TITLE: Some Writing by Administrators Isn't Bad; It's Just Different
AUTHOR: Eugene Wallingford
DATE: January 11, 2016 10:51 AM
DESC: 
-----
BODY:
Jim Garland is a physicist who eventually became president
of Miami University of Ohio.  In
<A HREF="http://chronicle.com/article/Bad-Writing-by-Administrators/234791/">
   Bad Writing by Administrators</A>,
Rachel Toor asked Garland how his writing evolved as he moved
up the administrative hierarchy.  His response included:

<BLOCKQUOTE><EM>
 Truthfully, I did my deepest thinking as a beginning assistant
 professor, writing obscure papers on the quantum-mechanical
 properties of solids at liquid-helium temperatures.  Over the
 years, I became shallower and broader, and by the time I left
 academe, I was worrying about the seating arrangement of donors
 in the president's football box.
</EM></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have experienced this even in my short step into the department
head's office.  Some of the writing I do as head is better than
my writing before: clear, succinct, and qualified precisely.  It
is written for a different audience, though, and within a much
different political context.  My colleagues compliment me
occasionally for having written a simple, straightforward note
that says something they've been struggling to articulate.

Other times, my thinking is more muddled, and that shows through
in what I write.  When I try to fix the writing before I fix my
thinking, I produce bad writing.

Some writing by administrators really is bad, but a lot of it is
simply broader and shallower than what we write as academics.
The broader it becomes, the less interesting the content is to
the academics still living inside of us.  Yet our target audience
often can appreciate the value of that less interesting writing
when it serves its purpose.
-----