klarhetskritik

Klarhetskritik, or clarity critique, is the evaluative practice of examining the clarity of a text, speech, or policy to improve understandability and reduce ambiguity. It analyzes how effectively the intended message is conveyed and whether terms, concepts, and arguments are accessible to the intended audience. The term is used in Swedish discourse and translates loosely to “clarity critique.”

Its remit spans editing, journalism, academia, public policy, law, science communication, and translation studies. It is not ethical critique per se but a hermeneutic standard that prompts writers to articulate aims, definitions, and procedures in precise terms.

Typical criteria include linguistic clarity (clear vocabulary, short sentences, active voice), conceptual clarity (explicit definitions, consistent terminology, avoidance of equivocation), structural clarity (logical sequence, signposting), contextual clarity (awareness of audience knowledge and background), and evidentiary clarity (claims backed by traceable data).

Practices include using checklists, reader testing, and argument mapping, as well as iterative editing and peer critique. Klarhetskritik can be normative, prescribing what readers should be able to understand, or descriptive, describing how a text actually communicates.

Critics warn that a sole focus on clarity can oversimplify complex issues or suppress nuance, and that clarity assessments depend on audience assumptions. It complements but does not replace accuracy, rigor, or stylistic and cultural considerations.