How Not to Write Like a Politician
Here in the United States, there’s an election happening soon, and I noticed while watching some of the coverage three common forms of phrases politicians often use that also come up sometimes in academic writing—the imperative, sweeping generalizations, and the presumption. I’ll follow with some examples in a moment, but to help your writing be clearer and free of bias, it’s best to avoid these argumentative forms so often used by politicians. So yes, it’s true. Today’s election-related post shows you how to NOT write like a politician.
The Imperative
 |
| Modified Photo Courtesy of MarylandGovPics on Flickr CC License 2.0 |
“We must all band together for change!”
In a political speech, a statement like this is quite
moving. It groups the entire audience together as well as powerfully states
what “must” be done. However, in academic writing this poses a few problems:
Here’s an academic writing revision:- In academic writing, you want to avoid “we/us/our” phrasing because you don’t know the background of your readers. This is also a chance to be more precise and name the specific population that you mean. Is it educators? Nurses? Students in the United States? Who must band together?
- The imperative statement doesn’t explain why. Why should citizens band together? We the audience don’t know. Strong academic writing relies on cause and effect more than this type of sweeping statement so that readers can’t possibly misunderstand. Also, unlike a political speech, you as an academic writer have to allow for your reader to have a different opinion and potentially decide they disagree with what you’re saying.
“Writing instructors at Walden University should attempt to
be as specific and positive as possible in order to support their students’
writing and capacity for growth.”
See how this revision is so much more specific and clear?
And it tells readers what impact a certain action will have—what results it
will achieve.
The Sweeping
Generalization
“All children want to learn.”
Although statements like this are certainly powerful, from an academic perspective they are less useful because we can’t actually prove this. Academic writing relies on using evidence to support claims, and this one is just impossible to support. This statement is also logically false. Surely, not all children in the entire world do actually want to learn, right? In academic writing, rather than broad generalizations
like this one, you again want to be as specific as you can and avoid sweeping assumptions or generalizations.
Here’s an academic writing revision:
“Since students’ enthusiasm for learning directly impacts
their learning retention (Helakoski, 2016), it is important for Walden writing
instructors to foster engagement with coursework in order to help their
students succeed.”
See how this revision uses a specific group of people, cause
and effect, and backs up its point with research?
The Presumption
“It is clear that something must change”
As a politician, it is powerful to band an audience together
behind a point of view. But as academic writers we don’t want to make assumptions about our readers or their understanding/experience. What if it
isn’t clear to them that something must change?
The phrase is vague as well
because it uses “something”—and what does that mean, exactly? So to fix it, rather than assuming the reader
sees things your way, again stick to that cause/effect.
Here's an academic revision:
“If students change their writing process to include the
Walden writing center, they will receive in-depth advice on their writing and
the tools to become accomplished scholarly writers.”
Remember in your academic writing to avoid imperatives,
sweeping generalizations, and presumptions on the reader and instead provide
clear, specific cause/effect phrasing to showcase your point of view. With all
of these aspects combined you will successfully communicate your ideas to your
audience!
So get out and vote tomorrow! And remember, for your
academic writing here at Walden University, it’s best to NOT write like a
politician.
Any tips, tricks, or other political speech tics to avoid in your academic work? Let us know in the comments below!
Claire Helakoski is a Writing Instructor at the Walden Writing Center and holds an MFA in Creative Writing. She has taught writing and Composition as well as acted as a writer and editor in a variety of mediums. She lives in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and enjoys reading, writing creatively, and board games of all kinds.
.png)
Never miss a new post; Opt-out at any time
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
What a fun and timely post! This topic addresses a problem I see often in new students' writing. While faculty want students to be passionate and to be assertive in the authority they have on a subject, highly imperative, presumptive, sweeping generalizations have no place in scholarly writing. Thanks for this wonderful resource for students. I believe you should link also to the "For the Good of All Humanity" post, which is another of my favorites. (http://waldenwritingcenter.blogspot.com/2015/08/for-good-of-all-humanity-imperatives.html) I also think this post could be filed with the tags "scholarly writing" and "using evidence" to help students find it easily. Thanks for all you do Writing Center! ~Dr. Harland
ReplyDeleteThank you, Dr. Harland, for your comment and suggestions! These posts go great together!
DeleteSugar, zest and everything pleasant! That is what really matters to the blog.Joseph Hayon
ReplyDeleteWe're glad you enjoyed the post, Alex! There is a style of writing for every audience, purpose, and occasion.
Delete