• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Worst academic writing of the year award.

USER

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 30, 2019
Messages
974
Likes
1,632
You're right, it is an intro. The blogger refers to it as an article, which I guess is close, if inexact. Looks like ecology is his field, which is funny, as that's my day job. Going on a rant about styles employed by people in other fields is a bit of a cheap shot. Maybe he needs to let off steam on the regular, as ecology can be depressing as fuck largely due to the forces described (if badly) by the people he's criticising. But digging a bit more his research history and interest don't run that way, he doesn't seem to care.
Interesting. Seeing that there has been an increasing intermingling between ecology and the humanities during the last 20 years (at least since Bruno Latour became popular for better and worse) I bet he is just a stubborn old guy set in his ways and is more reacting to changes in his field than anything else. It just doesn't make sense that he would not understand what is going on with that intro no matter how annoyingly written it is at points.

Seems like he was an outspoken atheist back when it was harder to be one so props to him, he can't be that bad and sounds like an interesting dude.

But, still, you don't want to come across as this.

i.kym-cdn.png
 
Last edited:

Alice of Old Vincennes

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 5, 2019
Messages
1,428
Likes
921
It's not that bad, really. This doesn't seem like it should have been published but it is perfectly understandable with a little effort. The problem is that it is super basic. I would expect this from overzealous freshmen at a humanities program. (I am someone that has graded many such papers.) The writer is simply trying to do too much in super simplified terms. You really can't charge this with being esoteric as it is not really engaging with any particular theoretical argument that is in contention or even using any real technical terms. Real theory brackets, it does not try to do everything and precision is a marker of professionalism. The writer is not really wrong in what he or she is saying--but he or she really isn't saying anything to begin with.

The writer of the blog sounds just as dumb to me with his comments. If this sends him to a frenzy maybe academia is not for him. Usually these types are angry failed or failing academics projecting their insecurities onto others.

If you want professional bad writing, read some Homi Bhabha.

Edit: just saw that the blogger used to teach at U. Chicago. Pretty surprising. Usually someone with that kind of a gig understands academic writing and doesn't take themself too seriously or get agitated by work such as this that will never be taken seriously. (Why would such a person be reading this????) But if someone from that school is still railing against "postmodernism" (which is no longer a thing or something that any serious academic has debated in 20 years, unless you are teaching Jameson that one class) I think they really aren't in the pit any more, hence frustrations. There is no clearer way to say that the last time you were were professionally engaged in the discourse was the 1990s.
Not bad? In old days used thesaurus for verbs. Your response really is only a notch up.
 

USER

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 30, 2019
Messages
974
Likes
1,632
Not bad? In old days used thesaurus for verbs. Your response really is only a notch up.
The argument was whether or not it is understandable and it is, ultimately. This was brought up as the worst writing of the year and anyone that has read seriously for a living in the academic context knows that this is simply not the case. It's disingenuous to argue that it is. I pretty much say that it is a worthless article again and again and walk you through how this is so, so I don't know what the issue is here other than maybe people projecting insecurities about reading ability?
 

Alice of Old Vincennes

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 5, 2019
Messages
1,428
Likes
921
The argument was whether or not it is understandable and it is, ultimately. This was brought up as the worst writing of the year and anyone that has read seriously for a living in the academic context knows that this is simply not the case. It's disingenuous to argue that it is. I pretty much say that it is a worthless article again and again and walk you through how this is so, so I don't know what the issue is here other than maybe people projecting insecurities about reading ability?
Wow. I missed the walk through.
 

voodooless

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
10,426
Likes
18,431
Location
Netherlands
But, still, you don't want to come across as this.

