The Science of Writing in the Sciences
Introduction and Purpose
Click Here to Access the Presentation Slides Links to an external site.
In 1990, authors George Gopen and Judith Swan published The Science of Scientific Writing Links to an external site., an article that applied an observational analysis to scientific writing of the time to determine what qualities in writing directly improved readability and --indirectly-- increased citation factors. The field of scientific writing has evolved quite a bit since then, but these findings remain essential: Writing clearly and effectively in the sciences depends on the writer knowing what the reader needs to know and when the reader needs (and expects) to know it.
Although the paper is quite old, their observations continue to offer useful strategies for scientists preparing to write effectively for their readers. In fact, their observations continue to help us identify cultural mythologies we may have about "good" scientific writing. Their recommendations also make the process easier for new scholars to write effectively and with greater authority in their new fields.
Why is Scientific Writing Difficult?
Reason 1: You don't know what you don't know.
If writing effectively in the sciences depends on the writer anticipating the reader's needs and providing them the information they need in the order they need it, what could go wrong?
It is difficult to know what the audience knows already and what questions they will ask when you are not yet sure of those questions yourself. For those joining a new scientific community (say as a graduate student, a post-doc, or an assistant professor) or for those turning their attention to a new area of inquiry (new scientific model, new methods, new data), identifying the scope of the field and the specific problems that can be taken up within that scope will require immersion in the field of inquiry for some time. For this reason, it's common that new scientists will return again and again to their literature reviews (even during the analysis phase) to better understand what they are seeing and to narrow their interpretations.
(Warning: at some point, you will have to force yourself to interpret the analysis and name the findings. A sustained and engaging consultation with existing studies is necessary. However, it is also possible to return so often to the literature that you prevent yourself from moving forward with analysis.)
Reason 2: Writing clarity lags behind new knowledge
Be patient with yourself. It is quite common for writing to get less clear while a writer takes on new knowledge. If you find that you are struggling to write up a new study-- at the BDSI, in a graduate course, or for a publication--even if you never struggled with writing before-- think of it as a good sign: you are creating a new understanding for yourself. In fact, the writing will likely help you make sense of what you are learning to yourself before you can write it clearly for others. It is likely that you are understanding the concept in a new way. As your understanding becomes more clear to you, the writing will gradually catch up. As you grow your expertise in a specialized field, you will identify ways of writing about your field that are ever clearer with each draft of each project.
Tips and Strategies:
Annotate Models of Writing in Your Field to create templates for your own writing
A sample methods paper in biostatistics: Pritchard-Stephens-Donnelly-2000Structure-annotated.pdf Download Pritchard-Stephens-Donnelly-2000Structure-annotated.pdf
A sample literature review in health management/policy: Beck-Boulton-2010-sphlitreviewsample (1).pdf Download Beck-Boulton-2010-sphlitreviewsample (1).pdf
Recommended Texts
The Science of Scientific Writing Links to an external site.
Additional Resource:
This table Download This table may help you work through some questions while writing up a new project. Guiding Questions for Developing an IMRAD Outline