I find academic speak frustratingly and needlessly complicated. While I understand the importance of trying to be as precise as possible in attempting to convery information, I think clarity actually gets lost in the pursuit of trying to sound more academically formal. This is all the more unfortunate when it occurs in the field of Disability Studies. As Monteleone (2023)1 writes, “the way philosophical contributions have been made, even contributions calling for the inclusion of disabled perspectives, has not done enough to challenge the core expectations about who belongs in philosophical intellectual communities.” (p. 3)
While Monteleone is speaking specifically to the exclusion of individuals with intellectual disabilities within philosophical discussions, I think her point rings true for a much wider audience. For instance, I’m currently in a graduate certificate program in Disability Studies and have come across some academic articles so dense that I’ve all but given up on trying to understand them. While I do not have an intellectual disablity, I do have some cognitive impairments related to a traumatic brain injury (TBI) and as a result of side-effects due to the strong opiate pain medications I’ve been prescribed and take on a daily basis.
Monteleone argues that “[b]y stripping away epistemic gatekeeping through syntax, jargon, structure, and an expectation of independent engagement, the meaning of knowledge itself in philosophy may shift, creating generative alternatives rooted in the lived experiences of disenfranchised people” (p. 3) In other words, we may actually learn a whole lot more from a whole lot of different people if academics weren’t so hellbent on using the most opaque language available to them.
I remember reading Monteleone’s article for the first time, realizing she had included a plain language summary, and noticing every muscle in my body just relax. I hadn’t even realized how much stress I was under trying to “keep up” with academic-ese. This has far-reaching consequences beyond just communication within academic circles. As Monteleone goes on to say, “[t]his exclusion does not merely produce an insular scholarly community, but moral and ethical frameworks that re-entrench harms and injustices.” (p. 5) Language becomes a form of oppression in its own right. After all, “disabled people’s capacity as knowers is constantly called into question…” To aim for true ethical inclusivity in Disability Studies, we absolutely must consider the language we are using when talking within and about our own community.
To be clear, plain language doesn’t mean simple or watered down. It’s also not as easy as one might think to actually write in such a way that the text is more easily accessible, including to those with intellectual disabilities.
Here’s an example of a plain language summary that I recently wrote:
Plain Language Summary for Four types of integration in disability identity development by Carol Gill; Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 9 (1997) 39-462
The author, Carol Gill, is a psychologist and a disabled person. In this article, she talks about how it is common for people to wonder how the different parts of ourselves become a whole. People tend to struggle between wanting to connect with others while also wanting to be independent in their identity. This article discusses ideas for how we can do that as disabled individuals and as a group. The author explores how we think about ourselves in our own minds and how we think about ourselves in relation to other people. The author suggests four ways we do that:
- “Coming to feel we belong”: how we fit into the world around us
- “Coming home”: how we fit into the disability community
- “Coming together”: understanding the ways we are the same and the ways that we are different
- “Coming out”: matching how we feel inside with how we show it to others
The author then talks about why these things are important for disabled people to feel good about themselves. She also talks about why these things are important for disabled people if we want to work for equality as a community that shares a common identity.
While I think the above example may be helpful, I also want to be very clear that I am by no means an expert in the creation of plain language texts or summaries. I’m still fairly new to the practice myself and undoubtedlly have my fair share to learn still. I also freely admit that I don’t use plain language by default. I am, however, more mindful of how I write since learning about the use plain language and the cognitive ableism inherent in traditional academic writing.
If you would like to explore ways that you can begin to incorporate plain language into your academic (or even just every day) writing, here are some resources to read more about it:
Digital.gov’s Plain Language Guide Series
Five Steps to Plain Language from The Center for Plain Language
Writing in Plain Language from Digital Accessibility at University of Michigan
- Monteleone, R. (2023). Complexity as epistemic oppression: Writing people with intellectual disabilities back into philosophical conversations. Hypatia, 38(4), 746–759. https://doi.org/10.1017/hyp.2023.85 ↩︎
- Gill, C. J. (1997). Four types of integration in disability identity development. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 9(1), 39–46. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-1997-9106 ↩︎
Leave a Reply