orgtheory.net

Teppo

Caught my eye today.

When we talk about flow we’re talking about the variation of sentence structure and lengths; about the “sequence of syntax” and its effects on the reader’s emotional response; about the rhythmic mimesis and the way it contributes to those effects; and about the rhythmic relation of the work’s parts to the whole.  Thus, if we want to write fiction that flows, we need to explore the syntax of our prose on all levels, from the micro level of the sentence to the macro level of the complete work.

A few words of advice by David Jauss on syntax and flow - from Virginia Tufte’s excellent book Artful Sentences (here’s a previous post on the book). As Tufte notes in her book, the above obviously applies to any writing, presumably even of the academic variety. 

I don’t know that in academic work we pay too much attention to these types of matters, perhaps some do, but my guess is that we simply have a few good writers who naturally write well, and others simply try to, as best they can, clinically report the facts.  However, given how much of academic work is communicated via writing, it seems relatively neglected - relegated to trial-and-error.  By way of example, I have not heard of budding organization theory scholars taking writing classes as part of their Ph.D. training.  It may of course be that social science graduate students come into programs with natural or acquired writing abilities; or, perhaps trial and error simply is the best way to learn to write.  Overall, based on my experiences with reviewing papers (including my own), seems like there is much room for improvement.