On the importance of consistent word choice in academic writing (or your creative writing teacher was wrong). (Part One).
Early career colleagues often vary word choices when describing elements or concepts introduced in a paper.
Some variance is ok. For example, they might vary adjectives such as necessary, critical, and essential; this doesn't matter - much - bc they are conceptually indistinguishable - even though critical can be interpreted in more than one way - so I tell early career authors to use it judiciously.
However.
Varying words used to describe key ideas makes it harder for a reader (or reviewer) to quickly understand whom you are studying and what domain they are studying.
Variance in how you describe populations or a context you seek to generalize is not ok. For example, referring to technology users as individuals, consumers, users, employees, and more in the same paper results in a need for more clarity about your focus.
Where variance in description is not ok, variance in how you describe key concepts is inevitably fatal. For example, using two closely related terms to describe a concept, say satisfaction and contentment, introduces conceptual ambiguity into a paper.
Note, here I am specifically referring to how you label a concept in your paper.
If you are going to refer to something as "satisfaction", stick with it from the point of introduction through the remainder of the paper.
I recognize it is a bit boring - and likely would earn you a lower mark in an English writing class - but in technical, scientific writing, consistency is crucial - because it affects how a reader interprets your work.
Labeling constructs in a manner consistent with the broader literature you work in is of equal importance. If your field refers to a concept as satisfaction, stick to it. If you introduce the term "contentment", then you better be able to explain how it differs from satisfaction - even though they are synonyms.
So why should you write in a consistent, boring, not-so-very-exciting, clear way?
First, remember your in-discipline audience.
Most reviewers will be deep in a specific literature. You need to write in their love language - which often uses particular domain-specific terms.
You need to conform to the linguistic conventions of your field.
Second, remember your global audience.
Many reviewers come from all over the world. While very bright, many speak English as a second language.
When you vary word choices around key concepts, you make your work less accessible to readers and reviewers.
Third, remember your audience in practice.
As an author of a technical paper, your job is to convey complex concepts as simply as possible.
Consistent word choices, in accessible language, make it much simpler for a practitioner to glean insight from your paper.
See part two here: https://lnkd.in/eefg9t5h
Comments