A Framing Analysis of the Treatment of Creativity as a Topic or Goal in German Books on Research Writing

Ingo Peters
{"title":"A Framing Analysis of the Treatment of Creativity as a Topic or Goal in German Books on Research Writing","authors":"Ingo Peters","doi":"10.18552/JOAW.V8I1.397","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many students in Germany undertaking academic writing tasks consult one of the numerous German-language books on research writing. Curiously, these works tend to downplay or ignore creativity, compared to their American counterparts. A hermeneutic and rhetorical study that examines the structure, content, and style of 21 German books on research writing with the help of framing theory reveals that, firstly, the rationale given to readers for learning how to do a research project is usually that it enables them to complete difficult tasks and thus to graduate successfully – the potentially fascinating aspects, such as learning through writing, and the possibility of advancing the field are rarely mentioned. Secondly, when defining good academic research, US books stress exploration and invention based on wrestling with questions, while the German ones mostly emphasize rules, correctness within a fixed system, and the mastery of techniques. Finally, in the 21 works, academic work primarily comes across as a solitary, linear process neatly divided into separate phases, not as a holistic, discursive practice that takes place within the research community. The likely reasons for this phenomenon highlight several crucial challenges German writing teachers and consultants are facing: as the rhetoric/composition and writing consultancy scene in Germany is vibrant but somewhat marginalized at universities and relatively new, there is no tradition of mandatory composition courses influenced by writing studies with a creative component, and most guidebooks on research are not by writing experts but by professors in other fields. Moreover, there is still widespread belief that creativity cannot be taught, and that students’ fascination with their chosen field of study should be taken for granted, so that neither need to be mentioned in primers. Terminology might also play a role; the German term for ‘research (writing)’, ‘Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten’ or ‘academic practice’, already appears to emphasize correctness over discovery.","PeriodicalId":202793,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Academic Writing","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Academic Writing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18552/JOAW.V8I1.397","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Many students in Germany undertaking academic writing tasks consult one of the numerous German-language books on research writing. Curiously, these works tend to downplay or ignore creativity, compared to their American counterparts. A hermeneutic and rhetorical study that examines the structure, content, and style of 21 German books on research writing with the help of framing theory reveals that, firstly, the rationale given to readers for learning how to do a research project is usually that it enables them to complete difficult tasks and thus to graduate successfully – the potentially fascinating aspects, such as learning through writing, and the possibility of advancing the field are rarely mentioned. Secondly, when defining good academic research, US books stress exploration and invention based on wrestling with questions, while the German ones mostly emphasize rules, correctness within a fixed system, and the mastery of techniques. Finally, in the 21 works, academic work primarily comes across as a solitary, linear process neatly divided into separate phases, not as a holistic, discursive practice that takes place within the research community. The likely reasons for this phenomenon highlight several crucial challenges German writing teachers and consultants are facing: as the rhetoric/composition and writing consultancy scene in Germany is vibrant but somewhat marginalized at universities and relatively new, there is no tradition of mandatory composition courses influenced by writing studies with a creative component, and most guidebooks on research are not by writing experts but by professors in other fields. Moreover, there is still widespread belief that creativity cannot be taught, and that students’ fascination with their chosen field of study should be taken for granted, so that neither need to be mentioned in primers. Terminology might also play a role; the German term for ‘research (writing)’, ‘Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten’ or ‘academic practice’, already appears to emphasize correctness over discovery.
德国研究性写作著作中创造性作为主题或目标的处理的框架分析
许多在德国从事学术写作任务的学生查阅了众多关于研究写作的德语书籍之一。奇怪的是,与美国同行相比,这些作品往往淡化或忽视创造力。在框架理论的帮助下,一项解释学和修辞学研究检查了21本关于研究写作的德国书籍的结构、内容和风格,结果表明,首先,读者学习如何做研究项目的基本原理通常是使他们能够完成困难的任务,从而成功毕业——潜在的迷人方面,如通过写作学习,以及推进该领域的可能性很少被提及。其次,在定义好的学术研究时,美国书籍强调的是在与问题斗争的基础上的探索和发明,而德国书籍则主要强调规则、在固定体系内的正确性和对技术的掌握。最后,在这21部作品中,学术工作主要是作为一个单独的、线性的过程,整齐地分为不同的阶段,而不是作为一个整体的、话语的实践,发生在研究社区内。造成这一现象的可能原因凸显了德国写作教师和顾问面临的几个关键挑战:由于德国的修辞/写作和写作咨询领域充满活力,但在大学里有些边缘化,而且相对较新,没有受写作研究影响的强制性写作课程的传统,大多数研究指南不是由写作专家编写的,而是由其他领域的教授编写的。此外,人们仍然普遍认为创造力是不能教的,学生对他们所选择的研究领域的迷恋应该被视为理所当然,所以这两种都不需要在入门中提到。术语也可能起作用;“研究(写作)”的德语术语“Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten”或“学术实践”似乎已经强调了正确性而不是发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信