Language and the myth of scientific neutrality: a study of impersonality and clarity in academic researches’ elaboration manuals

The context that the present article is included is of the questions’ discussion about artificiality of the use of impersonal treatment in the language of scientific researches reports, especially in qualitative studies. Its fundamental question refers to what roles the manuals of elaboration of academic researchers can play – proposed by university institutions –regarding to communication in scientific reports. The highlighted aspects are of impersonality and passivity that are suggested in the academic manuals and its implications concerning clarity in qualitative research. Considering the actual context of dynamic tendencies in knowledge construction, this study is justified, mainly, because of the influence that the recommendations about writing scientific works, established by the university institutions, exert in the elaboration of research reports. Another aspect that is investigated refers to impersonal language that is perceived as a way to keep, in the reports, any influence exemption of the subject-researcher above the researched object. The aim is to describe and to understand the usage patterns of this manuals regarding to language characteristics’ recommendations that need to be followed when it comes to adequacy to various modalities of research. Under an outline of documental research, the data were collected from electronic websites of various university institutions that are localized in a delimited region that includes two Brazilian States. Other data that were collected include rules’ texts of Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas (ABNT) that refers to elaboration of academic works. The analysis, with interpretative bia, was done in two phases: in the beginning, one exploratory and, after one descriptive. The manual’s content was grouped in six analysis’ categories, according to the language characteristics. The results revealed that the manuals are not flexible about academic language and, they do not explain terms like clarity, objectivity and legimaticy of passive and active voices, compromising clear and updated writing that, in conclusion, could recognize the presence of the researcher as an information manager. So, the suggested inflexibility stes up as a serious obstacle to elaborate a compatible writing with the actual thought that refers to qualitative research.