The first time I wrote a serious academic essay was last year, in grade 12, in my IB History class. I found the research aspect of the paper very interesting and illuminating: reading numerous books and papers on Mussolini; noting key pieces of information from each source; organizing the ideas and weaving my findings together; and, simply learning, so much, along the way. However, when it came time to work through the Chicago Manual of Style and cite my sources, I did find the process rather frustrating and confusing. Since it was my first time using a formal format, I struggled to set up the citations and coordinate the numbers. I often had to go back to amend the citations, change the numbers and alter the order of scholar’s names.
After reading our syllabus and undertaking a preliminary scan of our textbook, I noted “Citation” as a dominant topic. This gave me cause for concern for what was to come.
It wasn’t until we reached the idea of “Orchestrating Voices” that I really came to understand and appreciate the imaginative control and power the scholastic author has when it comes to utilizing the ideas of others to form their work. As Giltrow et al. says in Academic Writing: An Introduction, “we see this gathering of voices as a conversation, and we use the term orchestration to emphasize that you as a summarizer are arranging this conversation.” This explains the power the summarizer has in manipulating the voices of others, and helps one understand the idea of “orchestrating voices.” Giltow et al. continue, “…they convene the scholarly conversation by bringing several of many other voices to the page, and arrange for these speakers to talk to one another.”
As a scholar is given the authority to conduct conversation using the voices of others, I began to think about possible obstacles and distortions that can come into play.
The importance of each piece of information is dictated and decided by the summarizer when arranging voices. A quote pulled from someone’s work that may be their greatest discovery can be turned into a small defence of their larger argument. Or a seemingly small observation by a scholar can turn into a main defence of one’s argument. The author gets to use the voices as they choose, and their use may serve to create what the summarizer wants to accomplish.
As work gets circulated and passed down over time it has the potential to become less concrete and clear. Interpreted in numerous ways in different times, the meaning and context of the work’s wording can become skewed. Scholars may purposefully or inadvertently end up twisting the voices to fit their message.
One way to improve this situation and preclude bias is to obligate the scholar study the original source and understand the context of the cited and utilized information, rather than simply taking it, and interpreting it as it is quoted in a different piece of work. As a writer, I appreciate that the obligation is to use a scholar’s information, within context and as they meant it. Going straight back to the source can require significant study, work and time. Yet, one must be careful not to bastardize another’s work. To avoid doing so, writers must understand the context in which the information was stated. Academic integrity plays a large role in this aspect, and one must find ways to use the work of others in an honest, and albeit, practical way.
A scholar has the ability to diminish what fellow scholars have created, and they also have the power to honour the work of others. So is the genre of academia.
