Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/capj20

How ‘academic’ should academic writing be? Or:

why form should follow function

Gert Biesta, Keita Takayama, Margaret Kettle & Stephen Heimans

To cite this article: Gert Biesta, Keita Takayama, Margaret Kettle & Stephen Heimans (2024)
How ‘academic’ should academic writing be? Or: why form should follow function, Asia-Pacific
Journal of Teacher Education, 52:2, 121-125, DOI: 10.1080/1359866X.2024.2324582

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2024.2324582

Published online: 20 Mar 2024.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 375

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=capj20
ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION
2024, VOL. 52, NO. 2, 121–125
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2024.2324582

How ‘academic’ should academic writing be? Or: why form

should follow function

The writing of this editorial was prompted by a recent experience one of us had at an
academic conference in New Zealand. At the conference, a group of doctoral students
had organised a session in which they discussed their experiences with the world of
academia, particular with regard to writing and, more specifically, with so-called academic
writing and academic publishing. In their presentations they provided highly perceptive
and also highly critical analyses of the world of academic publishing and the way in which
this world had been presented to them.
One thing they showed – and raised concerns about – was how academic publishing is
very much skewed towards the English language, which makes anything that is written in
another language automatically marginal and of little significance. The other thing they
showed was how the rules of academic publishing had been presented to them as a strict,
non-negotiable and highly uniform “regime.” In this regime, so they recounted, there are
apparently very explicit rules about the proper structure of an academic paper, about the
length and content of individual paragraphs, and about the writing style, particularly the
importance of using a passive and dispassionate voice.
They found the encounter with this regime frustrating and limiting for their own
formation as scholars. They also expressed concerns about the way in which the
regime works as a filter through which some voices are heard while others
a reduced to and can only exist as “noise” (on the distinction between “speech” and
“noise” see Rancière, 2004).
The session reminded us of a story written by Franz Kafka called “Before the Law,”
first published in 1915 in German as “Vor dem Gesetz.” The story is about a man who
seeks “the law” and wishes to gain entry to it. There is, however, a doorkeeper at the
doorway to the law who tells the man that he cannot go through at the present
time. When the man asks whether he can ever go through, the doorkeeper says that
it may be possible, but not yet now. The man waits at the door for years, even
bribing the doorkeeper with everything he has. And while the doorkeeper accepts
the bribes, he tells the man that he only does so “so that you do not think that you
have left anything undone.” The man continues to wait until he is about to die. Right
before his death, he asks the doorkeeper why, even though everyone seeks the law,
no one else has come during the years he has been there. The doorkeeper answers
“This gate was made only for you and I am now going to shut it.”
Kafka’s story seems to capture the experience of the students quite well in that
they encountered the rules of academic publishing as a non-negotiable law that
prevents them from entering the world of academic publishing on their own terms.
Moreover, they encountered a strict gatekeeping of this regime, which means that
the only way one can enter the realm of academic publishing is by passing the

