Open AccessCan Authority be Sustained while Balancing Accessibility and Formality?
Author(s) -
Nigar Hashimzade,
Georgina A. Myles,
Gareth D. Myles
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
hermes
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.759
H-Index - 7
eISSN - 1903-1785
pISSN - 0904-1699
DOI - 10.7146/hjlcb.v27i52.25132
Subject(s) - formality , correctness , notation , computer science , mathematical notation , range (aeronautics) , outcome (game theory) , formal description , mathematical structure , management science , artificial intelligence , mathematics education , mathematical economics , programming language , mathematics , linguistics , philosophy , economics , composite material , arithmetic , materials science
Economics has developed into a quantitative discipline that makes extensive use of mathematical and statistical concepts. When writing a dictionary for economics undergraduates it has to be recognised that many users will not have sufficient training in mathematics to benefi t from formal definitions of mathematical and statistical concepts. In fact, it is more than likely that the user will want the dictionary to provide an accessible version of a definition that avoids mathematical notation. Providing a verbal description of a mathematical concept has the risk that the outcome is both verbose (compared to a definition using appropriate mathematical symbols) and imprecise. For the author of a dictionary this raises the question of how to resolve this conflict between accessibility and formal correctness. We use a range of examples from the Oxford Dictionary of Economics to illustrate this conflict and to assess the extent to which a non-formal definition can be viewed as authoritative.