[Itech] Fwd: Tomorrow's Professor eNewsletter: 1374. Three Phases of Writing for Publication

[Teresa Franklin]

Hello Graduates:

Even if you plan to only work in ID, there will still be a need to publish
if you are in the higher education arena (Which if you are getting a PHD
which is a research-based degree-- I would hope you are planning for higher
education).

Take a look at the article below.  Maybe it will help you get started in
publishing your research work!

Happy New Semester!
Dr. Franklin




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Richard Reis <reis at stanford.edu>
Date: Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 10:36 PM
Subject: Tomorrow's Professor eNewsletter: 1374. Three Phases of Writing
for Publication
To: tomorrows-professor at lists.stanford.edu



   Please click here if e-mail below is not displayed correctly.
<http://cgi.stanford.edu/~dept-ctl/cgi-bin/tomprof/enewsletter.php?msgno=1374>
   [image:
Tomorrow's Professor eNewsletter, Sponsored by Stanford Center for Teaching
and Learning]
*A well-written article that has shortcomings is returned with helpful
suggestions for revision and resubmission.  A badly written one is rejected
outright because the reviewer never really grasped what was being
communicated.  *

1374. Three Phases of Writing for Publication

*Folks:*

[image: Rick Reis]The posting below, a bit longer than most, examines in
some detail the three important phases in academic writing.  It is from
Chapter 2, Towards a Theory of Writing, in the book, I*nspirational Writing
for Academic Publication* by Gillie Bolton with Stephen Rowland. SAGE
Publications Ltd. 1 Oliver's Yard, 55 City Road, London EC1Y 1SP. [
www.sagepub.com/‎] © Gillie Bolton and Stephen Rowland 2014. Reprinted with
permission.

Regards,

Rick Reis
reis at stanford.edu
        Anyone can subscribe     SUBSCRIBE
<https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/tomorrows-professor>      Visit
our website     TomProf On-line
<http://cgi.stanford.edu/~dept-ctl/cgi-bin/tomprof/postings.php>      Visit
us on Facebook and Twitter   [image: Tomorrow's Professor Facebook Page]
<http://www.facebook.com/TomorrowsProfessor> [image: Tomorrow's Professor
Twitter] <http://twitter.com/tomorrowsprof>         UNSUBSCRIBE
<https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/tomorrows-professor>
    UP NEXT: Mindfulness in the Classroom


Tomorrow's Research

---------- 3,192 words ----------

Three Phases of Writing for Publication


Academic writing can helpfully be thought of as involving three different
approaches or phases.  A key to successful and positive writing is
undertaking them all.  The role of each phase is clear, simple and
straightforward to grasp and practice.

1. Write for yourself to find out what you know, think, feel and want to
say.
2. Redraft to communicate with your reader.
3. Edit for posterity to offer clarity, clear language, structure, grammar,
correct references.

Each of these phases involves the writer in critical thinking and research
(albeit different kinds of research).  Each phase and stage develops the
argument, the theory, as well as the exposition of the facts; none of the
phases merely reports.

I give these phases in order 1-3: working through them in this order is
valuable.  Writers, however, move through these phases in very different
ways.  Some work straight through and complete, as if the phases were
steps.  Most revisit earlier phases to revitalize their writing as they go
through: it is often a dynamically reiterative process.  Many writers
return to Phase 1 again with new material to insert into the text; they
then work on this new writing through Phases 2 and 3.  Some, moreover, do
some of the initial phase in their heads, only writing when they are fairly
clear what they want to say.  Leaving out a phase, though, can make a
publication dull, muddled, incomplete, and prevent it speaking to the
appropriate audience.

Phase 1: Write for myself to find out what I know, think, feel, and want to
say

Phase 1 is explorative, tentative and uncertain: Claire's "scribbled
mess".  The only thing that matters now is the content of what we jam down
on the page: grammar, proper construction, intellectual ways of expressing
stuff 'properly' are dealt with in Phases 2 and 3.  What matters is that we
now capture valuable content.  We search for our theory by reflecting
freely, as well as reflecting upon the data, and by sifting in an unfocused
way through the literature (journal papers, books, internet sites, etc.)
for material which informs the development of ideas and offers examples.
This experimental and explorative stage enables me to grasp what I think,
and what my data and research are telling me; it enables me to draw upon
the wealth of my experience with a width and depth no other process can
offer.

