible scientific research. The Lancet’s goal is to “make science
widely available so that medicine can serve, and transform society, and
positively impact the lives of people.”
We can clearly see that an article on the deadliest form of
gynecological cancer would fit the bill for this medical journal’s interests
and representation. Already, the article
has not been read nor its use of official style established credibility, and
yet, we have credibility already completely covered due to the reputation and
peer-reviewed nature of this journal.
Not to mention that the
authors of the article are all experts in the field of ovarian cancer. Professor Gordon Jayson has a PhD in medicine
and oncology, and he is currently teaching at the University of Oxford. He researches ovarian cancer for the Christie
NHS Foundation Trust that is an international foundation working to cure
cancer. Another author, Elise Kohn, is
a practicing physician (MD) and researcher that works for the Center for Cancer
Research at the National Cancer Institute in the U.S. The next author, Henry Kitchener, also is a
practicing physician (MD) and is a professor at the University of Manchester. He researches ovarian cancer at the Institute
of Cancer Studies in the United Kingdom.
The last author, Jonathan Ledermann, is a practicing physician (MD), an
affiliate of the UCL Cancer Institute, and a professor at the University
College London. After all this
credibility being set, why would official style still be used if not to
establish credibility?
This then begs the question
of who the audience of this article is to see why official style is still being
used. Ovarian cancer uses jargon,
long and complex sentence structures, prepositional phrases, coordination, and
passive voice. All of these are official
style strategies. And all these
strategies used helped make the article longer, more difficult to read, more
formal, and- most importantly- more official.
When considering the entirety of this article’s use of official style
strategies, we see an increase in how much harder it becomes to understand and
how that restricts its access to readers.
To understand the complex sentences
and grammar tools used, someone would need to at least be able to read at a
college level. Then, when we add in all
the specific and jargonistic medical terminology from diseases, treatments,
biological/cellular processes and structures, we limit the audience to a super
small group of individuals. These people
include other scientific researchers in this same field, medical professionals
like physicians, physician assistants and nurse practitioners also in this
field, or someone in the general public that happens to be well-versed on
epithelial ovarian cancer. Based on
these requirements, very little of the population will want to read this and
can understand this article. So, why is
official style being used if the goal of The Lancet is “to make science
widely available,” when it has only excluded more and more readers?
Other strategies of the official style present are the use
of the passive voice throughout since no personal pronouns are ever used. A sentence that shows the passive voice is,
“The management of epithelial ovarian cancer needs expertise in surgery,
chemotherapy, imaging, histopathology, and palliation; specialist
multidisciplinary teamwork is essential to achieve optimum outcomes”
(1376). We see that there is no active
voice in this sentence since the subject is “the management” and not an
individual or object but an action itself.
There are also prepositional phrases sprinkled throughout the article
like “with”, “is changing”, “in which there has been a decreasing”, “within”,
etc. Then, there is also the use of
coordination with conjunctions like “and”, “but”, “although”, “if”, “however”
and “for”. The strategies listed all
create longer and more complex sentences in this article as a tool of the
official style, which results in a much more difficult to understand text. This then leads to less readers going to the
trouble of understanding this text.
In conclusion, I am
confused as to what the purpose of official style being used is for. It has not helped in establishing credibility
other than showing off fancy writing and it has not increased reader turnout of
this article. Yet, it persists here and
in a vast majority of other scientific research articles in the same genre of
academic/scholarly texts. It could be to
further prove how smart and reliable the authors and/or publisher of this
article are, or it could have been the only way for peer-reviewers to approve
and accept this research if the authors used this style of writing. If that is the case, then it is something to
consider ethically that only one style of writing is acceptable despite the
information needing to be read and understood by as many people as possible. This then brings up more questions regarding
how official style is being used in other scientific articles to possibly
intentionally exclude readers, similar to how certain pharmaceutical companies
sell their products. But lastly, why do
you think the official style is being used in this article when it so clearly
does not need to be?
No comments:
Post a Comment