© 2024 Australian Teacher Education Association

122 EDITORIAL

gatekeeper. This requires at the very least that one sticks to “the rules.” But even
then, as the story suggests, there is no guarantee of success, which obviously adds to
the experience of frustration. There is, of course, a whole industry of “helpful”
courses and web-based resources that seeks to induct newcomers to the rules of
the game. But the issue raised by the students is about the existence of the rules and
the presentation of them as “the law,” to use Kafka’s phrase, not about what can be
done to help them to facilitate entry.
Kafka’s story also seems to speak to our role as editors, because editors are gen­
erally seen as “gatekeepers” of the field (see, for example, James Simon & Fyfe, 1994;
Primack et al., 2019). In previous editorials we have raised critical and “uncomfortable”
questions about this dimension of our editorship (see Heimans et al., 2022; Takayama
et al., 2022), and also about the particular issue of the “politics of English” (see Kettle
et al., 2023) as we are well aware that we are not simply conduits of reviewer decisions,
but play an active role in the decision making about what gets published in the Asia-
Pacific Journal of Teacher Education.
While we do agree that editors have an important role to play as gatekeepers of
the content of publications – which can of course be done in restrictive ways, but
also in pro-active and “opening” ways (see, for example, the eight challenges to the
field of teacher education research with which we started our tenure as editors; see
Biesta et al., 2020), it would be quite a different thing to suggest that editors should
also be gatekeepers of the form of academic publishing. Such a role might be
appropriate if it were true that there are indeed clear rules about what an academic
paper should look like, how it should be written and structured, and which writing
voice is the appropriate one. Yet, in our view, this idea is a problematic myth (see
also, for example, Numbers & Kampourakis, 2015).
It is of course a very popular and very prominent myth, and also a very powerful one
with real world effects, which explains why from the perspective of the students it appears
as a non-negotiable regime. And whereas the whole industry of courses and resources we
mentioned above, presents itself as help, so that newcomers do not think “that they have
left anything undone,” it actually contributes to keeping the myth in existence and
making it bigger, rather than that it helps to raise critical questions about what academic
scholarship actually is, and which kinds of modes and modalities of communication might
be conducive to it.
The reason why we use the word “myth,” is because the suggestion that there is only
a very limited set of options for writing in an academic way, is part of the bigger idea
that there is only a small number of ways for doing proper scientific research – and some
would even say that there is only one way for doing proper scientific research. It is the
myth of science as method, that is, the idea that what distinguishes scientific knowledge
from everyday knowledge lies in the methods that have been applied to generate such
knowledge. This idea is quite old and has been discussed in 20th century philosophy of
science as one of the answers to the so called “demarcation problem,” that is the
question whether and if so how “science” can be distinguished from “everyday” knowl­
edge (see, for example, Laudan, 1983). In 1975 Paul Feyerabend already argued strongly
against the idea that proper science would be a matter of following a or the scientific
method (see Feyerabend, 1975). Feyerabend rather argued that scientific research
 ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION 123

should be anarchistic, which literally means without form (an-arche), because it should
be about discovery and going into unknown terrain, which is precisely the opposite of
following particular, prescribed methods.
Bruno Latour, in his groundbreaking study Science in Action (Latour, 1988), made
a similar point by showing that claims about methods and, more specifically, scientific
methods are always made “after the event,” that is, when there is some clarity about what
might count as knowledge or understanding or technology that works, but that when
such knowledge and technology is still “in the making,” no decision can be made about
which methods will lead to the results that, at a later point in time, are seen as valid,
worthwhile or even true.
With this in mind, we are inclined to argue that the idea from late 19th century
modern architecture that “form should follow function” – introduced by the American
architect Louis Henry Sullivan – should hold both for scholarly activity itself and for
academic writing. It is not, therefore, that the form should decide what needs to be
done or how academic papers should be written, but that the form of scholarly activity
and academic writing should be functional for what one seeks to achieve. Rather than
the promotion of an academic monoculture – in research and in writing – we would
argue for the importance of pluralism, in research and in writing, because this is the
best guarantee for anything interesting to occur. Of course, what counts as “interest­
ing” is a judgement that is itself part of the scholarship and intellectual debate within
a field, and even what counts as a field is part of this. So our argument is not an
argument to do away with judgement, but it is an argument for judgement rather than
for a methodical monoculture.
We are not just making these points in order to show how we conceive of our
role as gatekeepers, and also not just to give our support to the concerns raised by
the students mentioned above. We also do this in order to push back against the
remarkable convergence we are seeing in the manuscripts that are submitted to
our journal. They are becoming more and more identical in form and structure, and
therefore increasingly less adventurous and, so we wish to highlight, also increas­
ingly less significant for further scholarship in the field of teacher education. The
convergence we are seeing is most likely the result of the way in which newcomers
are inducted into the “orthodoxies” of educational and social science research –
which also highlights the need to complement orthodox introductions to the field
with unorthodox introductions (see on this Biesta, 2020, 2023) – but we also have
the impression that there is a degree of “self-policing” going on, where newcomers,
but perhaps also those who have been around in the field of research and publish­
ing for a while, feel the need to comply with the alleged “standards” of academic
publishing.
One worry we have in relation to all this, is that many people are also making money
from the myth, particularly by offering their services to novice researchers by “helping”
them to make sure that their writing meets the criteria of academic publishing. Again,
this may appear helpful – although the help is only available for those who have the
money to pay for such help – but it is actually help that reproduces the myth rather
than debunking it.
124 EDITORIAL

