09.17.06

Becker, H.S. (1996) Writing for social scientists - 2 readings

Posted in Academic Style, Annotated References - Class readings at 9:19 pm by youngsah

Becker, H. S. (1986). Freshman English for graduate students. In Writing for social scientists (pp. 1-25). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

This chapter discussed a class the author had taught about writing for grad students and others. Through various activities, he found that students often engaged in magical rituals and feared criticism of their writing. Also, in this chapter, the pattern of the 1 draft paper is described and criticized and students go through peer revisions.

I smiled at the passage describing the magical rituals. I don’t think I know anyone that doesn’t have them. For me it’s always been more about the mood or state I’m in than anything I’m doing in particular.

The reality of that passage reminds me of a scene in the movie Adaptation where the thought of a muffin distracts Charlie Kaufman (played by Nicholas Cage) from the writing process entirely.

Also, I do have a tendency to be a bit wordy in my writing (especially for school) so the section on editing down a paper section from 4 pages to ¾ of a page made me smirk a bit. It’s amazing sometimes that so much of what we say is just flowery filler.

Becker, H. S. (1986). Persona and authority. In Writing for social scientists (pp. 26-42). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

This chapter discussed a student’s conceptions of what scholarly writing was. This vignette was a lead in and helped describe what students (and some faculty) think that scholarly writing is. At one point, the student wrote a paper on what she thought “classy” writing was.

It’s interesting, in part because as I type this Microsoft word has tried to formalize my writing a bit. (“Also” was not good enough. It wanted me to use “In Addition”). I’ve always found it interesting that science is written one way for scientists/researchers and another for laypersons. Jargon and cant are things that are hard to avoid when talking to scientists/researchers but in addition to that, there are still differences.



Comments are closed.