As I have read Keith Sawyer’s Creating Conversations, I have liked his very approachable style of writing. This book feels substantive, but is not written with so much academic jargon as to be incomprehensible to the layman. He makes more difficult concepts understandable. He has inserted personal experiences (with jazz music and with improv theater) as appropriate. He must have intended this book for a wider audience than just academics. (And why not, with the subjects of creativity, improv, and jazz?)
It made me think about my own style of writing. In a Ph.D. program, I will have to write an an academic. But I want my writing to be as comprehensible and engaging as Sawyer’s in this book. Is this a freedom allowed only once one has established a reputation for scholarliness, as Sawyer has already done? Clearly your writing style must fit your audience, and in writing this book he both carries the prestige and addresses a topic to appeal to a wider audience.
Lisa R. Halverson 
I completely agree. One thought too – the metaphor or analogy you choose makes a big difference. For example, I remember reading a paper once that used jazz as the metaphor – it was very difficult for me to understand because I was unfamiliar with the jazz terms like rifts etc. that were used to draw the comparisons. So what can be highly insightful for one can be a barrier to understanding for another.
crg