I was reading an article that a friend had written this arvo. The underlying idea was brilliant. But it seemed to have fallen into that no man's land between the academia and the business world.
Academics love nothing more than to point to errors in each other's work. In fact, they love it so much, they have built it into a process called "peer review". Don't get me wrong, peer review is very important. But it means that academics tend to armour-plate their writing. Evidence is piled on. Statements are couched to preclude disagreement. It is far preferable to be boring than to be wrong. Articles in an academic journals resemble a division of giant tortoises rumbling across a lethargic battlefield.
The rest of the world does not prize rightness. For better or worse, people would rather read something was useful and entertaining than wholly correct. Frankly I find this a little annoying but that doesn't stop it from being true.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Thanks for making me smile. Reminds me of the advice I once got before talking to fellow researchers: "Your talks are too straightforward, these researchers won't take you seriously if they understand everything you say. Throw in some complicated jargon." One question though: Do you find it annoying that researchers are boring or that most people want a good story (or both?).
Hello Eva. Your story seems eerily familiar. I may post it here: http://usingexpertise.blogspot.com/ - if that's OK with you.
To answer your question: A bit of both.
I find it annoying that facts & reason are not enough to convince people of something.
I also find it annoying when researchers do not see the broader application of their ideas or do not have the ability to communicate them.
Post a Comment