The other worry we have, is that publishing companies also try to be helpful in
providing guidance about how papers for submission to their journals might – or in
some cases: should – be structured. This is another cause of the ongoing conver­
gence of the format of academic writing. One thing that we believe is around the
corner, or perhaps is already there, is that the more papers are structured in the
same way, the easier it will become for artificial intelligence to do a first scan but
perhaps even a full review of papers. It is along those lines that the gatekeeping of
format – which, to make the point one more time always presents itself as “being
helpful” – would actually slip into the gatekeeping of content, which would under­
mine the crucial and critical role of judgement. This is another reason why myths
about what makes academic writing “academic” need to be scrutinised and
debunked for the sake of scholarship that pushes boundaries, rather than becoming
an exercise in ”painting by numbers.”
The upshot of all this is that we are open to a wide variety of writing formats.
We have been actively promoting and pursing this in the pages of our journal (see,
for example, the 50th anniversary volume of the journal), and we do invite pro­
spective authors to continue testing and pushing the boundaries of academic
genres and regimes.

References
Biesta, G. (2020). Educational research: An unorthodox introduction. Bloomsbury.
Biesta, G. (2023). Educational research: An unorthodox introduction. [Chinese translation]. Beijing
Normal University Press.
Biesta, G., Takayama, K., Kettle, M., & Heimans, S. (2020). Call for papers: A new agenda for teacher
education research. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 48(5), 460–462. https://doi.org/10.
1080/1359866X.2020.1818484
Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. New Left Books.
Heimans, S., Biesta, G. T., Takayama, K., & Kettle, M. (2022). Thinking about what has been ‘missing’ in
the Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education (APJTE) and perhaps the field more generally. Asia-
Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 50(3), 229–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2022.
2079174
James Simon, R., & Fyfe, J. J. (Eds). (1994). Editors as gatekeepers: Getting published in the social
sciences. Rowman & Littlefield.
Kettle, M. H., Biesta, S., Takayama, K., & Takayama, K. (2023). Teaching, education, and the politics of
English. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 51(5), 409–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1359866X.2023.2274687
Latour, B. (1988). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard
University Press.
Laudan, L. (1983). The demise of the demarcation problem. In R. S. Cohen & L. Laudan (Eds.), Physics,
philosophy and psychoanalysis: Essays in honor of Adolf Grünbaum. Boston Studies in the
philosophy of science (Vol. 76, pp. 111–127). D. Reidel.
Numbers, R. L., & Kampourakis, K. (Eds). (2015). Newton’s apple and other myths about science.
Harvard University Press.
Primack, R. B., Regan, T. J., Devictor, V., Zipf, L., Godet, L., Loyola, R., Maas, B., Pakeman, R. J.,
Cumming, G. S., Bates, A. E., Pejchar, L., & Koh, L. P. (2019). Are scientific editors reliable gate­
keepers of the publication process? Biological Conservation, 238, 108232. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biocon.2019.108232
Rancière, J. (2004). Disagreement: Politics and philosophy. (Julie Rose, Trans.). University of Minnesota
Press.
 ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION 125

Takayama, K., Kettle, M., Heimans, S., & Biesta, G. (2022). Taking “asia pacific” seriously: Some
uncomfortable questions about editing APJTE. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 50(5),
425–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2022.2138039

Gert Biesta
The Moray House School of Education and Sport, University of Edinburgh, UK
Centre for Public Education and Pedagogy, National University of Ireland, Maynooth
gert.biesta@mu.ie
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8530-7105
Keita Takayama
University of South Australia, Australia
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9888-0047
Margaret Kettle
CQUniversity, Australia
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4060-4226
Stephen Heimans
University of Queensland, Australia
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4573-9461