10 Steps to PhD Failure

[brown_eyed_girl]

To use some examples, just yesterday I read a paper that used the word "exacerbate" when they could have very easily used "made worse" or "became worse". 

 

Haha, I completely agree that academic writing doesn't need to be verbose and convoluted, but I had to laugh at this example. "It only exacerbated the situation" is a phrase I would/do use in everyday speech. Just goes to show one person's pretentious is another person's clear and concise. 

[TakeruK]

Haha, I completely agree that academic writing doesn't need to be verbose and convoluted, but I had to laugh at this example. "It only exacerbated the situation" is a phrase I would/do use in everyday speech. Just goes to show one person's pretentious is another person's clear and concise. 

Fair enough but perhaps I didn't pick the best example to show without context! In my understanding, exacerbate is supposed to mean "make [something bad] worse" but, in my opinion, it should only be used when it's already established that the "something bad" is bad. For example, "I missed the bus by 5 seconds. The fact that it just started raining only exacerbated the situation".

In the example I was thinking of, the authors attempt to describe the atmosphere contents of a planet using a model that they compare to the data. They say that the potential existence of clouds exacerbated the quality of the fit of their model to the data. However, prior to this, they did not mention any existing problem with their model fit and the figure they refer to with this statement actually looks like a good fit, except for one small area. They are focusing on this area as it was an important area, however, this was not stated. So, I was a bit confused when I first read this sentence because "exacerbate" implied that the fit was bad, but at first glance, the data looked good. I had to look up "exacerbate" in order to be sure I didn't misremember the meaning.

I felt like the use of "exacerbate", while correct, makes the reader take two steps in logic with just one sentence. The reader has to first realise that the authors are saying the fit is currently bad and then realise that clouds made things even worse. But if the authors had used "made worse" instead of "exacerbate" then it would be clear right away that both the fit is bad and clouds made things worse.

I try to keep my scientific writing at a more accessible level of English because although "English is the language of science (or at least my field)", I think that's a little unfair. I would want our field to write in a way that is as accessible to as many non-English speakers as possible. I think the above use of "exacerbate" did not achieve this and for a reader who is unfamiliar with that word, the reader might miss the authors' point completely (because at first glance, it didn't look like a bad fit). I usually aim for high school English level of writing, and I avoid using idioms.

So I do agree with you that words like exacerbate (or any word really) does have it uses. My main gripe with words like this is when people use the more advanced version when the simpler version will also work (and has more clarity). I think that in some situations, the more precise meaning of a more "advanced" word is necessary and the author should use it. Thus, I still use a lot of scientific jargon in my writing because these are words anyone studying the field (whether or not they are a fluent English speaker). And jargon is invented/used because the precise meaning of the word in a scientific context is required! 

[brown_eyed_girl]

TakeruK, that makes sense! The context you're describing does sound confusing - it's less the word itself than the fact that it sounds like the author used it incorrectly trying to "sound smart" even though another word would have been clearer. This reminds me of the advice I've gotten from several friends and colleagues who've completed their PhDs, all versions of: "Do you. Don't think you need to write a certain way or speak a certain way. Don't use words you don't know. Don't be intimidated because someone else is using words you don't know - they might not even be using them correctly."  

The issue you bring up of writing for a readers who aren't native English speakers is really interesting. As someone in the humanities, I've never heard anyone make that argument, but it's good food for thought. As I prepare for an upcoming foreign language translation exam, I would certainly appreciate if others in my field did this.  Personally I hate reading jargon-filled articles, and I do try to make my writing as pithy as possible. I was also taught to write with the assumption that the reader would not have prior knowledge of my topic - something that doesn't usually happen in academic writing, but is very helpful for readers who aren't experts in your field/subfield. Interdisciplinary study is important to me, so I would love if more academics wrote in a manner that was accessible to those in other disciplines.