There's a funny thing about abstracts: they make doing the reading really easy, or not even necessary in some cases. Abstracts are great at giving the nitty gritty of the research and evidence so that the reader can easily tell what is happening in the research and the rest of the article. While abstracts are a great source of information for readers, and give them a quick snapshot of the information within the article that will tell the reader whether or not they want to read the piece, abstracts also tend to replace the reading for many people. More often than not, after reading the abstract, readers will not actually take the time to read the article because the abstract presented them with every piece of information they feel they need. Even better than an abstract that simply outlines and quickly details the main points of the article is an abstract that draws it out for you. When an abstract includes a graph, chart, or some other form of illustration, a lazy reader is really in for a treat! When the main points and main evidence in support of those points are plainly spelled out for the reader, with a visual aid, the reader can usually get enough information to make or support an argument from just the abstract, and they don't even have to turn any pages.
The interesting thing about abstracts is that we tend to think of them more as the text and not the illustration associated with the text. They say that pictures say a thousand words, and while I am more inclined to use words to say what I think and feel, pictures seem to be a highly under-rated medium through which we can present information to a reader. It is also interesting to note that the way a reader interprets writing can be altered by an image. If a reader is given an illustration, their perception of what is being stated could be totally altered by their understanding of the text in relation to their understanding of the illustration.
I think that in the same way an illustration in an abstract has the capacity to give a reader a new way of understanding a text, so can computer simulations. In fact, I think that computer simulations and computer imaging are even cooler than just simple illustrations. These types of illustrations give the viewer/reader a way of seeing something in the depth of detail that their own minds may not automatically take them to. Computer imaging and simulations have the potential of showing the reader/viewer a radical idea rather than simply trying to tell it to them. The only big negative I see here is that the reader is only being given the CGI artist's idea of what is true or real, and if that person doesn't get it right, then the reader is not presented with an accurate image of the situation.
Also, sorry this post might be super ramble-y and disjointed. I am writing at 3:15 in the morning after a night of just 4 hours of sleep so my brain probably isn't quite functioning at it's best! Maybe someday I will get some sleep and write something brilliant and coherent . . . I don't believe that today is that day.
Unless you're in a class that requires specific details from articles that include abstracts, I feel that most people only read the included abstracts. I'm usually the opposite - I don't like reading repetitive information (like reading the abstract and then reading the paper), so I generally only read abstracts if I've read a paper and have little to no idea what I was supposed to get from it. I usually wish that papers didn't include abstracts, or even worse, paragraphs that explain what the paper is going to discuss. I feel that papers should discuss what they want to discuss, and not tell me what they are going to discuss before discussing it. I did like your idea that abstracts are just additional illustrations to the paper. The next paper I read with an abstract I will try to view it as an additional illustration. Thanks for the great point of view!
ReplyDeleteSome good late night writing right there!
ReplyDeleteI like what you say about a reader's perspective on the piece being altered by how they react to an image. As hyper-readers, I feel like a good majority of people will draw most of their information from graphs, charts, and illustrations related to the text if it is included... Would it be better to not include the images? Or are readers still going to draw biased conclusions based on the text? Is text a more neutral medium?
I don't know, but it's certainly something to think about, especially for us writers. National Geographic has some amazing graphics that help me as a reader to understand the text, and I think I remember it a lot better too. Between an article with ideas and another article with both ideas and images, I would definitely remember the one with images... they would stick in my mind much better.
Not sure where I went with all that, sorry! I appear to be rambling too!
-Andy