Suggestions for Good Academic Writing

As a doctoral learner, discovering professors' expectations for submitted assignments can only be achieved by a thorough knowledge of the university's and professors' writing rudiments.  Doctoral learners' pre-assessment of these rudiments requires an in-depth review of peer-reviewed articles, using references such as the American Psychological Association's (APA) Manual, and other reliable resources.  In addition, gaining and applying such knowledge when writing affords doctoral learners opportunities for introspection as well as intellectual and academic growth as degree requirements are further achieved.   

      This paper presents an analysis of (1) how academic professionals gain insight into good academic writing, (2) common mistakes by academic writers, (3) criticisms against poor academic writing, and (4) solutions for avoiding poor academic writing.  Analyzing and critiquing sources, which elaborate upon good writing mechanics as provided by the APA and other reliable references, creates a standardized across-the-board utility when academic writing is required and produced for evaluation.  Knowledge of common writing mistakes, and how to avoid such mistakes provides writers with the basic and advanced skills required for today's doctoral learners' writing activities.  

Academic Professionals' Identification of Good Academic Writing

           Completing years of post-secondary education, and gaining practice as an academic professional, does not necessarily enable academic professionals and students to have an ability to discern good academic writing.  However, if academic professionals and students supplement reading and writing skills by reference materials such as the 6^th Edition of the American Psychological Association's (APA) Manual (2010), the web sites of The Little Brown Handbook and The Online English Grammar Guide as well as from libraries, and other reliable sources, significant reading and writing expertise is gained.  Furthermore, academic professionals and students who seek resources appraised by peers gain assurance that the material presented is reliable.  However, it is of the utmost importance that when reviewing such material that one impose critical thinking skills, and not assume that what is written and peer-reviewed is necessarily correct.

           For example, Anonymous' (2010) composition recounts examples from the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest, the brain-child of the English Department at San Jose State University sponsoring the contest, which is "a whimsical literary competition that challenges entrants to compose the opening sentence to the worst of all possible novels" (para 6).  While this article is locatable in the ProQuest database, the article is not peer-reviewed nor is Kelly's (1999) or Smith's (1999) articles according to ProQuest.  However, Kelly (1999) notes that Professor Sokal, a New York University physics professor, was "published in a respected journal, Social Text, (which) was thoroughly researched and footnoted, but was essentially nonsense" (para 3).  Professor Sokal (Kelly, 1999) purposely wrote his article as a test for the staff at Social Text to see if his thesis would be challenged, and remarkably, it was not.  While peer-reviewed articles offer academic professionals a means to evaluate good academic writing, academic professionals must frequently evaluate non-peer-reviewed student compositions, which requires the use of expertise attained using other means such as from the APA (2010) as previously mentioned.     

Common Writing Mistakes of Academic Writers

            Academic writers' common writing mistakes include attributes such as dense, "obscure, often incomprehensible writing" (Kelly, 1999, para 2), "jargon-filled" rhetoric (para 11), and "incomprehensible sentence structure" (Smith, 1999, para 1).  In addition, academic writers frequently avoid authenticity while writing because it "requires more courage and more hard work than being educated since it can only be achieved by standing alone from, and by becoming independent of, those surrounding communal voices and texts" (Badley, 2008, p. 364).  Badley (2008) also wrote that "less proficient writers tend to write syntheses by simply borrowing sentences and connecting information from each source, without elaboration and integration" (p. 422).  Badley's (2008) research demonstrated that "When considering top-level (composition) structure, paragraphing, topic sentences and use of conclusion, students’ pre-test written syntheses scarcely met the structural criteria of a good exposition" (p. 434 ). 

Criticisms of Poor Academic Writers

           Smith (1999) wrote that "scholars (are) increasingly making themselves irrelevant" (para 7).  In an attempt to fit ideological agendas, academic writers change the structure of words and sentences, which distorts meaning (Smith, 1999).  Kelly (1999) indicates that a "major factor in tolerance of bad writing has been a lack of hard-nosed editing by academic journals" (para 18).  More up-to-date evaluations of academic writing provides insight about whether improvements in academic writing prevail or not since 1999.  For example, Addison and McGee (2010) wrote that "college faculty are not adequately preparing students for required writing tasks in the private or government sector" (p. 164), and recommend that "an online peer-reviewed journal (be) established that allows for more timely and detailed reports than possible with print publications" (p. 171).  A preponderance for academic writers to make writing mistakes continues as they create "incomprehensible writing and factionalism, resulting even more in their diminishment and incoherence" (Smith, 1999, para 2).

Avoiding Poor Academic Writing

            The focus of good academic writing is well stated by James Cook University (2011): "Good writing is unambiguous. The reader does not have to make a choice about what the writer possibly means" (James Cook University, 2011, para 24), and ambiguousness is avoided by using concrete rather than abstract terms (Australia's James Cook University, 2011).  The James Cook University (2011) summarizes other core principles and characteristics for academic writing.  Core principles include a "reader-centred approach, outlining and drafting, a clear layout, logical presentation of material, pre-emption of reader’s questions, parallel structure, concise writing, precise details and information as well as good grammar, spelling and punctuation" (para 6).  Characteristics of academic writing include that "all statements can be supported by evidence; paragraphs have a single, but developed, theme; paragraphs begin with a theme sentence; (contain) neutral language; omit slang and jargon; avoid pronouns; (have a) judicious use of adjectives; (contain) precise information, verbs and word choice" (James Cook University, 2011, para 9). 

            Addison and McGee (2010) further indicated that college faculty identified "the five most important characteristics of good writing as…organization…analysis data/ideas/arguments, and use of supporting evidence" (p. 166).  Supporting the five characteristics is the systematic step-by-step writing process, which includes prewriting, higher order concerns, lower order concerns, and editing.  By learning and applying proven writing processes, poor academic writing is avoided.

Conclusion

            This paper presented an analysis of (1) how academic professionals gain insight into good academic writing, (2) common mistakes by academic writers, (3) criticisms against poor academic writing, and (4) solutions for avoiding poor academic writing.  Analyzing and critiquing sources, which elaborate upon good writing mechanics as provided by the APA and other reliable references, creates a standardized across-the-board utility when academic writing is required and produced for evaluation.  Knowledge of common writing mistakes, and how to avoid such mistakes provides writers with the basic and advanced skills required for today's doctoral learners' writing activities.  

References:

Addison, J., & McGee, S.J. (2010, September). Writing in high school/writing in college: Research trends and future directions. College Composition and Communication, (62)1, p. 147. Retrieved January 9, 2011, from ProQuest.
        
Anonymous (2010, April 3). Robert Rector: Bad writing gets its just reward. San Gabriel Valley Tribune. Retrieved January 8, 2011, from ProQuest.

American Psychological Association (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association, 6^th Ed. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Badley, G. (2008). Developing (authentic?) academic writers. Quality Assurance in Education, (16), 4, p. 363. Retrieved January 10, 2011, from ProQuest.

James Cook University (2011). What is effective academic writing? Retrieved January 9, 2011, from https://egrs.jcu.edu.au/workshops/

academic-writing-workshops/what-is-effective-academic-writing

 

Kelly, R. (1999, April 8). Bad blood over bad writing: Critics say US academic language has become so convoluted that it is largely incomprehensible to the point where argument is becoming impossible. The Irish Times, p. 15. Retrieved January 8, 2011, from Proquest.

 
Smith, D. (1999, March 7). Academic: When the writing is bad, ideas get lost. Winston - Salem Journal, p. 17. Retrieved January 8, 2011, from ProQuest