I have been writing an article about evidence-based healthcare and policy, and Ray Pawson's book, Evidence-based Policy: A Realist Perspective is a brilliant analysis of where we should be going in the future as we develop policy. It is a highly scholarly book, and I've cited it throughout my article.

However, I almost hope the readers (most will be Americans) don't pick up the book. Why? While it is highly scholarly, his writing style is, shall we say, interesting. Some might immediately question its scholarliness because it is a bit informal in its style. I'd say, rubbish, of course. It clearly is highly scholarly, though not written in the dry, stilted way most scholarly publications are. Here are a few examples from it:

quote:

Evidence-based policy is much like all trysts, in which hope springs eternal and often outweighs expectancy, and for which the future is uncertain as we wait to know whether the partnership will flower or pass to an infatuation.

You'd not see that in American scholarly papers.

quote:

The primary research, moreover, is huge in proportion, wide-ranging in method, and all over the place in quality, presenting a veritable dog's dinner of evidence for the synthesizer to chew upon.

Beginning to see my point? Then there were the many teasers about his Figure 4.3, which he kept saying would soon be coming. Finally, when we are introduced to Figure 4.3, he humorously says,

quote:

The conclusion to the chapter is, of course, the long awaited Figure 4.3, which sets out an agenda and a timetable for realist synthesis

. When I am reading "scholarly" books or papers, I usually don't laugh, but I found myself laughing a lot at his writing.

I've read a number of scholarly articles from England, and I don't recall seeing such an informal (or humorous) style so perhaps this is the person and not the English style. Alternatively, is there a less formal style of scholarly writing in England? Thoughts?

I'd not say it was especially English writing, rather that it is good writing in which the author has taken into account the needs of his readers, rather than indulging himself.

As I have said many times, I believe that the purpose of writing is to communicate ideas; if the writing fails to do that, through any one of several reasons, then it is bad writing as it has failed to do its job.

Here is an example from yesterday's Times, in the Atticus column:

The national Policing Improvement Agency is trying to recruit a "Responders Community Subject Matter Expert" whose duties will include: "assisting with the identification of opportunities and subsequent planning for the inclusion of multi-agency radio interoperability into the existing regime of multi-agency exercises".

As Atticus remarks, "If the job's in communications, it's very badly needed".

Whereas it is just possible that experienced "Responders Community Subject Matter Experts" will understand what this gobbledegook means, I suspect that even they would have difficulty. The writing has failed to do its job if it hasn't made it clear to all potential applicants what the job is all about.

I think you are right. It's just that it was so different from any other scholarly papers I've read. Dr. Pawson was a symposium I attended this summer on realist evaluations, and we read many of his other papers. The participants all loved his work, but we all commented on the "uniqueness" (and wordiness) of his writing. Yet, his brilliance was so stimulating to all of us.

Try bookfinder.com or abebooks.com. Cheaper, but not cheap.