obscurity-proof

Hi again guys!
Re-reading the academic article I chose before, I tried a deeper analysis of it in terms of what we said about a correct text structure. Doing so, I kept in mind the following main points on which my analysis should be based: logical connections and fluency of concepts; cohesion with which ideas are linked; clarity of language used; and coherence between the text and its expected audience.
My article ("The Quality of Democracy. Participation and its Dilemma: How to Go Beyond?", by Daniela Ropelato, 2007, http://www.webasa.org/Pubblicazioni/Ropelato_2007_1.pdf ) deals with the increasing spread of democratic values in our era, whose current problem is that of guaranteeing a concrete role to the basic principle of peoples' participation in governing processes. The general structure of the text is very well-planned and arranged: the article is divided into subsections (Introduction, Democracy and Participation, Participation and Representative Democracy, The Decisional Process of Public Administration, Participation and Governance, Between Inclusion and Exclusion, To Test Fraternity. The Pact of Political Participation, Participation and Quality Democracy) but, considering it as a whole, I can recognize a fluent continuity from the beginning to the end. For example, at the very beginning the author states:

"The significance of such participation, its actual conditions and its development are integral to a reflection on forms of living and their regulation."

A very related sentence can be found within the last subsection of the article:

"Concerning the quality of the result, we can see that adopting this specific participation methodology, a number of citizens can experiment a different course to articulate and aggregate their demands, orienting personal interests to the common good."

The two sentences show how the text is arranged as a complete piece of work because they are clearly part of the same discourse. The author is able to create a firm relation between the expression of contents and the division in paragraphs. The logical chain that links events, ideas, definitions, explanations and personal thoughts all together is a really well-built chain because concepts are precisely explained or demonstrated and positions are supported by facts or maintained by strong thesis. See, for instance, these two paragraphs about the method used by the author in her research:

"The method I am using, exploring opportunity and participative logic,examines participation beginning with its risk factors. To some degree I take for granted participation's fundamental positive relationship to the definition of democracy, in order to better review the principal weak points that burden it and that have been acknowledged in political science for some time. This reflection, therefore, looks at the problems that participation places on politics, not so much from one of its standard and ideal analysis but from an empirical basis, where it is conditioned by hard complications.

The analysis is going to compare such participation to a specific definition of social bonds — the political idea of universal fraternity. If, in fact, freedom and equality have already contributed by determining the content of the democratic form, in the face of the old and the new problems that present themselves today, it will be interesting to discover if there is a place where the concept of fraternity can intervene with a specific contribution."

Both of them are based on complete and clear explanations of the contents: the author uses a 'circle' structure in which each starting idea is explained in the central part of the paragraph and re-affirmed in its conclusion (see references in light blue, green and orange in the text). The cohesion of the text can be defined as almost excellent, with a proper use of connectors, linking particles and subordinators, which make the speech easy to read and understand (see words in red in the the paragraphs above). The same can be said about the language chosen: its clarity, linearity, simplicity and conciseness make the reader feel comfortable and do not leave space for ambiguities or doubts of comprehension, even though some specialized terms from sociology are used. Here is an example:

"In the first place, then, what we need are new forms of participation for civil society, that is to say for individual citizens who are entitled to represent their own interests in the public sphere even as an individual, just as their particular social aggregation. In the second place, we need to grant major attention — not only in order to consult them, but also to involve in defining the political agenda — to the representation of those subjects that can turn out to be marginal from an economic or cultural point of view. To give preference to the views of political specialists or professionals who, as we have seen, in general share the same social and economic status, serves to halt participation itself, obstructing access to institutions for those who come from a weaker social strata, with their related issues."

Concerning coherence, I think it is quite perfect because the author clearly meets her supposed audience's expectations by choosing an appropriate structure and style. As I said before, the concepts are well-explained, ideas are stated clearly and often motivated or supported by theories or facts. Even though it is not explicitly stated, I assume as a suitable audience for this article a typical accademic public, such as students, researchers or professors. I can deduce it by the fact that the author is a professor herself and that she participated to many conferences related with her academic field of studies. Another indication can be her large use of definitions, lists and historical evidences, as well as specific terms related with social sciences, politics and historiography.
Comparing this kind of text frame with that of a blog post, I think there are some valuable points of strength that a post should take from it in order to be clearly presented and easily understood: a logical flow of concepts, cohesiveness and simplicity of language are undoubtedly fundamental features of any piece of writing. However, a specialized article has neither the same purpose nor the same audience as a blog post; this is why they are obviously meant to be written in a very different style.