![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
Many science students believe that scientific writing is most impressive (and most professionally acceptable) when impersonal, dense, complex, and packed with jargon. In particular, they have the idea that legitimate scientific writing must suppress the subjectivity of the human voice. But science students can mature into excellent writers whose voices are clear, interesting, unburdensome, efficient, and accurate. To do this, they must abandon their ponderous scientific voices and use techniques that produce good style. When I teach for the Science Communication Center at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, I focus on helping students improve their scientific voice. I use workshop-style instruction, review of student writing, tutorial staff, and free online tutorials that I have developed. This article meditates upon the nature of good scientific voice as it analyzes examples of student writing to show improvements made through specific stylistic techniques.
Reference
| Sand-Jensen, K. (2007). How to write consistently boring scientific literature. Oikos, A Journal of Ecology, 116, 723–727. Google Scholar | Crossref |
Other Articles on Communication by This Author
| Bruce, Harry, Hirst, Russel, and Keene, Michael , A Short Guide to Business Writing, Prentice Hall, New York, 1995. Google Scholar | |
| Hirst, Russel , The Value of Faculty Internships in Technical Communication, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 26: 1, 1996. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
| Hirst, Russel , Master of Science Programs in Scientific and Technical Communication, Education in Scientific and Technical Communication: Academic Programs That Work, STC, 1997. Google Scholar | |
| Hirst, Russel , Scientific Jargon, Good and Bad, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 33: 3, 2003. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
| Hirst, Russel , Virtues and Vices of Omission, Technical Communication, 54: 3, 2007. Google Scholar | ISI |
