Academic Discourse: Community or Communities - Literature review Example

Current debate in academia focuses on the issue whether researchers in different fields of knowledge understand each other. Different scholars express their opinions trying to find connections between different professional fiends in order to organize them in a comprehensive system and make them collaborate. Need for understanding between different scientific fields become critical considering the fact that there are many new specific areas of research which need to be understood and applied practically in a broader context. This essay will show that despite the difference between areas of research, people who belong to different academic backgrounds can understand each other appealing to commonsense example and using general vocabulary to deliver their thoughts to people. Contrary to the idea presented in thesis, David R. Russell argues people who belong to different academic fields can hardly find a common ground. In the essay Academic Discourse: Community or Communities, he presents the idea that all unified approaches to writing courses are not effective. He criticizes educators who nostalgically refer to "the golden age" of literacy where taught following the same curriculum because the selectiveness of educational establishments was higher. Liberal approach to education allows more people from different backgrounds to get higher education. All these people have different aims and specializations which require certain specific language. In this way, they need to be taught differently. Specific approaches to writing within different academic fields make it difficult for researchers to understand each other. Overall, Russell states that considering significant differences between academic fields, teaching writing should be field-specific. It is difficult not to agree with Russell that different academic communities have their specific requirements to writing. He states that academic community is subdivided into “disciplinary communities of subcommunities” which define their border by shared linguistic forms (328). For instance, linguists focus on poetic language and it analysis while professionals in building and construction sphere need to cope with technical documentation writing and formatting. If to ask an engineer to write an essay for Creative Writing course, they would struggle to write even the introductory paragraph. The same situation happens when linguists need to write technical documentation in Building and Construction. These two spheres are radically different and, according to Russell, linguists and engineers can hardly understand each other or assess each others works. Such a narrow point of view at academic discourse communities leads to categorical conclusion that linguists will never understand engineers. Constructions and building engineers will have difficulties understanding IT professionals. There will be no common ground between lawyers and philosophers. In reality, there are many ways in which professional communication from different spheres intersect and people understand each other. Despite their different use of language within their academic community, there are certain linguistic features which make their works understandable for general audience. According to Booth, the key of understanding is represented by academic rhetoric. The use of language can effectively determine significance of academic research and make it clear from people who do not share the same academic background because “the islands are not isolated” and people “have invented communication systems” (333). Booth agrees with Russell supporting the idea that people in different professional fields use different languages; however, he objects the statement that scholars from different fields cannot understand each other. After a series of interviews with informants Booth finds out that they can understand their colleagues even in situations when they “cannot follow the proofs” by using their “wisdom” (334). Booth defines three types of rhetoric to define significance of academic work. “Hard proof” rhetoric is used by professionals in certain field who can follow the line of persuasion and assess validity of provided proofs (Booth 335). If people are no specialized in the sphere of knowledge they need to engage temporarily, they can resort to “general rhetoric” and “academic rhetoric” to define whether the information they hear is valid or not. “General rhetoric” is represented by the ability of scholar to tie their field-specific finding to shared or general realities which are common for all people (Booth 336). “Academic rhetoric” can be defined as the ability of the audience to recognize general standards of academic writing presented in scholarly works in any field of knowledge (Booth 336). The last two types of rhetoric come at hand to people who have to deal with academic fields which are beyond their expertise. General rhetoric becomes the requirement faced by researchers in any field of knowledge. Specialization of education is accompanied by pragmatic aspect which makes all researchers care about practical application of their findings. Explaining their theoretical advancements on the basis of commonplace examples they expand their audience from a narrow academic circle to general listeners. Writing any research, scholars are asked to define practical value of their research. Outstanding works usually offer solutions to topical issues which are recognized by different professionals. For instance, scientific research in Marketing, Human Resources and Management heavily rely on daily experiences which are disturbing for most professionals in daily routine. Contextual integration of theory provides better understanding of the meaning of introduced solutions for productive work. Need for understanding between different professionals results in the creation of less specific yet scientific writing genres. Conducting high school research in biology I had real difficulties reading scholarly articles because they contained numerous terms and concepts which I did not understand. In my case, I could not fully understand the experiments described in writing as well as methodology of the research. Lack of background knowledge made it complicated to squeeze any sense from research reports. My However, lay articles which covered the same topics contained necessary definitions and transferred knowledge from field-specific linguistic dimension to general one. They delivered complicated research using simple words and maintained connection of theory with its everyday significance. I found it easy to read lay articles because they relied on the background knowledge shared by all general intelligent readers. All new concepts were clearly integrated in the familiar context. In such a situation, the concept of “small worlds, different words” supported by Russell (329) fails to motivate this understanding between general readers and researchers. Russell states that disciplines are “diverse” and “independent”; however, they merge together forming general bulk of knowledge (329). Following the ideology presented by Russell, I would never be able to talk about my work or studies with my friends who are engaged in different academic fields. Even though our communication is limited by background knowledge of each participant, the use of commonplace examples and general rhetoric makes it possible to communicate effectively. In many ways, desire to understand each other and interest in other academic fields contribute to understanding between people. Inquisitive nature of readers and desire to remain clear in writing by researchers create conditions where writing becomes more effective and understandable. In summary, people who belong to different academic communities learn and write following specific requirements of their field of knowledge. At the same time, differences between professional knowledge and writing can be mediated if people find an approach to deliver complicated field-specific knowledge by words which are clear for general readers. Communication between people with different background knowledge can be effective if they understand general and academic rhetoric which has to meet certain established standards, Provision of commonplace examples or presentation of specific knowledge in real-life situations makes writing efficient and clear. Having these arguments, it is impossible to say that people from different academic backgrounds do not understand each other. Even though they cannot follow the proofs, they can use alternative methods to recognize the significance of works by their colleagues. Works Cited Booth, Wayne, C. “The Idea of University as Seen by a Rhetorician”. pp. 332-339. Russell, David, R. “Academic Discourse: Community of Communities”. pp. 326-329. Read More