This phase is essentially relatively unfocused; a vital attitude enabling
the capturing of insight, as well as marshalling thoughts and theories.
One of the reasons academic writers miss out on this inspirational phase is
perhaps because it goes against our training and all our perception of what
being an academic is.  I was forcibly taught to think in a logical and
structured way, and to stop dreaming and reflecting.  Yet critical
thinking, as used by scientists, social scientists and all the arts
disciplines, involves exploration and experimentation.  Attempting to stay
within the box and only use a small part of our thinking capacity (the
logical), cramps and constrains our thinking to the boring.  Here is what
one writer found liberating:

Because you can only learn by doing it.
(An academic writer)

This can feel frustrating at first to those who have never experienced it
previously.  I do, however, find writers take off with these methods, once
they've started.  Starting writing is the key, rather than just reading and
thinking about what I'm saying. Most people these days do experience
writing with no pre-thought: texting, tweeting, emailing, blogging, for
example.  If we think of this as speaking to the other person on the
screen, well Phase 1 writing is not so very different.  Here is Clare's
experience:

These writing techniques make a channel in the sand with a stick,
Water wells right up from underneath immediately,
Sometimes faster than others.
Like discovery rather than creation.
(Clare Shephard)

A power of Phase 1 is that ideas, theories and examples can bud and form
under our scribbling fingers, seemingly on their own.  Clare says 'Like
discovery rather than creation'.  Academic writing is always based on a
foundation of strong scholarly and original research.  We have already
created what we are going to write.  The actual writing process is one of
rediscovering what is already there, and helping it to find its
communicable form on the page.  It's finding a pointed stick strong enough
to channel down through the sand of everyday functional thinking and being,
to the clear water of what we already know, have reflected upon and even
theorized.  This 'rough' writing generally comes out very clearly.  Peter
Elbow says that he can often understand his students' rough writing,
whereas he frequently can't their carefully revised essays (2012: 97).

Emotion: a powerful resource

Writing and research are emotional processes (Kara, 2013); writing is also
personally risk-taking and exposing.  Accepting and working with these
emotions rather than struggling against them can enhance writing, rather
than constantly dragging it back. Even worse than struggling is denying
them, working doggedly to put awareness of such vulnerability out of mind.

PhD or doctoral writing, although similar to writing for publication,
imposes specific forces often according to rules or instructions not of
students' own making, which can engender strong feelings.  Writing for
publication is emotionally charged because I am working on my own: I am
responsible for saying what I want and need to say clearly and fully, and
it is up to me to get it published in as widely read and prestigious form
as possible.  Further than this, my research, and therefore my expression
of it, fires me: it's my life's work and I am emotionally involved in it
and in its expression.

What do I mean by saying that working with my emotions can enhance my
writing?  I mean that I can beneficially use my emotions as data.  Emotions
are a gift to inform humans about how things are for us; we ignore them at
our peril.  A symptom of leprosy is loss of pain in the skin and below;
patients do not experience burning or cutting and so injure themselves
seriously: pain is a gift to prevent injury.

We need to make the most of every resource, and emotion is a strong, if
frequently overlooked, resource.  I feel apprehensive about writing
something: this means I need to take particular care, perhaps research the
surrounding field in the literature extra thoroughly, or be more vigilant
scrutinizing my data so I make as few assumptions as possible in my results
and discussion sections.  I feel elated and want to celebrate because a
section has flowed from my fingers to the screen in just the right way
(perhaps I'm a writer after all?).  Well, can I look back and work out what
were the conditions which enabled this best possible of all writing
situations, so I can repeat it as often as possible?  Feelings, including
pain and anxiety are a gift, but a gift which needs attention and
awareness. Pat Thomson talks usefully about this in a blog post with
responses (Thomson, 2013).

Stephen

I think anger is really important in academic writing.  I find much of my
writing is a consequence of my feelings 'against' social injustice,
ignorance, prejudice and so on.  An interesting biography of the
philosopher Sartre (who explored his ideas through plays and stories as
well as 'academic' writing) was titled *Writing Against* (Hayman, 1986).
For Sartre, and I think many writers, anger and similar emotions are the
fuel which feeds their writing.  The text is the fire which results.

