By Garrett O.
Most people that have read a scientific journal article can probably relate to the confusion that arises when trying to understand the details. Why is the content of important scientific research so hard to understand? This is a question with many possible answers. The technical term for this type of writing is “official style.” Official style is often strung with complex and winding sentences, high reading levels, increased punctuation, and the use of passive voice. Many readers are able to identify official style writing without even knowing its defining characteristics.
“Stress and Personality,” by authors D. Lečić Toševski, O. Vukovic, and J. Stepanovic is a perfect example of how the official style is used in psychological research papers. It was originally published to Psychiatriki, which is a psychiatric-based publisher located in Greece. Psychiatriki was created by the Hellenic American Psychiatric Association to give Greek Psychiatrists a tool to exchange professional resources. According to their website, the journal’s intended use is for anything from scientific exchanges to professional aspirations. This means that the article was written specifically for a niche audience. Picking apart the language of the article makes this even more clear. Psychiatrists often pass research to their peers to help treat patients more effectively. “Stress and Personality” could potentially help a psychiatrist give a more accurate diagnosis to a patient.
The article begins with a sentence reading: “Stress is an adaptation reaction of living organisms in response to internal or external threats of homeostasis.” This sentence develops the intended audience very quickly. Unless the reader is scientifically educated already, they might wonder what internal threats or homeostasismight mean. Essentially, this sentence is saying: “The reason we feel stress is because our mind is trying to protect our well-being.” The sentence in the original article must be decoded to uncover the meaning. So, what is the difference between the example sentence and the one from the original article? Content wise, there is almost no difference. There are many potential reasons for why the authors might be writing like this, but the most pressing one is to deny access. The niche community of psychiatrists that consult this information are one of the few that can easily understand it. The links between stress and personality type could be useful information for many people, regardless of their reading and education levels. However, more people poking and prodding at the research could be a very bad day for an author who doesn’t want to be challenged on their findings. On the same token, having medical and psychological discoveries easily available to the public could strain the level of trust between a patient and their doctor. With all the negatives that come with “coded language,” it is probably beneficial that not everyone can understand all medical terminology. It is proven that a certified surgeon and therapist can do surgery and aid in mental health better than someone who isn’t fully educated in the field.
Another official style tool that is frequently seen in the article is the use of passive voice. When reading this article and other articles that use the official style, it sometimes feels like the information is simply “as-is.” There are no action verbs, only anticlimactic facts laid out without any ownership. Some examples from the article include: “Studies have recorded considerable consistency in coping strategies…” and, “Positive affect has been associated with positive reappraisal…” It seems like the authors are citing someone else’s work, which is not the case. Then what is the purpose of this language? The most obvious answer is to gain credibility. If I were to say, “I just discovered a new nutrient in this broccoli,” I would probably seem less trustworthy than if I said, “A new nutrient has been discovered in broccoli.” I am not a scientist, nor do I know the slightest about the nutrient content of broccoli, but I am automatically more credible when conveyinginformation rather than claiming it. In addition to this, passive voice and third person language serve more than just this purpose. They also close many loopholes that might be left dangling in the claims. For example, people might attack my faulty research if I actively take ownership in it, but not if I just stated that “Findings indicate a new broccoli nutrient.” A researcher lacking confidence in their claims or an author seeking a position of trust and authority are both great candidates for the use of official style.
With the individual pieces of the official style dissected, it is slightly easier to understand why an author would choose to adopt it. This does not mean that the reasoning isn't frustrating at times. If an individual wants to learn more about a specific topic, how is it fair that access is essentially denied? Should an individual have to take advanced reading and writing courses just to understand a summary of research? Many college students that have learned to decipher the official style were probably never taught it in the first place—at least not right away. In my own college experience, learning how to read official style was mostly done using the Google search bar. There are drastic shifts in the language of textbooks from high school to college and failing to become accustomed to them could greatly affect understanding. The ability to learn new information is a “right” in the United States, yet information is being carefully masked by the language itself.
Having important information easily understandable should be a right for everyone. Communities with low socioeconomic status aren’t only more prone to mental health disorders, but they have lower rates of education. This demonstrates how important it is for psychological resources to be easily accessible. Legally binding documents such as lease and privacy agreements can also exploit vulnerable populations. I would argue that there is a time and place for the “official style,” but plain style writing should be accessible when the information could help large groups of people.
0 Comments