Nonacademic writers face challenges

Nonacademic writers face challenges

By Inge Komardjaja

BANDUNG (JP): In his article Writing needs more recognition,
A. Chaedar Alwasilah (The Jakarta Post, July 10, 1999) revealed
the lack of writing ability in the academic realm in a clever
way.

What about the problem in nonacademic organizations, where
writing reports of applied research is part of the routine?

Thus far, reports do not seem to possess qualities of
significant contributions to knowledge. Neither the writer nor
the task giver are to be blamed for this shortcoming.

Somehow the formal education system in schools and
universities, which emphasize repetitive rather than creative
thinking, have not really inspired students to give importance to
put forth their own ideas in writing. They memorize information
and follow the teacher's instructions. They are not required to
question and to think critically about the material they have
learned.

Such an education system does not introduce the students to
original thinking. The knowledge they demonstrate is a
reproduction of what they studied. This condition has undoubtedly
given rise to the problem of writing research reports.

A researcher shares or exchanges research ideas with others by
speaking or writing. In an oral presentation of research
findings, the person is not so restricted by presentation rules
and conditions compared with written reports. Questions and
comments from listeners are responded to with the help of the
speaker's voice and body language.

After all, the spoken language does not leave tangible
evidence, unless tape-recorded, and does not have to obey a
strictly systematic way of thinking or the rules of grammar. One
can easily correct or deny what one has said satisfactorily.

Although it is expected that a speaker conveys the results of
research with reasoned arguments, the agreement to be accountable
for what has been uttered is not as hard as it is in writing.
When writing, the writer has to be careful and thoughtful, as
what has been written cannot be changed instantly. Written work
is a reflection of a person's intelligence and an authentic
evidence of ideas and beliefs, which the audience will hold on
to. The writer has to transmit her/his thoughts meaningfully to
people who share the same interest and experience.

Writing unclear and repetitive statements with superfluous
words are indications that the research issues are not thoroughly
understood. Such a report hardly raises the enthusiasm of the
reader, as it does not offer specific and accurate descriptions
of problems, and thus no original information can be traced.

Language is not only a tool to communicate, but also a tool to
think. As everyday communication is about the appropriate use of
grammar and vocabulary, a person's common sense portrays how
various facts, gained from personal experiences and reading, are
developed and communicated. Language has the power to render
people to read written material and to approve or to condemn its
content.

Researchers need to be aware of this essential power if they
wish the audience to read and to comment on their reports. Hence,
to attract people's interest, a written report must carry the
qualities of correct grammar as well as critical views about the
work.

Many researchers fail to organize and present their ideas
effectively in writing, because the object is not to make reports
readable and comprehensible, but to meet the administrative
requirements of the fiscal year's research projects.

Writing becomes more of a pressure than a challenge.
Reluctance, ignorance and bewilderment are handicaps to formulate
critical opinions and lead to descriptions with ambiguous ideas.
Research that does not focus on specific aspects of the topic
will result in writing that is too general and liable to be on
the wrong track.

Dunlop (1990) differentiates between neutral and critical
writing. Neutral writing has a lot of definitions and quotes that
are taken from the encyclopedia, textbooks and research reports.
The neutral writers copy, describe and summarize what has been
read. They do not question, judge or argue the collected facts
and information.

In many instances, they literally cut parts of a text and
paste them to the report, and therefore seems not to have control
or authority over the content. Neutral writing becomes simply a
means to impart other people's ideas. It does not instigate
creative thinking or the discovery of new solutions. Such writing
does not provide interesting information to the reader.

Researchers of neutral writing do not think independently, but
rely entirely on other writers, whom they assumed are more
authoritative in the knowledge of the particular subject. Neutral
writers tend to emulate what people have already said and
reasoned. Unfortunately, many research organizations execute and
approve of neutral writing.

A critical writer, by contrast, will firstly examine and
compile facts and information before developing critical
judgment. This does not mean to censor written work, but to have
the ability and effort to make careful or exact judgments.

Critical thinkers judge their material for its worth or value
(Ballard and Clanchy, 1993). Judgment is preceded by a process of
analyzing and inquiring into the research. This practice enables
the researcher to write a critical report. Worries that critical
writing is not objective due to imposing personal views on the
readers should be converted into challenges to search for
evidence to substantiate the subjective statements.

The writer should not hesitate to express her/his own
experience and thoughts as long as they are relevant to the
research. Substantiated personal views pave the way for
challenging and original thinking, which make arguments
intriguing.

In government research institutes, conducting policy research
is vital before it is used as a basis for making decisions. The
argument that policy research inclines to create neutral writing
is due to the fact that policies cannot be altered
unintentionally.

Nonetheless, it remains the researcher's accountability to
analyze critically the relationship between policies and evidence
and to judge its importance.

To achieve the skill of critical writing is a long haul. The
researcher needs determination and perseverance to yield writing
that is worth the knowledge.

The writer is a researcher at the Research Institute for Human
Settlements, Ministry of Public Works, Bandung.