View attachment 187378
So your argument is that because it’s the new normal now there is no problem and anyone that does not go along is an old fart. Along those same lines I make the argument the other way around:
1645166420579.jpeg
 

Koloth

Active Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Messages
117
Likes
275
Location
Switzerland
So your argument is that because it’s the new normal now there is no problem and anyone that does not go along is an old fart. Along those same lines I make the argument the other way around:
View attachment 187386

Why do I get the impression that you're desperately trying to make this a political debate about the papers contents, which is not what we're talking about? :)
 

voodooless

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
10,426
Likes
18,431
Location
Netherlands
Why do I get the impression that you're desperately trying to make this a political debate about the papers contents, which is not what we're talking about? :)
I can't see how these two don't go together. From what I've read here, apparently, this style of writing is tough in school and goes along with the content of these papers. Contents and writing styles are interlinked. No normal academic paper describing some novel technical aspect of some system would ever use this kind of writing style.

Besides, I didn't start this argument. And no, I'm not desperate...
 
Last edited:

Axo1989

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 9, 2022
Messages
2,919
Likes
2,964
Location
Sydney
Interesting. Seeing that there has been an increasing intermingling between ecology and the humanities during the last 20 years (at least since Bruno Latour became popular for better and worse) I bet he is just a stubborn old guy set in his ways and is more reacting to changes in his field than anything else. It just doesn't make sense that he would not understand what is going on with that intro no matter how annoyingly written it is at points.

Seems like he was an outspoken atheist back when it was harder to be one so props to him, he can't be that bad and sounds like an interesting dude.

But, still, you don't want to come across as this.

View attachment 187378
Now it's coming back to me: I liked his evolution book, and similar advocacy of atheism versus religion. I am getting a stubborn old dude vibe from the various blog entries now though (it's basically an elaborate series of rants). I guess some become rigid with age and others mellow. A few ecologists I know just want to look at their microcosm and ignore the world. I understand but I'm not sympathetic. The trend to relate ecology and humanities is the inevitable result of the expanded scale of human activity and impact. I like ecology as study of complex dynamic systems, so setting arbitrary boundaries based on personal emotion and/or ideology is antithetical. It's only possible now to maintain the compartmentalised analysis in microcosm. The obvious analogy is looking at audio components while ignoring the room.
 
Last edited:

TLEDDY

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 4, 2019
Messages
644
Likes
881
Location
Central Florida

Wow!

Try and read a few paragraphs of this paper. We don't need to discuss any politics or anything of some of the topics mentioned. Just look at the writing and try to comprehend what the heck these paragraphs are supposed to be saying. Someone worked on this and thought it meant something and someone published it.

At best it reminds me of a grad student who has been pulling all-nighters for two weeks would write this and after finally sleeping for a couple of nights wouldn't understand what they had written.
Ok guys... This has to be a put-on!

Decades ago there was “The Journal of Irreproducible Results”. Written by wags of all types, but the skrivenings were usually hilarious! Not to mention, far better than this drivel.

Outside, in the far distance, a maggot is heard gagging.
 

SIY

Grand Contributor
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
10,550
Likes
25,418
Location
Alfred, NY
Ok guys... This has to be a put-on!

Decades ago there was “The Journal of Irreproducible Results”. Written by wags of all types, but the skrivenings were usually hilarious! Not to mention, far better than this drivel.

Outside, in the far distance, a maggot is heard gagging.
Nope. My earlier quip was serious.
 

mansr

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
4,685
Likes
10,705
Location
Hampshire
I'm surprised they didn't manage to work "reify" into it somehow (at least in those quoted paragraphs). In my experience, use of that word is highly correlated with pseudo-intellectual drivel of the type this text is trying to be.
 

pozz

Слава Україні
Forum Donor
Editor
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
4,036
Likes
6,828
"Academic writing is not writing." Said a professor I worked with. In the sense that it's goal isn't to communicate generally, but to specific audiences. It's goals aren't immediately obvious and end up pushing the style into certain directions.

How good do you expect your judgment to be if you don't know the field?
 

mansr

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
4,685
Likes
10,705
Location
Hampshire
I don't the impression that the text under discussion is intended to communicate at all. If it was, it wouldn't need to use convoluted language in order to hide that it isn't actually saying anything.
 

pozz

Слава Україні
Forum Donor
Editor
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
4,036
Likes
6,828
I don't the impression that the text under discussion is intended to communicate at all. If it was, it wouldn't need to use convoluted language in order to hide that it isn't actually saying anything.
Most of the language is idiomatic. It assumes familiarity on the part of the reader. So much so that it turns into dense mush. The main weakness is that the writers have not found a method of generalization they are comfortable with and insist on mentioning every connection individually.

