I'm focusing my comment on scientific writing in particular, not academis writing in general: My big problem with this alternative approach is that it is exactly the kind of strategy that pseudo-science exploits: It treads into anecdotal territory. While the original research may very well be rigorous, the problem comes in the _way_ the information is passed on by the layperson: it becomes an anecdote. I personally think that's a big problem, but I do understand the intent in making general academic writing more accessible. Perhaps part of this is symptomatic of everybody having the right to investigate and test, but we cannot all be experts in all fields (I mean, few are an expert even in a narrow field, because it's hard). Science is hard. Being an academic is hard. That's ok.
Your chapter in a recent collection on migration in Africa which structures the story of settler migration within South Africa around your own Fourie family is a great example of personalising the story.
I'm focusing my comment on scientific writing in particular, not academis writing in general: My big problem with this alternative approach is that it is exactly the kind of strategy that pseudo-science exploits: It treads into anecdotal territory. While the original research may very well be rigorous, the problem comes in the _way_ the information is passed on by the layperson: it becomes an anecdote. I personally think that's a big problem, but I do understand the intent in making general academic writing more accessible. Perhaps part of this is symptomatic of everybody having the right to investigate and test, but we cannot all be experts in all fields (I mean, few are an expert even in a narrow field, because it's hard). Science is hard. Being an academic is hard. That's ok.
Your chapter in a recent collection on migration in Africa which structures the story of settler migration within South Africa around your own Fourie family is a great example of personalising the story.
A wonderful piece.