Correcting to improve clarity: Avoid vague quantifiers

Science writing regularly presents data as numbers, averages, statistical outputs, tables, graphs and written descriptions of quantity. Yet, in my experience, it is overwhelmingly common to see vague descriptions of quantity (herein referred to as 'vague quantifiers'). Even in my previous sentence, I gave one: 'overwhelmingly common'. However, for this blogpost, I am not presenting data, I haven't done a study on this topic and I have no factual evidence to prove this assertion. Instead, I offer my opinion, based upon my experience in reviewing the clarity of science writing. Yet when presenting science data, it is crucial to be precise, wherever possible.

I consider that many writers use vague quantifiers when presenting or describing scientific data because:

- they are trying to summarise or generalise the information,

- they assume the reader knows the details, or

- they assume the reader can find the details if they want to, either within the document or elsewhere.

Even if this is true, it's best and easier for the reader to be clear the first time. If you can be precise in the first instance and give the actual figures, then do so.

Every time I see an adjective (word or phrase) that gives a vague description of quantity, I always comment, 'how many x'? My instruction when I see vague quantifiers is to replace them with the numbers or measurement averages. Even if the exact numbers are not known or are not considered necessary by the author, giving a range, an approximation or an estimate is better than no numbers at all.

A common example:

'In the past few decades, temperature modelling has improved'.

'Few' could mean different things to different people: 3? 4? 5? In this example, it is far simpler and clearer to just say how many.

In the following, I list real examples from work I have reviewed. I have purposely left the source of these examples uncited. I have also kept the sources anonymous, either by choosing examples that cover a broad topic or by changing the nouns to preserve author and project anonymity.

Example 1.

Multiple experiments were carried out.

My comments

Although the reader might be able to go to the methods to find out how many experiments were carried out, 'multiple' can be replaced with the actual number of experiments.

Example 2.

This technique has the advantage of high reliability and sensitivity.

My comments

How high is high? Also, what criteria makes something reliable and sensitive?

Example 3.

The results show an extremely close match.

My comments

Add the numbers to instantly show the reader that it is extremely close.

Example 4.

We investigated several strategies for modelling.

My comments

Either then list the strategies, or summarise them, in a following sentence or replace 'several' with the number of strategies.

Example 5.

Cable bolts are flexible tendons composed of a number of high-capacity steel wires which are usually installed and grouted into a borehole with certain spacing to provide reinforcement of rock excavations.

My changes

Cable bolts are flexible tendons composed of a number of high-capacity steel wires which are usually installed and grouted into a boreholes with certain spacing to provide reinforcement of rock excavations..

My comments

Sometimes, depending upon what the intended audience knows, instead of generalising with vague quantifiers, it might be ok to leave some details out. In this example:

- Is it important that the reader knows how many wires the tendons are composed of? If not, leave out 'a number of'. If it is, then instead give the number or the range (in brackets is ok)

- Is it important that the reader knows how the spacing of the boreholes? If not, leave out. If it is, then provide the spacing details.

- If it is common knowledge within the intended audience of what is 'high-capacity' steel wire, then defining 'high' in this instance would not be necessary.

Example 6.

The number of papers that report on this issue is alarming. However, the actual experimental evidence in support of this hypothesis is limited to only a handful of conclusive studies.

My changes

The number of papers that report on this issue is alarming (estimated at xxx). However, the actual experimental evidence in support of this hypothesis is limited to only a handful of [insert the number] conclusive studies.

My comments

- The number of papers that might conclude that something is alarming may vary wary widely depending on the topic and the severity of the issue.

- If it is known that there is 'only a handful' of conclusive studies then the actual number would be known and should be included instead.

In conclusion:

I have many more examples that I may add here later on. I encourage you to add your examples of vague quantifiers and comments at the bottom of this blog post. If you would like feedback on reworking a sentence, email it to admin@writingclearscience.com.au and I will see what I can do.

Any suggestions or comments please email admin@writingclearscience.com.au