Writing strategies

I've been part of a writing group since earlier this year. We have met about three or four times so far, discussed our writing priorities and read at least one piece of writing from each person. This week, we watched a video together about writing: Peter Elbow On Writing (Media Education Foundation, 1995). Peter Elbow, a professor of English and a teacher of writing, discusses some of his philosophies and strategies about writing, different audiences and responses to writing. He emphasizes "making a mess", which in fact goes against the age-old writing rule that you need to make an outline and have a clear idea of what you're writing before you write. He suggests free-writing without revising, without spell-checking, without fixing grammar. And you can even be repetitive, point that intrigued our group: We're allowed?

One of the problems in writing that Peter Elbow points out is the fact that we almost always write for a teacher, i.e. an authority figure, be it a professor, advisor or journal/book reviewer. There are other kinds of audiences, too: peers and allies. Ally readers are those who read your writing and still like you and respect you even if it sucks. This is an important point about the emotional risks involved in writing and sharing your writing. We need supportive individuals as well as critiques of our writing.

There are also different types of audience responses:

1) Private writing: There is no audience. It's the safest type of writing because it's where you can really make a mess and take risks you normally wouldn't take with an audience at the end of the process.

2) No response: Someone reads your writing but does not give you any response to it. It can be awkward but a simple "thank you" can help alleviate the awkwardness. This is slightly more risky but still very safe. Both private writing and no-response writing help you to write more and take more risks because you don't have to worry about the audience very much.

3) Response but no evaluation: This can be particularly difficult for us in academia who have been trained to critique, critique, critique. The reader's responses should answer: What do you think my piece was about? How did it make you feel? Did it inspire you to think of other ideas? Nothing else. No sentences that start with "You should..." or "You didn't..." This type of response is so important yet underrated. Before you can make any critique, you have to first understand what the writer is trying to say. There's no use tearing someone's work apart if there isn't a mutual understanding as to what the piece is about. It's time wasted and relationships damaged for no reason. This type of feedback also compels the writer to write better and more clearly, and yet still feel safe enough to take certain risks. (This is my favourite type of response! It builds understanding, help bridge between differences and truly agree to disagree.)

4) Critical evaluation: This is only one type of response. We dwell on this so much in academia but it really should come at the very end.

My writing group will try out these four stages of writing and audience response. We will first meet to do some free-writing then discuss the process, not the contents. It's not something that any of us are familiar with so it'd be interesting to examine how we gradually become accustomed to it. We will then meet to read outloud to one another with no response, a great suggestion by one of our members. Having a piece read outloud by the author is a great way to physically feel the person's "voice" and hear how the piece was intended to be read by the author. We will then move on to response without evaluation and finally to critical evaluation. We not only think this will improve the quality of our writing but also help us develop a trusting writing/reading relationship in our little group. Trust is also one of those things that are so important yet underrated in scholarship. Hopefully, we can become both peer and ally readers to one another.

Networking with a one sentence blurb

While I was at the 2009 Congress in Ottawa, I had my first crack at networking. It's not something that I'd walk into willingly (or sober) but my best friend who is joining the Women's Studies faculty at the University of Ottawa eased us into it (another one of her ABD friends and I) and so it was relatively painless, enjoyable even!

The Canadian Communication Association reception was to be held at 5PM. The three of us had some leisure time three hours prior to the reception. During that time, we worked on our "one sentence blurb" to use during the reception. The "one sentence blurb" is basically a summary of your work in one sentence, something you can use to introduce yourself. It's a way to be prepared for the dreaded question: "What are you working on?" The one sentence is handy because at a reception such as this one people are drinking and it's very loud so you can't really go into your project at length. Yet, it doesn't make you look stupid, fumbling for words.

We worked on our one sentence for at least on hour! It's actually very difficult, trying to sum up your project into a catchy phrase that's not loaded with jargon. It's as hard as coming up with a spiffy title for your dissertation that doesn't lose the reader at the second word. But unlike the dissertation title, this blurb doesn't have to encapsulate your entire thesis. Ideally, it should tap into the most interesting and polished part, which may vary depending on the audience of the day. We had a lot of difficulty with mine. In the end it was: "I am looking at how the medical profession rationalize its involvement with the pharmaceutical industry." Although it's not an exact reflection of my thesis, the sentence works in a networking context. It's controversial, it's sexy and it's not loaded with jargon. It also works in a communication studies crowd.

