Unfortunately, you’re probably not reading this. It’s not your fault you’re not reading it, not really. In the first place, it’s not all that interesting of an article. A piece of professional writing critiquing the project promoting professional writing? Pretty meta. Secondly, there is the issue of access. You’re probably not reading this because you didn’t have access to the publication, or know how to access the publication, or you weren’t told to read this article. After all, it’s a niche article in a niche publication and not likely to be the type of thing you’d find on your own unless you already knew where to look.
But third and most likely, you probably aren’t reading this because you just don’t have the time. You have a lot on your plate after all—family, hobbies, physical fitness training, self-development (both personal and professional) and then just the day-in-day-out of doing your job. There are practically infinite things desiring or demanding your attention, so you certainly cannot be blamed for not sitting down and reading this.
Thus is the crux of the issue with a clarion call for increased professional writing. When are we reading all this?
Let’s listen
To be fair, it is absolutely an oversimplification to reduce the Harding Project to “everyone should write more.” If you examine this site, or listen to any of the podcasts that LTC Zach Griffiths has been on (such as Episode 62 of the Combined Arms Center’s Breaking Doctrine Podcast or Season 4 Episode 11 of Amos Fox’s Revolution in Military Affairs Podcast) you’ll know the Harding Project team are already doing certain things to make the Branch Journals and professional writing more accessible. The editorial broadening assignment, the greater distribution of hard copies to staff duty desks and training rooms (for those who like reading hard copy), and the digitization of the journals (for those who like reading on their electronic device) are all great steps to take.
But in every discussion of the Harding Project, I am still awaiting emphasis on an obvious next step: Audio.
The volume of research on styles of learning is legion, and do not warrant a rehashing here, but suffice to say, the physical and digital journals absolutely satisfy those who learn best by reading and learn through graphics. But what about the auditory learners of the world?
So, with the need for an audio option so clear, why hasn’t it happened yet? The answer, of course, is that it has. But compare the audio renderings of the journals to production quality of the linked Army sponsored podcasts, there is still an accessibility issue. One can subscribe to Breaking Doctrine or the Modern Warfare Institute podcasts on any podcast player application. But to hear the audio renderings of the journals, you’ll need to click through the Line of Departure site, select the appropriate journal, and then navigate to audio editions to get here. That’s four clicks versus just getting the automatic update and download from a podcast player. If we’re serious about the audio option, we need to make the journal articles just as accessible as professional podcasts.
Create podcast channels for each journal’s articles
Our Harding Fellows could make articles more accessible by setting up podcast channels we could subscribe to. While I am not familiar with the details, the huge number of podcasts out there suggest this is not that hard. Then we’d only need to refresh our podcatcher of choice to hear the latest from Armor or Army Sustainment.
The goal of the Harding Project is certainly not writing for the sake of writing. It is about the revival of our internal professional dialogue. But if we mean for this revival to truly take hold, we should acknowledge that some people learn best through an audio format. And without making the audio formats for our journals as accessible as possible, we’re missing a sizeable percentage of the prospective audience. So, while you’re probably not reading this, you could be listening to it.
LTC Scott Dawe is the Deputy Commanding Officer of the 194th Armored Brigade at Fort Moore, GA.
Great post. Completely agree that more audio options will increase access and "readership." I recommend dropping the learning styles argument though. Why? Because there's little evidence that teaching to a person’s specified learning style results in better learning. Plus, the argument for more audio content stands on its own.
For more on learning styles:
- https://onlineteaching.umich.edu/articles/the-myth-of-learning-styles/#:~:text=Most%20studies%20of%20learning%20styles,it%20is%20still%20a%20myth.
- https://www.nature.com/articles/s41539-023-00190-x
- https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2019/05/learning-styles-myth
- https://www.forbes.com/sites/tjmccue/2019/01/30/how-combined-learning-style-not-just-visual-or-kinesthetic-can-help-you-succeed/
- https://hbr.org/2010/09/which-self-improvement-myth-is
1) notebookLM will leverage LLMs to turn a text article into a conversation between to AIs you canisten to. https://notebooklm.google.com/
2) Substack does the same thing as my podcast app does. Once ei subscribe, I automatically get the latest posts and updates. It's actually the reason I read this article. Worth a look.