Writing accessibly for broad audiences costs scholars academic recognition.

Evidence

I have written elsewhere, and shared in numerous public talks and conversations, that my decisions about writing style, about not using conventional academic formats, are political decisions motivated by the desire to be inclusive, to reach as many readers as possible in as many different locations. This decision has had consequences both positive and negative. Students at various academic institutions often complain that they can not include my work on required reading lists for degree-oriented qualifying exams because their professors do not see it as scholarly enough. Any of us who create feminist theory and feminist writing in academic settings in which we are continually evaluated know that work deemed “not scholarly” or “not theoretical” can result in one not receiving deserved recognition and reward. — bell hooks, Teaching to Transgress, 152

Categorization

• SEED: An essay angle: the accessibility penalty in knowledge work, where writing clearly for the public is institutionally punished as ‘not scholarly.’
• XREF: connects to: Writing too eagerly about loved ideas can carry real professional and social costs — Sarah Bakewell, At the Existentialist Café: Freedom,…, 910

Broader Connections

• Writing too eagerly about loved ideas can carry real professional and social costs #expands (0.72) — Sarah Bakewell, At the Existentialist Café, 910