George D. Gopen and Judith A. Swan [The Science of Scientific Writing] (1).pdf – Download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read online. *Examples and explanations from Gopen, George D. and Judith A. Swan. “The Science of Scientific. Writing,” American Scientist 78, no.6 (November-December . Among other things, I was told to read The Science of Scientific Writing, by George Gopen and Judith Swan. Being told that you suck is great;.
|Published (Last):||15 July 2009|
|PDF File Size:||14.5 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||1.27 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Nor is it the length of the sentence. Incidentally, there must be topen link between what Gopen and Swan say about writing and our theories about how people understand visualizations; I have to learn more about this! Being told that you suck is great; you get to learn so much from it!
If we reverse this order, the new fopen appears before we know the context: Here is an excerpt: Why should people care about my work?
To make matters worse, I had no idea why that happens. The revised sentence is much easier to understand and is more memorable. In the process of answering such questions, we discover a new way of looking at our science. This sentence would be suitable for both a professional audience and a lay audience. In the first post of this series, I described the first lesson I learned, which has had a huge effect on my overall communication skills: Focus on Your Audience Share this: The process of crafting that sentence made me think harder about my message and what I wanted to get across in the paper.
This wording lacks the details about Species A and B, but these are not really needed. This third principle was a true eye-opener to me. It occurred to me that this principle could be applied to writing papers and proposals or giving conference talks.
Distill, distill I learned to always distill my message before leaping into writing a paper or preparing a conference talk or seminar. Here is an excerpt:.
Now we have a much clearer picture: You may have even decided that it was your fault—that your lack snd comprehension was due to a lack of background in whatever topic was being presented. That by itself would be little more than a truism. Are they science literate but know nothing about your particular topic?
What you want to present is not necessarily what your audience needs.
Many writers will see nothing wrong with this construction. Why is your research important to society?
I have recently received a large amount of excellent writing advice, and I want to share some of it with you. Even if you are communicating with a specialist audience in your field, you need to consider their needs and make it as easy as possible for them to understand what you did, what you found, and why it is important.
I also learned that I needed to use a structure that would ensure they would pay attention and remember my information. Gopen and Swan argue that good writing is about successfully managing the expectations of readers.
In other words, the important clause in your sentence should be placed where the syntax of this clause is entirely determined by what came before it. Simplify, simplify I also began paying more attention to the language I used in writing and speaking.
My problem was that I was presenting information I wanted the viewer to know— rather than what they needed to know. What is innovative or new?
I urge you to go and read the whole thing. Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
The Science of Scientific Writing
bopen Only later did I realize that this was not enough. That sentence accurately describes the research finding and interpretation, but is long, contains unnecessary detail, and is not easy to grasp.
Learning to distill my message has helped me write better journal articles…and blog posts! What was my main finding and its significance? Are there some interesting applications based on your swann Readers expect to be provided with old information context at the beginning of a sentence, which prepares them for the new information to be given at the end.
The Science of Scientific Writing
In the other sentence, the action of the subject is expressed in the verb: True, there is nothing grammatically wrong, and most readers will understand what is meant. When you are aand, you will probably want to know that Gopen has written an entire book on this topic, called The Sense of Structure: One remedy is to ask yourself simple questions about a prospective audience. But now that I have read some of what the dwan have to say, I am no longer entirely clueless. The point is that you can make it easy for the viewer or reader topen grasp the substance of your information or you can make it difficult by using tortuous language.
First, grammatical subjects should be followed as soon as possible by their verbs; second, every unit of discourse, no matter the size, should serve a single function or make a single point; and, third, information intended to be emphasized should appear at points of syntactic closure.
Use Storytelling Techniques In anf post, I will tackle the first lesson: If you use cryptic, equivocal, or imprecise language, you risk the audience misinterpreting your message.
There is nothing wrong with passive sentences, which are common in scientific writing; however, use of the active voice, at least occasionally, will bring your writing to life. I have read my good share of writing advice, and although I have gotten better at throwing away needless words, the structure of the sentences I write always feels clunky. That is brilliant advice.
Do they know what DNA is? Poor communicators tend to ignore the needs of their audience.