I am advised by one, an American, not my Promoter, whose academic background should qualify him well to express such an opinion, that my dissertation writing should be at 9th grade level of readability. He does not reference concepts nor the usage of terminology germane to the subject, these unavoidably must be used. He speaks rather of things like sentence length or simplicity of expression. So, I now am busy making simple sentences out of compounds , and I am cutting away at the overweight style of composition. Yet as I look at the literature in my field, as ,eg, technical journals, few others seem to attempt to simplify. So, does this seem right for a dissertation to be composed at 9th grade level of readability?
I am amazed that you were told this. I took paragraphs at random from a George Mason University PhD thesis and a NCU PhD thesis and ran them a thru MS Word grammar check. Both scored a 12 on the Flech-Kincaid reading level. (Incidently this response is a level 7!!!!!!!!!!!)
The guy was politely trying to suggest that Bill could make his turgid prose a little easier to read.
== I also was surprised. I am guessing that a 12 on the F-K is not 9th grade level, and the score is based on word and sentence length. Is that right?? Here's an example of what I am now doing today with my chapter 2. From: "Grassmick supports this observation about the limitation of etymological inquiry as a determinant of meaning when he writes, 'The etymology of a word is not a statement about its meaning but about its history.' " To: "Grassmick supports this observation. He writes, 'The etymology of a word is not a statement about its meaning but about its history.'" I suppose the revised is more easily understood and says about the same thing. Yet when I pick up and read in one of the journals of my discipline...... "Chronicling the debate surrounding the 1997 revelation of Zondervan's plans to produce a gender-inclusive version of the NIV, Carson notes that complementarian scholars (such as himself) broke with the leading complementarian organization, the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 'because they disagreed with its tightly linking the issue of complementarianism to that of gender-inclusive translations.' " ......then, I wonder if my editing down the readability of my work by sentence chopping etc. will make me appear more of a bozo than I already appear to be.
Out of curiousity, I checked the Flech-Kincaid level on my MTh dissertation. It scored a 12. My British supervisor never expressed any concerns about the level at which my dissertation was composed. On occasion, he did make suggestions with a view to encouraging me toward greater "smoothness" of style. More specifically, he periodically drew my attention to elements of style that seemed perfectly acceptable to me as an American, yet which he insisted would come off as "abrupt" to British readers. I appreciated this input and took it to heart. In my case the end result was very good: my dissertation was well received and has been placed in the National Library of Wales.
Dear Mr. Grover: Greetings. Regarding (part of) your last post: I suspect that the lack of "simplicity" in the papers you are familiar with stems from the fact that those papers were never written to be read. Like your dissertation, the papers were doubtlessly written because their authors needed to have a paper published: the needs of the hapless reader (in the unlikely event that there ever would be a reader) were of no importance. Mr. Perrin, proprietor and instructor at www.writingschool.com, has attempted to make a career out of teaching "simple" writing. If only he had more success! (To the extent that I can remember it <g>, I highly recommend his Technical Writing course. You basically wind up paying $200 for his study guide, but it's $200 well spent!) I don't think that "simple" is quite the word for what you (possibly) should be aiming for (IMHO). I prefer Mr. Strunk's description which can be found at http://www.bartleby.com/141/strunk5.html#13. Aside: How fortunate we are that Regional Accreditors would never allow un-doctored men like Mr. Strunk or Mr. Perrin to teach in a respectable American university! Cordially, Richard Kanarek P.S. Good luck!
Mr. Kanarek By "simple" I meant in structure as opposed to a complex or a compound sentence. That is, I am making more sentences with no subordinate clauses. Thanks for those sites. I got some ideas from the second. Unfortunately, as I intend to be done with the disseretation in 10-11 more months, I have not time to take a course in writing. I think my lack of clarity was my critic's concern. I'm not sure that I agree that , at least in my field, journal article authors or even writers of dissertations think their works will not read. But I'm sure you and others, as my critic, are right that even complex ideas can be expressed in understandable manners. Perhaps those writers who best understand their topics are often more clear.
That is a term that we use in sexual battery cases to describe the state of a suspects, uhhhh, physical anatomy.
Dear Mr. Grover: I would prefer it if you did not think of me as your "critic," but as your distant, electronic pal! <g> Or, even better, as that little voice in the back of your head that the psychotropics just can't seem to eliminate! <g> Cordially, Richard Kanarek
Dear Mr. Grover: I would prefer it if you did not think of me as your "critic," but as your distant, electronic pal! <g> Or, even better, as that little voice in the back of your head that the psychotropics just can't seem to eliminate! <g> Cordially, Richard Kanarek
=== ??? Mr. Kanarek I did not call you , "...my critic." I guess I still write unclearly. I thought I distinguished you from him in my post to you above by saying, "...you and others as my critic." "You and others " cannot ="critic" as that noun is singular. In the first post and in the above post to you I defined "my critic" as the one who is reading my dissertation. Since you are not reading my dissertation, you are not he. I simply grouped you with him as one who valued simplicity of written expression. I never said you were critical. I would be happy to think of you as my pal, and I appreciate your posts in this thread. As for being a voice in my head, well, it's already very stuffed with voices ranging from Tertullian's to Barth's. Thanks,
KISS!! When I was fdoing my own PhD (in the UK) I was told KISS( keep it simple stupid!). I have recommended the KISS approach to my doctoral students ever since! It is true that there exists a 'fog index' - that is, the extent to which the main thrust/idea of what is being stated is clear and simple to understand or is surrounded by words and jargon that take the reader away from the main concepts. I recall watching a Cagney and Lacey Tv episode in which the two detectives went from New York to LA in California to pick uo a prisoner. They arrived at the LA police station and asked for the guy. They were told by the chief of polce that the man was: Temporarily out of custody! Cagney replied, "You mean he has escaped!" I've not forgotten this episode! Likewise with academic writing. Half the battle is learning how to write concisely but intelligently! KISS! AJJ
In a book called "Discovery of the Mind", Walter Kaufmann tells how Kant's tortured German style was copied and became standard German academic prose. Since Kant was profound, and his writing style was opaque, anything opaquely written must be profound. Bill, this is not a shot at your writing. It's a general observation.
