Writing in active voice would make it easier for the reader to inject much needed "why?" and "Did you consider?" Questions. Casual readers would also begin to see the risk of the risky "follow the science" admonition.
That’s an interesting perspective I hadn’t considered, Jo. There’s the accessibility of the writing in active voice with respect to the reader’s comprehension, but what I think you’re saying extends beyond that to, “I understand and now I have questions.” Which is exactly what I would hope for as a way to further “democratize” science.
I like the idea a lot and it would take a good deal of critical thinking skills and compassion to interact with science in this way. I see potential benefits for thoughtful souls and pitfalls when trying to communicate with the public .
Both, but I was speaking more to society as a collective. So more the reader or general public- anyone who tends to cherry-pick information instead of having an open mind when approaching new concepts( so usually not scientists )
Love this question. With so much bias being unconscious, how could you even begin to root it out without actively looking for it and acknowledging it's role?
Right? If anything, I think I’m arguing for folks to begin reflecting more of what compels them to select a problem to explore, a way of addressing it, and so on. I do find you see more of this insight with qualitative researchers, who have to lay out those cards as evidence of their thought process and interpretation of interview transcripts or observational notes. There’s inference that’s not based on stats, and it makes a lot of folks uncomfortable.
Here’s a non-scientist’s take: as long as the writing still starts from an encounter with the natural world, I’m all for acknowledging and voicing the ways that subjectivity/bias comes into play. What I wouldn’t want to see is the writing starting from bias, and allowing bias to drive the formation of conclusions. Acknowledge bias, but don’t lead with it.
Interesting point and good clarification, Tom. There’s a need to highlight the difference between being driven by agenda, and acknowledging our unique lenses that shape our behaviour. It’s a fine distinction, to be sure.
Academic writing is so godawful most of the time, and I believe that definitely has something to do with the passive voice which most researchers use. No. Unbearable! I cannot read more poorly written articles (I will keep doing it, of course).
Writing in active voice would make it easier for the reader to inject much needed "why?" and "Did you consider?" Questions. Casual readers would also begin to see the risk of the risky "follow the science" admonition.
That’s an interesting perspective I hadn’t considered, Jo. There’s the accessibility of the writing in active voice with respect to the reader’s comprehension, but what I think you’re saying extends beyond that to, “I understand and now I have questions.” Which is exactly what I would hope for as a way to further “democratize” science.
I like the idea a lot and it would take a good deal of critical thinking skills and compassion to interact with science in this way. I see potential benefits for thoughtful souls and pitfalls when trying to communicate with the public .
Do you think the compassion and critical thinking is on the part of the scientist, the reader, or both?
Both, but I was speaking more to society as a collective. So more the reader or general public- anyone who tends to cherry-pick information instead of having an open mind when approaching new concepts( so usually not scientists )
Yeah, it can be challenging, especially to always have that unintended messaging in your mind as you craft your write-up.
Love this question. With so much bias being unconscious, how could you even begin to root it out without actively looking for it and acknowledging it's role?
Right? If anything, I think I’m arguing for folks to begin reflecting more of what compels them to select a problem to explore, a way of addressing it, and so on. I do find you see more of this insight with qualitative researchers, who have to lay out those cards as evidence of their thought process and interpretation of interview transcripts or observational notes. There’s inference that’s not based on stats, and it makes a lot of folks uncomfortable.
Here’s a non-scientist’s take: as long as the writing still starts from an encounter with the natural world, I’m all for acknowledging and voicing the ways that subjectivity/bias comes into play. What I wouldn’t want to see is the writing starting from bias, and allowing bias to drive the formation of conclusions. Acknowledge bias, but don’t lead with it.
Interesting point and good clarification, Tom. There’s a need to highlight the difference between being driven by agenda, and acknowledging our unique lenses that shape our behaviour. It’s a fine distinction, to be sure.
Academic writing is so godawful most of the time, and I believe that definitely has something to do with the passive voice which most researchers use. No. Unbearable! I cannot read more poorly written articles (I will keep doing it, of course).
Every time I cringe at another dense piece of science, I cringe again because I know you have to sift through SO MUCH MORE.
Related note, Mark DeLong kindly shared this article, which I think hits on a lot of the issues with science writing: https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-elements-of-scientific-style
I'm glad to hear that you are getting over your cold. :).
Thank you, Olga! Summer colds are always a bit much, I think 😅