Stephen Krashen, Language
and Language Teaching 1,2: 38-39. 2012
When we ask the
time, we don't want to know how watches are constructed. Georg Christoph Lichtenberg (1742-1799)
Our current journals in
language education are full of long papers.
A typical journal might have, at most, five major papers. Sometimes we
have to write long papers, but much of the time, it's unnecessary: the papers
often contain long introductions more suitable for doctoral dissertations or
review ("state of the art") papers, apparently designed to provide
evidence that the author is well-read, and long conclusions, with a repetition
of the findings and the author's detailed and lengthy speculations about what
the results might mean for theory and application.
Readers of professional
journals don’t need this. Introductions should only give enough to alert the
reader to what the article is above, and provide a few citations in case the
reader needs more information. If the articles cited in the introduction are
readily available, readers are free to consult them, and a brief indication of
implications is generally more than enough for experienced readers. Also, if the results section is clear, no
repetition of the findings is necessary in the conclusion.
Watson and Crick's Nobel
Prize winning paper on the double helix was only one page. Their conclusion:
"It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have
postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic
material" (p. 737).
Long papers drain intellectual energy from both
readers and writers and waste their time.
They take longer to write,
and much of the energy in writing them is dedicated to sections that don't
engage the writer: Writing is a powerful tool to solve problems, and can result
in substantial cognitive development (it can make you smarter), but to do this,
the writing must be directed at a difficult problem (Langer and Applebee,
1987).
Long papers take longer to
read. Even readers who try to skim long
papers have to devote time and energy to find the essential parts, and run the
danger of missing the details.
A Disservice to the Profession and to the Scholar
Too-long papers hurt the
spread of knowledge in two ways: They waste our time in both reading and
writing, and they promote sloppy reading.
Many readers are content just to read the abstract and perhaps the
summary of technical papers, with a glance at a table. This means, of course,
that significant details on methodology and the analysis, buried in the paper,
are missed, and crucial points and often errors are perpetuated.
Too-long papers also take up
space. A journal with five too-long papers could easily include 20 short
papers. This space limitation hurts the dissemination of knowledge, because
less genuine information is available, and makes it much harder for junior scholars
to publish and to get tenure and promotion, especially when universities
require publication in certain journals. This problem will be alleviated as
more journals are done on the internet, of course.
Conclusion
Again, sometimes papers have
to be long. But often they don't, and the problem is usually long introductions
and conclusions that go far beyond the needs of the paper.
Language education has
clearly taken its tradition from the humanities, which favors
dissertation-style prose, rather than the sciences, where papers are usually
much shorter.
It is probably no coincidence
that citation rates in the sciences are much higher: Hamilton (1991) reported
that about 91% of papers published in atomic, molecular and chemical physics,
and 86% in virology had been cited at least once. In language and linguistics,
only 20% had been cited and in American literature, less than 1%.
References
Watson, J. and Crick, F. 1953. A Structure
for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid, Nature 171, 737-738.
Hamilton, D. 1991. Research papers: Who's
united now? Science 251: 25.
Langer, J. and Applebee, A. 1987.
How Writing Shapes Thinking. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of
English.
totally agree. The internet has become the vehicle for short bites. Too long, and the interest is lost.
ReplyDelete