The great thing is, our one sentence blurbs worked marvellously in that crowded room full of tipsy-to-drunk academics! I met some nice people, who mostly talked to my friend after the introductions but it's ok if that happens. For me, it was really helpful to have my friend ease the networking process (and also to take away the pressure of talking!). Otherwise, I would have sat in one corner nursing a glass or wine... or not go at all!

The not so great thing is that we didn't have our "one minute blurb" prepared. This is the slightly longer version to use if someone is actually interested in your work. It's also useful during a job interview, apparently. After I successfully delivered my one sentence, one person asked, "So how DO doctors rationalize that relationship?" Oops. I fumbled then and lost my audience! Ah well.

I'll probably rework both my one-sentence and one-minute blurbs as my dissertation takes shape but it was one of the best things I learned (and tested out) at the Congress this year.

Reflections on teaching (1)

Teaching is a roller-coaster ride, ranging from moments of surprise and fulfillment to intense anxiety and disappointment. I had a really good group of twenty-eight students and taught a course that is directly in my area. And yet it was still extremely difficult. I had persistent nausea for two full months. Here are a few lessons I learned (that weren't so traumatic that I am able to share publicly):

1) Don't assign too many readings. I got carried away in my course design and assigned way too many readings. Readings are a bit like Powerpoint presentations in that, if you get carried away, they end up leading the class, not you. I'm sure the amount of reading I assigned (despite the warnings I received from seasoned instructors) reflected my insecurities. I had two 2-hour sessions per week. I wish I had assigned one or two really good readings per class and then included a list of recommended readings for all those articles that are really good but ultimately not as important.

2) No mid-term test, unless really necessary. It really depends on the discipline and the nature of the course, of course, but for an anthropology seminar like mine, a mid-term test was unnecessary. In fact, I think it made the students anxious for no reason. Ultimately, many did well and the test served the purpose I had intended: it gave the students the incentive to learn the materials and it gave me the chance to assess their reading and writing. But the same objectives could have been attained by assigning two Concept Papers instead. Besides, assignments are much easier to grade than tests! The single test was much more difficult to grade than the gazillion assignments. People just don't write as well under pressure, which makes grading like pulling teeth.

3) Do as little work as possible; get them to talk. This is not a cop out. It's actually really really hard! Seminars are all about talking... but not the instructor. After teaching this seminar, I've decided that lecturing is the easiest way to teach, but also not very interesting, especially in a seminar. When students don't talk---which they are known to do---it's a nightmare. And oh did I ever have nightmares! When students carry on conversations with one another... it's magic. Students learning from one another with you there to moderate is the best scenario I can imagine in a classroom. But to make this happen requires a lot of creativity in advance and during class.

The best class I had was in week 2 when I brought in images I printed from the Internet. The students got into groups to discuss one image then opened up to the larger class and just... talked. It was fantastic! And they really enjoyed it. It took a heck of a lot of time preparing (e.g. looking up images, choosing, printing, etc.) and a whole lot of work thinking on my feet to respond to and summarize the students' comments. So I did very little work in terms of getting them to talk, but to get to that point required a lot of work. Other methods I used were film screening, image slide-show, group activities and free-writing exercises. The students presented on their individual final essay projects and I made the presentations very informal so that they doubled as starting points for discussion in class. (Those were very good days as I needed to do very little prep, just "perform" during class.)

Final thought for today on teaching: grading. I hated grading when I was a teaching assistant and tutor marker but I hated it more as the instructor. At least as a TA grading felt like "part of the job" that I was doing for someone else, but as the lead instructor grading felt extremely limiting... and also irrelevant to my teaching. I had students who are great thinkers but are unable to articulate their thought into writing. Some students write beautiful analytical pieces but are weak at writing methodological sequences. Some students are really good at identifying main arguments in an article but don't fully understand reflexive thinking. Some students took risks that didn't always work but still they pushed their own limits. To compress all these different talents into one single grade that appears in their transcript is totally wrong and completely idiotic. As an employer, what is this one figure going to tell you about your job candidate?

I actually miss the grading system in grade school that assesses students based on different abilities, such as writing, reading, participation, arithmetic, gym, etc., that may or may not translate to subjects. I can assess undergrads based on reading, reflecting, analytical writing, critical writing, sequential thinking, creativity & risk-taking, linking with the everyday, etc. and still assign a value to their abilities. I'd prefer to not give grades but at least this way the evaluation scheme makes sense in the real world!

