Written By: Zin Lee
When it comes to academic writing, we generally follow an instilled thought process, predetermined ideas of "this is the correct way because this is how it's traditionally done."
Models of academic writing are frequently lifeless, linguistically bloated, and at worst, indigestible. And, arguably, the insistence on Harvard Referencing obstructs any elegance and flow in a text —— turning it into a turgid swamp of brackets, names, and dates.
Yet the message to students is: this is the academic genre done correctly, now go and do likewise.
We must question ourselves: What effect do these existing ideas and practices have on students who need to submit written assignments?
What if there were a break with tradition? What if written language were presented not as a stale and immutable set of laws but as a musical instrument: one that students could shape and refine and transform, to make it sing and sparkle, to paint it with personality?
If decolonizing the curriculum is about questioning top-down impositions and the requirement to conform, unquestioningly, to a pre-set template, has the time come to challenge standard notions of academic language? Could this enable us to encourage a genuine multiplicity of voices and a true affirmation of unique identity, rather than joyless uniformity?
Historically, and still today, archives primarily reflect the experiences and activities of those who hold, or have held, positions of power in society. This means that archives are overwhelmed with the collections of a narrow demographic. It is important to acknowledge this so that we don't just see archives as places that hold 'neutral facts' about certain subjects, because the reality is that so many voices and stories about these subjects are absent from the archive.
We also need to be careful about how we interpret the material that is held. The unconscious bias of the archivist can affect what is kept and how it is managed, and the bias of the researcher interpreting this material also affects how the information is used and presented. The ultimate result is that 'original source material ' has already been subject to multiple layers of bias. Whilst archives are a really valuable resource for teaching and studying, both in academic and creative practice, the concept of archival bias is important to be aware of when using an archive.
As academics, we must take responsibility and make a constant effort in addressing this legacy of bias through reappraisal of our wider collection and management policies. Accountability must also be fostered in archivists to 'fill in the gaps in representation within institutional archives, to challenge the traditional uses of archives, and promote new ways of understanding this material and reinterpretation through their own practice.
This is so well written and I’ve never thought about academic writing this way.
i didn't even think about this before reading the article, so insightful.