Academic Writing Otherwise: A Rumination

IF 1.4 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Graham Francis Badley
{"title":"Academic Writing Otherwise: A Rumination","authors":"Graham Francis Badley","doi":"10.1177/10778004231183947","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this rumination on academic writing otherwise, after Taylor and Benozzo, I address a number of important issues they raise. These include notions such as the academic-writing-machine, authorship, writership, and postauthorship. Throughout the article, I compare and contrast their views with examples from a variety of sources including some of my own articles. I especially comment on the fitness of autoethnography, bricolage, postacademic, and quasi-posthumous writing as well as academic ranting as examples of writing otherwise.","PeriodicalId":48395,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qualitative Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004231183947","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

In this rumination on academic writing otherwise, after Taylor and Benozzo, I address a number of important issues they raise. These include notions such as the academic-writing-machine, authorship, writership, and postauthorship. Throughout the article, I compare and contrast their views with examples from a variety of sources including some of my own articles. I especially comment on the fitness of autoethnography, bricolage, postacademic, and quasi-posthumous writing as well as academic ranting as examples of writing otherwise.
学术写作:反刍
在对学术写作的反思中,在泰勒和贝诺佐之后,我谈到了他们提出的一些重要问题。其中包括学术写作机器、作者身份、作者身份和后期作者身份等概念。在整篇文章中,我将他们的观点与来自各种来源的例子进行了比较和对比,包括我自己的一些文章。我特别评论了民族志、拼凑、学术后和准死后写作以及学术咆哮是否适合作为其他写作的例子。
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
Qualitative Inquiry
Qualitative Inquiry SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
143
期刊介绍: Qualitative Inquiry provides an interdisciplinary forum for qualitative methodology and related issues in the human sciences. With Qualitative Inquiry you have access to lively dialogues, current research and the latest developments in qualitative methodology.
×
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