Responding to Comments

Another set of revisions to do by Monday. The past two months have been a series of edits after edits. I'm a little tired and look forward to defending the prospectus and moving on to the dissertation. Revisions for one person is one thing but to meet the requirements of two more people? Especially when they conflict? I was asked by my advisor to address suggested changes and comments under one of three categories:

1) Accept suggested revision. Some are very easy: it's just a matter of removing a word or adding one. Some are tougher: I need to clarify concepts that I use to address a misreading. Some are quite difficult: I have to restructure an entire section around a different term.

2) Reject suggested revision. Sometimes people comment to, well, comment, not so much to say that things need to be different. And sometimes it's a matter of a difference of opinion based on different disciplinary requirements or on particular intellectual "schools." But I need to fully explain why I reject a suggestion. I need to deal with this now so that it doesn't come up again and again later on after the prospectus.

3) Accept the suggestion but do it for a later stage, i.e. for the dissertation. And make good on this promise.

In addition to the revised draft, I will submit an addendum which outlines my reasoning for rejecting certain suggestions and includes notes on what I'll do for the dissertation that I will not do at the prospectus stage.

the bigger picture

At somewhat late in the stage of my prospectus I had to make a big structural change. I had to abandon one of the central concepts in my dissertation (Bourdieu's notion of illusio) for what had initially been a peripheral idea that I had dropped (nomos). It just made better sense this way. When talking about the organization of perception, illusio is a trait of the habitus and nomos is an extension of the field. Since I'm not interviewing doctors but looking at a semi-official document (The Medical Post), which is an expression of how doctors present themselves to one another as a collective, it makes more sense to examine the structural organization of perception rather than the range of dispositions in individual doctors. It's a tough decision, though, because it means discarding a lot of what I've painstakingly written and rewritten and starting afresh. I can't simply replace one with the other, either. Nomos must be stitched into the discussion and this will probably mean that I have to alter the structure of what I've written already. 

Editing lesson #2: For the sake of the bigger picture, I must break apart, discard and rebuild the different components of my argument... so I don't get too attached to any idea! I never know if or when I'll have to abandon it.

the art of editing your own writing

I never really learned how to do this. most of my undergrad (and grad) days were spent scrambling to finish the first and only draft of class papers by the deadline, press print then submit without looking. It was a tight-rope routine that I somehow mastered and grew accustomed to. Well, needless to say the magic has worn off. The quick-fix tricks don't work now that I'm preparing myself for the big leagues. And here I thought that coughing up the first draft was the hardest part!

One of the most difficult things is taking criticisms. So far they have been very constructive and helpful. It's hard when your advisor asks where you voice went and that reading my writing felt like trudging through mud (or something to this extent). The (not so) funny part is that her experience reading my writing was exactly my experience writing the thing. So lesson one: If I have an unusually hard time getting something down on paper, chances are the reader will have an unusually hard time getting through the paper.

This doesn't mean that I've totally regressed in this process. I seem to have done a lot of conceptual work, thinking through complex ideas and grasping them with relative success. The problems that I face now are that 1) with my existing writing skills, I can't express the complexities of my new thinking to do them justice and 2) in order to express these thoughts, I'm trying to imitate the writers that I draw from but butchering their masterful convoluted writing styles in my mimicry.

So I have to find my voice again so that my writing sounds like me, not a cheap version of someone else. At the same time, I need to improve on my technique, rooting out bad habits from the past and find new ways to express what I'm thinking into words. Or, more accurately, structure my writing to accurately organize the structure of my thoughts. The work I need to do are stylistic, structural, syntactic and grammatical. Woah...

But first, baby steps. Facing my first fear: Reading my own writing and breaking it apart.

new year, new goals

It's a new school year and the beginning of my fourth year as a doctoral student. How time flies! September is a time to lament over how little i've accomplished in the last year and swear to do more in the upcoming year. Ah~ the timeless ritual!

Goals for this school year:

- Finish and defend prospectus by December (gulp)

- Teach in spring (fingers crossed)

- Submit at least ONE article to a publication (pulling hair)

Another goal is to read at least 10 pages per day---an article, book, book review, essay, presentation, etc. (I first wrote 20 then changed it to 10... Gotta have modest goals. Goal setting 101!) In this spirit, I read an article today by Emily Martin on pharmaceutical sales reps. Yay! I keep forgetting that this is a key area for me and that I have to keep myself up to date. Oops. 

I also ordered Lorraine Daston's Objectivity (I've been drooling over this for a while now) and Annemarie Mol's latest The Logic of Care. I think they're gonna be good. :D More books to add to my pile of books-I-haven't-read-yet-what's-wrong-with-me. :(