Abstract

Writing in the humanities may, typically, be distinguished from writing in the social sciences in its treatments of abstractions. Writing about literature is here characterized as data-driven, in that it begins with a text and proceeds up the ladder of abstraction by interpretive classifications which are likely to diverge from one interpreter to another. Social science writing is described as conceptually driven, in that writers begin with communally defined abstractions which then drive the selection and discussion of data; the divergence between writers' abstractions characteristic of data-driven writing is less likely to occur in conceptually driven writing. This article describes how the difference shows up in professional academic writing, some of the confusion students experience in trying to shift from one kind of writing to another, the strengths and weaknesses of each kind of writing, and the benefits to be gained from alternating between the two kinds.

Journal
Written Communication
Published
1989-10-01
DOI
10.1177/0741088389006004001
Open Access
Closed

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (5)

  1. Written Communication
  2. Written Communication
  3. Written Communication
  4. Written Communication
  5. Written Communication

Cites in this index (2)

  1. Written Communication
  2. Research in the Teaching of English
Also cites 7 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.1177/004839318101100305
  2. 10.2307/357434
  3. 10.1525/rep.1986.13.1.99p01136
  4. 10.2307/377930
  5. 10.2307/462477
  6. 10.2307/2933002
  7. Intelligence applied
CrossRef global citation count: 10 View in citation network →