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.