Have you ever been
reading something and had to pause for a moment to understand what the
author meant? Sometimes this pause is followed by the feeling that the
effort put in to understand the text far outweighed the complexity of the
concept it implied. I had one of these moments when reading the book
‘Software Development Failures’ by Kwek
Ewusi-Mensah. The piece that caught my mind was:
The postmodernist view of software
development explicitly recognises the need for a plurality and diversity of
shared responsibilities for all stakeholder groups involved in the
development, so that all legitimate relevant views will be heard and
incorporated into the problem formulation.
This is comprehensible
and grammatically correct but is just a little too obtuse to flow easily
into the mind. I see this sort of thing a lot, particularly in academic
circles, and wonder if such passages are really about the intellectual
prowess of the author rather than the comprehension for the reader.
As a little experiment I
had a go at rewriting it (below) in the way I might if I were writing on
this topic (albeit unlikely). See what you think:
The postmodernist view of software
development recognises the need for a variety of responsibilities, shared
between different stakeholder groups. This sharing of responsibilities
facilitates the communication of views between groups allowing those that
are relevant and legitimate to be included in the problem formulation.
I know it’s not a world
away from the original but I think it is an improvement, even if only
through the extra full stop. Which do you prefer??
However Kwek’s passage is
not ‘bad’ as such, even though it is a bit long and dense and hence a
little hard to digest in one read. The problem is more fundamental. It just
seems pretentious as well as a bit pointless. You find yourself asking the
question; if you were writing a book aimed at helping someone learn, why
write it in a way that makes it harder to understand? One answer is that of
imposing intellectual prowess though the use of language, otherwise known
as the assertion of intellectual superiority.
The issue of intellectual
superiority seems somewhat more prevalent in the computer sciences that
other disciplines possibly due to the density of technical language that we
have. This breadth of domain specific acronyms and terms offers a great
degree of cover to those wishing to use such terms to bolster their
technical position or assert intellectual superiority over others. This
kind of abuse has obvious ramifications should the perpetrator be caught
out (something that is probably inevitable).
However even the use of
technical language in what appears to be a legitimate context can be
ill-advised. The problem is that different people react differently to
terms that they are not familiar with. To pick stereotypes, junior members
of a team will generally seek an explanation for terms they do not
understand. However more senior members, particularly management, are far
less likely to seek similar explanations. Terms they do not understand are
more likely to be ignored or partially understood. Even worse, they may be
considered with suspicion! Because of this computer scientists must be wary
of their audience. Having empathy for the technical understanding of others
allows domain specific terminologies to be decoded into accessible
language. Staying on the same technical plain as management is vital for a
two way communication. Inaccessible language can irreparably damage this
relationship as it gives rise to some of the primary fears that management
have of technologists (the fears of management are discussed further in a
separate article).
So in conclusion, if you are writing a book, think
about the reader rather than your ego. If you are talking to your boss,
keep it simple and don’t geek them out. They are much more likely to be
impressed by a concise and comprehensible comment at a level that they
understand than an impressive sounding, if somewhat useless, stream of
techno-babble!
|