Will great grammar assure a great career?
| 2 February, 2011 | Morgan Giddings |
16
|
|
The question in the title was prompted by a comment I received on a previous Naturally Selected blog post about the three deadly sins of grant writing. The commenter chose to pick on my grammar in the post, insinuating that because, in her opinion the post exhibited poor grammar, I wasn’t to be listened to.
I’ll be clear up front (to stave off picky comments about it): if you’re writing a grant proposal (or a paper), it needs to have good grammar, punctuation, and spelling. For a blog post, this is also important, though by their nature, blog posts are less formal. So it does not matter as much.
But here’s the thing: you can hire any of many thousands of people who specialize in editing to fix your grammar on your next proposal, paper, or blog post (if you care to).
But you can’t hire any of many thousands of people to create your original ideas and research program for you, or to successfully direct the carrying out of that program through all the roadblocks and hurdles it will encounter.
There was the implicit assumption in the grammar critic’s comment that if one did not have proper grammar, one would fail.
I argue that the opposite is true. You or I can practice exceptional grammar and still fail to advance our careers. I know of plenty of people who are not perfect grammarians who have great careers. In fact, I can think of at least one former president of the US of A that wasn’t particularly keen on proper grammar, but who rose to what is arguably the highest position of all. You or I may not happen to like that former president, but it is hard to argue that he didn’t succeed in his own life.
The great danger I see in focusing on the particulars of grammar is that of getting trapped in a perfectionist thought loop akin to a Möbius strip.
To see what I mean, try this simple exercise out: draw a perfect circle.
Done yet?
Actually, that’s a rhetorical question, because I know you’ll never finish that exercise (unless you somehow can transcend our universe).
I know that you can’t finish because the laws of physics don’t allow us to do anything “perfectly” in this world – even something so simple as drawing that perfect circle. We can imagine it and write an equation for it – but we cannot make it manifest in our world, no matter how hard we try.
You could attempt to position the atoms of your circle perfectly, then poor old Werner Heisenberg would rise from his grave to cause them to slip and slide around to ill-defined positions (or ill-defined momentums – you choose, but you only get to pick one). For those who aren’t physicists, I’m making an oblique reference to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, that says you cannot simultaneously define the position and momentum of any quantum (proton, neutron, electron, etc) to more than within Planck’s constant over 2. Period.
End of story. Perfection cannot be obtained – in circle drawing, in grammar, or in anything else for that matter.
Unfortunately, I’ve seen careers destroyed by the pursuit of perfection. The symptoms are easy to spot: the carrier is always working on that “perfect” project to get the “perfect” paper in one of the high-flying journals – and as a result, never closing the loop on much of anything at all.
This is far more pernicious than a bit of sloppy grammar, which can be readily fixed with some training or by an editor.
Please don’t let perfectionism ruin your life. Good grammar is fine, and certainly won’t hurt you. But it won’t be the driver of your success. The drivers of your success are things like:
- Persistence in the face of difficulties
- Building up your confidence
- Working hard but not too hard (it is essential to take breaks)
- Learning to effectively communicate your successes to others (i.e. marketing them)
If you haven’t grabbed it yet, I’ve written up a short report on other ways to avoid failure and get success in your science career: https://scifoundry.com/
—————–
Morgan Giddings, PhD recently gave up her tenured faculty job at a major medical institution, choosing a smaller university to continue her research while having time to help others achieve satisfaction and success in their science careers.
|
|
previous post
Interesting post, but I am afraid you may be missing the point. Be it in a grant application or anywhere else, bad grammar and/or spelling reflects a modicum of sloppiness, insincerity and unprofessionalism that doesn’t bode well for a scientific career. Original ideas are the driving forces, but effective communication of the said ideas (which needs proper grammar, spelling, punctuation, et cetera) are also very important. As for the assurance, is there anything that *assures* a great career?
Oh, heavens Mr. Datta! to read all that and come to the conclusion that Ms. Giddings does not understand that is – how shall I phrase this delicately? Mr. Datta, I’m sorry, but I can’t phrase it delicately. You have poor comprehension skills. This suggests a lack of substance behind your excellent grammar. Yes, I had a mother with a masters in English, so I had my grammar corrected from the time I learned to talk. My dear mother did not believe in baby talk. And, I must say, this has not harmed my career.
But I think Morgan’s article is excellent. I read past the headline with misgivings thinking it likely to be uninteresting. I was mentally preparing a snarky comment about how well she will be loved by English teachers everywhere. But no! She made excellent points and I totally agree with her.
In short, the point I extract from her prose is that there is no substitute for substance. Everyone should take this under advisement.
My grant was rejected! It must be my grammar!
Har, har. No, Virginia, it warnt yer grammar, nor were it yer spellin’ dearie.
It were yer content.
