Transparency and persuasion in academia

Photo by Marten Newhall on Unsplash

Key points

• Transparency should be valued over style
• We should avoid a writing style that strategically pre-empts criticism
• Paying attention to our and other scholars’ use of evaluative language can be a way to promote accountability and transparency

自分の研究を他人に説明する時、何に焦点を絞るだろうか。一般的に、学術論文を書く時、また会議で発表する時、分析手法・分析方法というよりかは、分析結果に焦点が当てられる。そういった研究結果は高い評価を得やすいからである。

しかし、そうすると、どのようにその結果を得たか、どの問題点を洗い出したか、どのように解消したかが読者に届かない。そこに問題がある。科学を振興させるために、明確にある研究方法の疑問点や問題点、解決していない事柄について提示する必要がある。

もう一つの大事な点は、学術論文の書き方である。例として、英語の論文を読んでみるとよく目の当たりにする‘it is obvious’「〜当然である」という表現が挙げられる。‘it is obvious’を使用すると、納得しない読者がいても、批判しにくくなる。それは研究結果、あるいはある理論が当たり前という前提で記述と、理解できない、または消化できない人は馬鹿にされると思うだろうからである。

要するに、研究内容を伝える時、できるだけわかりやすく、問題点を無視せずに伝えるべきである。そして、読者が遠慮なく研究の欠点を指摘できるように、‘it is obvious’のような表現の使い方を避けたほうがいいと考える。

On transparency in reporting research methods

This post is inspired by a piece written by Professor Jesse Egbert entitled “‘I tried’: Transparency in reporting methods”. In it, he argues in favour of transparent research methods, which also means acknowledging attempts, detours and limitations. Hence, the value of using expressions like “I tried”. I couldn’t agree more.

However, it seems to me that academics are divided on this. For example, in a peer review I have recently received, the anonymous reviewer commented precisely on my use of the verb “I tried” and similar constructions (e.g., “attempt”), arguing that they are not appropriate in academic writing. I have posted about it on Mastodon, and many interesting insights from other users came up.

I get the point of the reviewer. However, personally, I believe that transparency should be prioritised over style, especially in a context like academia, where we tend to focus on the results, occasionally sweeping methodological issues and limitations under the carpet. I believe that fear of criticism plays a big role in hindering us in reporting our methods as transparently as possible – but, possibly, the strategic promotion of a writing style that pre-empts criticism is also part of the story. This is clearly very problematic, and in the long term is not functional to the improvement of our research-self, nor to the incremental advances in knowledge we strive towards. This point is illustrated, among others, by Michael Hoey.

Hoey on Chomsky’s persuasive rhetoric

Back in 2000, Hoey examined Noam Chomsky’s writing in a contribution to the seminal volume “Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse” (Hunston & Thompson, eds.).

In his study, Hoey focuses on specific excerpts and convincingly argues that Chomsky’s use of evaluative words and phrases frames the given information as common knowledge, making it difficult for the reader to criticise him and his ideas. One example that nicely illustrates this is calling his own findings rather obvious, with the effect of making potential opponents afraid of missing the obvious. This is one of the many strategies one can use to make it difficult to others to comment on their work.

In sum

Many evaluative resources can be strategically used for inflating one own’s arguments or, conversely, deflating others’ viewpoints. Similarly, reports on methods that are not as transparent as they could/should may be deemed acceptable nonetheless. Now, whenever I read a piece of research, I try to notice whether the author pre-empts criticism of their ideas, either by a strategic (although not necessarily selfconscious) use of evaluative language, or by omitting important information on methods. Or, noticing when I am tempted to so do so myself, which should raise red flags. It is a great learning experience which will hopefully promote accountability and transparency.