There's a term for this kind of work: minor literature. If you spent time in any research library and picked books randomly from shelves most tends to fall under that category. It's hard to understand why it was published until you realize that you don't know enough of the specifics, the reaction of the writers to this or that intellectual trend.
 

Koloth

Active Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Messages
117
Likes
275
Location
Switzerland
While I maintain my disdain for this particular piece of writing, I would also like to point out that most scientific literature is highly esoteric. No one would expect to be able to just pick up and understand a journal article on chemistry, nuclear physics, game theory, etc. without substantial education in the field. We certainly wouldnt criticize these disciplines for being intentionally obtuse, vacuous etc.
It is a distinct feature of the humanities that everyday joe feels like he should be able to understand ( and even participate in discourse on) whats being said about history, society, culture, thought etc. After all he is part of history, society, culture, thought, etc.
(I dont even fundamentally disagree with Average Joes demand: For the humanities to achieve their purpose and to reach a broader audience it is a good thing to hold them to a higher standard of understandability and even literary quality than publications on cell biology. (Thats why historiography is so clearly superior to and more honest than sociology btw :D ). Its just that the inverse isnt true: Merely because a text is unreadable to a layman doesnt mean its empty or mere posturing.
 

mansr

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
4,685
Likes
10,705
Location
Hampshire
While I maintain my disdain for this particular piece of writing, I would also like to point out that most scientific literature is highly esoteric. No one would expect to be able to just pick up and understand a journal article on chemistry, nuclear physics, game theory, etc. without substantial education in the field. We certainly wouldnt criticize these disciplines for being intentionally obtuse, vacuous etc.
Let's have a look, shall we. Here's the first paragraph of a random recent article on chemistry:
Nanomaterials that generate reactive oxygen species (ROS) upon light irradiation play crucial roles in a plethora of areas, such as photocatalysis, pollution treatment, fine chemical synthesis, and photodynamic therapy (PDT). (1−4) However, most of these materials lack the capability to be excited by light of relatively long wavelength, especially near-infrared (NIR) light. For example, nanosemiconductors such as TiO2, which are commonly used in photocatalysis, respond to wavelengths shorter than 387.5 nm because they have a band gap of 3.2 eV. (5) By engineering of defect energy levels, the absorption could be marginally expanded to over 400 nm. (6−8) The efficiency of utilizing sunlight would therefore be limited, as visible and NIR light accounts for over 90% of the energy of solar radiation. (9,10) In parallel, most organic photosensitizers employed in PDT are excited by wavelengths shorter than approximately 700 nm. (11,12) Because visible light cannot easily penetrate biotissues, (13) a metal-containing tetrapyrrolic photosensitizer, padeliporfin, was developed to function under NIR irradiation (λex = 753/763 nm), (14,15) initiating the exploration of long-wavelength-light stimulation. Furthermore, a few molecules/nanoparticles, such as indocyanine green (16) and CuS, (17,18) have been discovered to generate ROS upon NIR irradiation, although the absorbed energy would be partially consumed by the photothermal effect. (19) Alternatively, upconversion nanoparticles have been applied as the carriers of classical photosensitizers, resulting in ROS production under irradiation with NIR lasers. (20−22) Despite this progress, it should be mentioned that no single sensitizer or light source is ideal for all applications. (4) Therefore, seeking alternative ROS-generating materials that can be stimulated by NIR light is still warranted for diverse applications.

That wasn't so bad, was it? Although I don't know what many of the things discussed are, it is still mostly plain English following a normal sentence structure.
 

ahofer

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
5,062
Likes
9,178
Location
New York City
This reminds me to get going on my "Decolonizing High-End Audio" article.
 
Top Bottom