Nonacademic writers face challenges<\/p>\n
By Inge Komardjaja<\/p>\n
BANDUNG (JP): In his article Writing needs more recognition,
\nA. Chaedar Alwasilah (The Jakarta Post, July 10, 1999) revealed
\nthe lack of writing ability in the academic realm in a clever
\nway.<\/p>\n
What about the problem in nonacademic organizations, where
\nwriting reports of applied research is part of the routine?<\/p>\n
Thus far, reports do not seem to possess qualities of
\nsignificant contributions to knowledge. Neither the writer nor
\nthe task giver are to be blamed for this shortcoming.<\/p>\n
Somehow the formal education system in schools and
\nuniversities, which emphasize repetitive rather than creative
\nthinking, have not really inspired students to give importance to
\nput forth their own ideas in writing. They memorize information
\nand follow the teacher's instructions. They are not required to
\nquestion and to think critically about the material they have
\nlearned.<\/p>\n
Such an education system does not introduce the students to
\noriginal thinking. The knowledge they demonstrate is a
\nreproduction of what they studied. This condition has undoubtedly
\ngiven rise to the problem of writing research reports.<\/p>\n
A researcher shares or exchanges research ideas with others by
\nspeaking or writing. In an oral presentation of research
\nfindings, the person is not so restricted by presentation rules
\nand conditions compared with written reports. Questions and
\ncomments from listeners are responded to with the help of the
\nspeaker's voice and body language.<\/p>\n
After all, the spoken language does not leave tangible
\nevidence, unless tape-recorded, and does not have to obey a
\nstrictly systematic way of thinking or the rules of grammar. One
\ncan easily correct or deny what one has said satisfactorily.<\/p>\n
Although it is expected that a speaker conveys the results of
\nresearch with reasoned arguments, the agreement to be accountable
\nfor what has been uttered is not as hard as it is in writing.
\nWhen writing, the writer has to be careful and thoughtful, as
\nwhat has been written cannot be changed instantly. Written work
\nis a reflection of a person's intelligence and an authentic
\nevidence of ideas and beliefs, which the audience will hold on
\nto. The writer has to transmit her\/his thoughts meaningfully to
\npeople who share the same interest and experience.<\/p>\n
Writing unclear and repetitive statements with superfluous
\nwords are indications that the research issues are not thoroughly
\nunderstood. Such a report hardly raises the enthusiasm of the
\nreader, as it does not offer specific and accurate descriptions
\nof problems, and thus no original information can be traced.<\/p>\n
Language is not only a tool to communicate, but also a tool to
\nthink. As everyday communication is about the appropriate use of
\ngrammar and vocabulary, a person's common sense portrays how
\nvarious facts, gained from personal experiences and reading, are
\ndeveloped and communicated. Language has the power to render
\npeople to read written material and to approve or to condemn its
\ncontent.<\/p>\n
Researchers need to be aware of this essential power if they
\nwish the audience to read and to comment on their reports. Hence,
\nto attract people's interest, a written report must carry the
\nqualities of correct grammar as well as critical views about the
\nwork.<\/p>\n
Many researchers fail to organize and present their ideas
\neffectively in writing, because the object is not to make reports
\nreadable and comprehensible, but to meet the administrative
\nrequirements of the fiscal year's research projects.<\/p>\n
Writing becomes more of a pressure than a challenge.
\nReluctance, ignorance and bewilderment are handicaps to formulate
\ncritical opinions and lead to descriptions with ambiguous ideas.
\nResearch that does not focus on specific aspects of the topic
\nwill result in writing that is too general and liable to be on
\nthe wrong track.<\/p>\n
Dunlop (1990) differentiates between neutral and critical
\nwriting. Neutral writing has a lot of definitions and quotes that
\nare taken from the encyclopedia, textbooks and research reports.
\nThe neutral writers copy, describe and summarize what has been
\nread. They do not question, judge or argue the collected facts
\nand information.<\/p>\n
In many instances, they literally cut parts of a text and
\npaste them to the report, and therefore seems not to have control
\nor authority over the content. Neutral writing becomes simply a
\nmeans to impart other people's ideas. It does not instigate
\ncreative thinking or the discovery of new solutions. Such writing
\ndoes not provide interesting information to the reader.<\/p>\n
Researchers of neutral writing do not think independently, but
\nrely entirely on other writers, whom they assumed are more
\nauthoritative in the knowledge of the particular subject. Neutral
\nwriters tend to emulate what people have already said and
\nreasoned. Unfortunately, many research organizations execute and
\napprove of neutral writing.<\/p>\n
A critical writer, by contrast, will firstly examine and
\ncompile facts and information before developing critical
\njudgment. This does not mean to censor written work, but to have
\nthe ability and effort to make careful or exact judgments.<\/p>\n
Critical thinkers judge their material for its worth or value
\n(Ballard and Clanchy, 1993). Judgment is preceded by a process of
\nanalyzing and inquiring into the research. This practice enables
\nthe researcher to write a critical report. Worries that critical
\nwriting is not objective due to imposing personal views on the
\nreaders should be converted into challenges to search for
\nevidence to substantiate the subjective statements.<\/p>\n
The writer should not hesitate to express her\/his own
\nexperience and thoughts as long as they are relevant to the
\nresearch. Substantiated personal views pave the way for
\nchallenging and original thinking, which make arguments
\nintriguing.<\/p>\n
In government research institutes, conducting policy research
\nis vital before it is used as a basis for making decisions. The
\nargument that policy research inclines to create neutral writing
\nis due to the fact that policies cannot be altered
\nunintentionally.<\/p>\n
Nonetheless, it remains the researcher's accountability to
\nanalyze critically the relationship between policies and evidence
\nand to judge its importance.<\/p>\n
To achieve the skill of critical writing is a long haul. The
\nresearcher needs determination and perseverance to yield writing
\nthat is worth the knowledge.<\/p>\n
The writer is a researcher at the Research Institute for Human
\nSettlements, Ministry of Public Works, Bandung.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/nonacademic-writers-face-challenges-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}