Respectful Academic Writing.

Posted on by Dr Karen E McAulay
'RESPECT'

I wrote my conference paper a couple of weeks ago. Timed it, trimmed the word-count, timed it again. (Repeat that a few times!) And then today, something occurred to me. Not all at once, no. In stages, let’s say. To start with, it was just a question of technology: wouldn’t it be better, I mused, if I used the tablet rather than a wad of paper? On went the tablet. And (not that I noticed at first) off again. I eventually realised that it needed charging – it’s ages since I last used it. Whilst I waited for it to become functional again, I looked at my paper one last time, thinking I’d just make sure it was absolutely perfect before I looked at it on a different gadget.

And that’s when I spotted it – I could call it a major faux pas, or I could blame it on my generation.  Well, that’s a cheap excuse, isn’t it? Not acceptable. If I want to be accepted as a scholar who is still on the ball, still at the top of her game, then I can’t lamely whimper that I didn’t realise what I was doing was disrespectful …

Equality

It’s a relatively recent academic writing protocol, and one that was long overdue: men and women should be written about with equal respect. By that, I mean that if you wouldn’t refer to Elgar as Edward, then you can’t justify calling Mary Wollstonecraft, just Mary.  Elgar is Elgar, and Wollstonecraft is Wollstonecraft.  Otherwise, it’s not only disrespectful, but diminishes the woman’s standing.

Mary-Anne Smith, Rose B. Smith, Jane Sillars, Flora Woodman …

Now, in my paper, I’m not talking about big names like Elgar or Wollstonecraft.  But I realised that I’d fallen into the trap. Mary-Anne, Rose, Jane and Flora deserved better. They needed their last names.  So I got stuck in.

It’s just a bit more complex than you’d think, especially when you are not only writing about the women, but are also mentioning their menfolk. You can’t refer to three different Smiths as plain, ‘Smith’. But ‘Mr, Mrs and Miss Smith’ doesn’t work, especially when Miss Smith kept her ‘Smith’ professionally after marriage. 

Then there’s the unmarried mother who identified as ‘a widow’ in at least one official document – but married some years later. At which point her daughter’s name changed. (Had she actually got married another time before the marriage I know about, wouldn’t her daughter’s name have changed then, too? But it didn’t, so I’m taking it that ‘widow’ was being used diplomatically. We’re talking of the Edwardian era.)  In any case, her marital status is of absolutely no concern to me, but I am concerned that she and her daughter are called the right names at the right time!

Need I continue? 

And, grammatically, if two individuals with the same last name get mentioned in the same sentence, then either you need to use first names as well, or rephrase for clarity. ‘Her daughter’ and ‘her mother’ are very useful substitutes!

Sometimes it’s just a question of being pragmatic. I haven’t, indeed I couldn’t excise all stand-alone first names.  But I think I’ve improved it. I’ve shown due respect to all the individuals I’ve written about – most of them women.

I do believe I’ve finished my revisions!

Book Revision. Unneccessary Expressions

Posted on by Dr Karen E McAulay
Teddy bear sitting on piano keyboard, holding an embroidered postcard which reads 'Thoughts'

Allow me to introduce an expressionless bear! Generally, I consider his expression to be concerned and reassuring, but today he seems to display no expression whatsoever. Which is appropriate for a blog post about unneccessary expressions.

I would like to have begun with an earnest introduction, explaining that this is part of a series of blog posts intended to help newcomers to scholarly writing. Indeed, I do wish to help you, and I’d love to write that series, but at the moment, my focus is on my book deadline in six days’ time. So, this posting is just a collection of thoughts arising from my second edit of the book draft! It might still be helpful – I do hope so.

In the second week of my intensive book revision fortnight, I’m on the warpath for unneccessary expressions. I still needed to lose a few words in order to meet the deadline of 75,000 words, so I’ve been compiling a glossary of terms best either avoided or used sparingly!

  • ‘Always with an eye for an opportunity’. Cancel that cliche!
  • ‘At this time‘. If you’ve already defined the time-frame, there’s no need to over-egg the pudding!
  • ‘Essentially‘.  No, that word has to go.  The genre either was, or wasn’t a hybrid form.  No ‘essentially’ about it. Same applies to ‘Evidently’.
  • ‘In actual fact’. Basically, if it’s a fact, it’s a fact, and doesn’t need to be labelled as one. (If it’s a surprising or unexpected fact, fair enough.)
  • And here I am, overdoing  ‘Indeed‘ again, too.  I can’t have seven ‘indeeds’ in one chapter!
  • ‘Interestingly,’ …? Obviously it’s interesting or it shouldn’t be there.  Another word down!
  • ‘… is on record as having performed’. ‘Performed’ would do!
  • ‘It is clear that‘. This is just padding, the same as ‘evidently‘. A quick way to lose four words (or one!).
  • ‘More significantly in the present context‘ – oh, this is a good one! Six unneccessary words. Just say what you’re going to say.
  • ‘Repertoire‘. Use judiciously. ‘Song and dance repertoire’ can often be encapsulated in ‘Song and dance’!
  • ‘… seems to‘. Stop prevaricating! Does it or doesn’t it? Keep this expression for when you’re really not sure.
  • ‘Specifically‘ is often a redundant word (said she,  just deleting another one).
  • ‘… was groundbreaking in being one of the first‘. Okay, she was one of the first. ‘Groundbreaking’ can be taken as read. Three more words gone.
  • ‘… would also have been‘. Or, more concisely, ‘was’!

Acceptable Informality? Or Not …

I had a feeling that I shouldn’t really be writing that something was ‘in your face’; nor that we ‘should call out’ something that is now politically incorrect or considered offensive. So, I’m afraid I asked Chat GPT what it thought!

I consider myself enlightened now. ‘In your face’ is apparently unacceptably informal in scholarly writing, so I won’t use it.

However, I can call out whatever I like, with impunity. There you go, then!