I agree with the spirit of the post. But “perfect grammar” is a property of any grammatically correct sentence. It just means that the grammar isn’t wrong. That’s a perfectly reasonable target for all of us.
A “perfectly written” proposal, on the other hand, is impossible. For one, different reviewers have different personal preferences and different technical backgrounds. So even if it was possible to present the clearest, most compelling case to a particular panelist, another may find the exposition too sketchy or too detailed, or the motivation unconvincing.
Perhaps others have had a proposal declined, for which one review asks for more preliminary results, while another says that it seems most of the work is already done, so there is no need for further funding!
One have to either perform as perfectly as possible, or work harder to overcome its weaknesses. That being said, my guess is that weaknesses combined to hard work produces innovation more often than any other ways. Nothing scientific here, just the result of observation.
Language is a mechanism through which we convey ideas. No one can know what is in your mind until you are able to write a coherent sentence. The less coherent it is, the less your reader will be able to understand what you are trying to convey. Grammar matters, because it is a convention that allows us to all be on the same page when we communicate ideas to each other. If you can not speak the language, then how can you expect everyone to understand your ideas? Ask a pharmacist how much “spelling counts” in his profession. One misplaced letter can mean life or death.
My reaction is this is a litany of excuses not to spend the time necessary to organize and provide the clarity to effectively and precisely communicate your research goals or findings. Subsequently, many would wonder about your ability to carry out disciplined and innovative research. In the construction of the written word to convey an idea(s) you may come to further thought provoking insights as you structure your communication. Examples provided (e.g., “plenty of people”, past president, perfectionist pursuit) are exceptions to the achievement of success. I would argue in the case of the past president – what could he have achieved, I shudder to think of it, had he been able to effectively and powerfully communicate. The argument, in general, seems to be one of finding contentment to wallow in mediocrity.
How about spelling? Is the use of “commenter” (first paragraph, second sentence) appropriate in English? As far as I know, it is the word used in French if one wishes “to comment” on something.
Excusez-moi for the nitpicking.
Kausik is correct. There will always be snooty grammar-pedants, but good grammar is not about perfection. Rather, it is simply about ensuring clarity of communication, which is an outward indication of one’s clarity of thought. As such, ‘[l]earning to effectively communicate your successes to others (i.e. marketing them)’ is nothing without correct grammar and syntax.
@Jacques Cinq-Mars: I think ‘commenter’ is perfectly appropriate, especially in the context of a blog post. It’s obvious that it means ‘one who comments’, and of course, we English have a proud and noble tradition of stealing words from foreign languages and press-ganging them to our own, perfidious ends.
As a long-time NIH reviewer, there have been several times when in visiting other institutions, I met with scientists whose grants had come through my study section. On more than one occasion, I realized that the problem with his.her unfunded grant was neither idea conception, nor technical saavy, but an inability to convey ideas on in a way that a reviewer could comprehend (but which became elegant in the luxury of one-one communication). Dr. Giddings creates a red herring when she talks about grammatical “perfection.” Split an infinitive, misplace an occasional modifier, but don’t write in a way that obscures meanings or makes the reader laugh. “The mice were given a drug with the modified construct.” Yeah, that’ll make a terrific impression on the reader.
Sorry, but bad grammar makes a bad impression, just like inappropriate dress in the workplace. Anyone who doesn’t think presentation is important must be from another planet.
This author is mistaken. When dealing with an English-speaking scientist, that scientist has spent K-12, at the minimum, studying the English language and grammar. Perfect grammar is irrelevant, and the author is wrong to bring it up, but poor grammar suggests that you either have not paid attention or have not succeeded in retaining what you were taught about grammar during those 13 years of education. Compound that with the further suggestion that you read so little (or with so little focus) that you have failed to internalize the most common rules of grammar. And, on top of all of that, if we assume that you actually are familiar with the most basic of grammatical rules and yet still you break them, we can only conclude that your submission was written hastily and was not read over before sending it in.
Hey Datta–wake up and smell the data. The plural verb is “reflect” not “reflects”–modicum is a negligible quantity, so it is misused in context,, and it would be “said ideas” not “the said ideas” Sheesh!!!!
Voltaire said, “Le mieux est l’ennemi du bien,” which is often translated as. “The perfect is the enemy of the good.” I do not believe Morgan’s point was that one should not spend time on grammar or spelling, but rather that the writing should be clear. As a reviewer, I become exasperated at an error-filled grant, it is true, because after a certain point, sloppiness begins to suggest itself as a modus operandi of the applicant. However, I agree with Morgan’s point; if the search for perfection means that nothing actually gets done, then that will ruin a career.
Thanks for that rational insight, Bob.
There’s an internet law that any comment criticizing somebody else’s grammar will itself contain grammatical errors.