Academic writing is an area of conflict for many people. While the form provides the perfect opportunity for in-depth and intense discussion of specific topics, its strict formatting and requisite knowledge make it very hard for non-academics to read them or write them. This creates a dilemma for people within the social sciences: should we continue to promote this restrictive norm or should we reject it? In my view, teaching formal writing for political science and other social science majors is very important for their continued education and contribution to the field.

            The ability to write a well-formatted academic paper is freeing in itself, as it allows the writer to subvert the conventions. Writers who have been taught the rigid forms of academic writing have a distinct advantage over those who have not: they can play with it. The knowledge of convention and expectation allows them to flip those expectations, making for what could potentially be a more satisfying piece of writing. Geneva Smitherman’s English Teacher, Why You Be Doing the Thangs You Don’t Do is a great example. In it, Smitherman takes the format of an academic journal/essay but injects it with AAVE, complete with double negatives and portmanteau words. She’s deliberately using an English dialect that is usually not welcome in academic discourses to prove her point about the exclusion that black students feel when forced to change their language. Her use of AAVE in an academic space where pretentious language is viewed as progressive is exactly the kind of thing that only someone with knowledge of the conventions of academic writing can do. This ability is especially important in the realm of political science because it allows scholars to challenge power structures while working within them.

            Another benefit of teaching academic writing to political science majors come in the continuation of their scholarship. More than anything else, the field of political science relies on new ideas. Whether it’s a rejection of Friedman’s ideas of political economy or a heartened defense of neoliberalism post-Obama, political science is almost nothing without the ideas that sustain it. In order for those ideas to break into academic circles, they have to be presented in a certain way. That certain way comes in the format of an academic journal or essay. Nick Bostrom’s “Existential Risks” paper would not have sparked a discussion considering the ethics of war and political interaction if he’d simply tweeted it or posted it on his readerless LiveJournal. The ability to present ideas to a specific group of people in a structured format makes academic writing equivalent to learning how to create a PowerPoint presentation: tedious, but necessary to advance.

            The last reason why academic writing is important for political science majors is for the edification of teachers. Despite lofty utopian ideals, academia is still a fundamentally rigid place. The flexibility that so many desire comes at the expense of the teachers who have to grade every “subversive” essay, or render judgment on every interpretive dance final exam. Standardization, while viewed by many as the creativity killer, still stands as the best way of creating a baseline from which all people can grow. Political Science majors can take the essay format taught to them in English and populate it with millions of brilliant ideas, but without that format a teacher would be at a loss when trying to decipher every student’s fancy new style or format. One could even argue that, when given lines to color within, the student’s true creativity and brilliance is allowed to shine.