As Gerald Graff posits in From Clueless to Academe, the view from inside academia is one that obscures the nuances and challenges of academic discourse for those not “privileged” as part of that community. College students by and large fall outside the perceived boundaries of academia, creating a disconnect in (and out) of the classroom. This schism prevents instructors from adequately communicating to students the essence of effective academic discourse in a manner that is clear and fluid to this non-privileged perspective, creating an academic environment that is obscure, confusing, and off-putting.
By needlessly complicating scholarship with specialized jargon and seemingly impenetrable logic, academia dresses the relatively common sense and familiar (as found in pop culture) concepts behind effective academic communication – listening, summarizing, presenting and defending a standpoint – in a “culture of ideas and arguments” that makes academic discourse unrecognizable from the more straightforward and, thus, penetrable public discourse of journalists and other pop culturalists.
Graff designates a number of alienating aspects of academic discourse, all of which contribute to the students’ perception that the scholarly argument is both gratuitous and irrelevant to their own lives. In what Graff names the “Problem Problem,” academics fail to communicate to students the purpose and usefulness of taking a more discerning look at seemingly unproblematic situations or straightforward scenarios. In also failing to provide students the tools with which to self-serve research and translate that information into their own literate response, instructors further mystify the importance of formulating these arguments. Students are further stymied by their various instructors’ mixed messages regarding the merits of “safe” arguments versus more “controversial” arguments, a complication created by cross-discipline inconsistency. Furthermore, students attribute a certain negativity and antagonism to the idea of the scholarly argument, borne of a cynicism towards the effectiveness of public acts of persuasion as relates to practical and social concerns. This attitude may, however be on the wane with the advent of the more global and interactive online community. Finally, students’ ability to construct an effective and persuasive argument is hindered by their failure to acknowledge and address conflicting viewpoints, invoking what Graff terms a “restricted code” often used in casual conversation in which “many things can go without saying.”
Graff contends wider discussion of these dilemmas can begin to remedy the shortcomings of academic discourse in the classroom.