But while anger may often fuel writing, I think it is vital that anger is
not expressed in academic writing (at least, not normally).  To do so would
be to confuse the fuel with the fire.  Anger needs to be reflected upon,
worked through and explored until I can hold myself at a distance from it
and then marshal my argument.  Often potentially good articles and powerful
writing are spoiled because the reader is more struck by the writer's anger
than by what the writer is angry about.  And it is the object of anger that
is important if social injustice, for example, is to be addressed.  At its
worst, I have felt like suggesting a prospective journal contributor
consider visiting a therapist rather than writing academically.

So Gillie's Phase 1 type of writing is really useful for making use of
powerful feelings which may be an important motivation for writing but must
not overpower it.

Phase 2: Redraft to communicate with your reader

Phase 2 is when I move focus from what I have to say, which is what Phase 1
is about, towards to whom I wish to address it.  I already have a draft to
work upon; now I envisage my reader and what they want to know from me, and
how to say it appropriately to them.  Different readers need to be
addressed in different ways.  This means choosing and shaping material for
this specific reader, modifying and even rejecting certain strands.  It
also means something more general: ensuring my writing is clear and
communicative, positive and coherent for that audience.

Perhaps the Phase 2 focus has been routinely overlooked because academic
writers tend to focus on the message to be imparted, rather than standing
outside ourselves enough to perceive our readers as specific people.  Yet a
message not only has to be carefully constructed, it also has to be
constructively received, if it is to have any impact.  Focusing upon our
specific readers can ensure our vital material is understood by them,
absorbed into their own research and referred to in their ensuing
publications: those precious citations every academic needs.

I've just peer-reviewed a paper which ideally should be accepted with no
revision.  The content seemed so fascinating, yet at the same time
strangely elusive and disconnected from me, the reader.  I reread it and
realized the author was writing entirely to himself, not to his reader at
all.  I recommended he redraft with his specific readership in mind, giving
the paper a good solid form and structure with a communicative introduction
and conclusion.

Phase 3: Edit for posterity to ensure clarity, grammar, correct references
...

Phase 3 is preparing the carefully worked manuscript for publication by
paying attention to the way I use language, both for euphony and
correctness, to ensure ease and joy of reading.  I now turn to studying
matters such as the choice of words as well as the particular needs of my
publisher (with regard to house style, references, etc.).

This phase often gets skimped or missed out because, although many academic
writers get very anxious about grammar, punctuation and so on, they have no
idea how to tackle it positively.  Many feel it's knowing how to do it
right.  By 'right' they mean by the book; and yet they don't have the book,
don't know where to find it and don't know how to make use of it when they
do.  There are academic writers who are so focused on getting their
research findings or theories out there into the big world they forget that
how it is expressed is vitally important.  I think many feel: if my message
is important enough it will be heard, understood and acted upon
(acknowledged and cited), however I write it.  This is not so.  Much that
is potentially useful, in all the disciplines, is rejected by journal
editors or read by only a handful because it was impenetrable to its
readership, inappropriate to that journal or just plain boring.

Stephen

When I examine a PhD thesis or review proposals for publication I often
find that I cannot remember what I have just read, or that I've lost the
gist of the argument.  My former habitual response was that it must be my
fault; I was not concentrating hard enough; or I was not really a very good
reader; or I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter.  Then it dawned
on me that I wasn't at fault, that in academic life one is expected to read
text which is, quite simply, badly written.

There seems to be an assumption that what matters are the ideas
communicated, not the means of communication.  Writing is just a clerical
or technical matter whose mastery is unproblematic and a natural
accomplishment of any academic: we are ideas people not wordsmiths.

My difficulties with reading articles (both published and for review) is
more often the consequence of their being badly written.  But what is
striking is that well-written articles are invariably reviewed more
favorably.  A well-written article that has hortcomings is returned with
helpful suggestions for revision and resubmission.  A badly written one is
rejected outright because the reviewer never really grasped what was being
communicated.

Most journal referees and PhD examiners - just like most other academics -
have no idea the writing process is important.  It's the ideas they think
they are looking for, not the means by which they are expressed.  However,
in actual practice, they are invariably impressed by a well-written paper
even though they don't realize it.  I can recall, on several occasions,
refereeing a group of papers with a team.  On those occasions we would
invariably reach a large degree of agreement.  While most of my colleagues
saw this agreement in terms of the quality of the ideas, I became very
aware that the well-received papers were invariably well written.

With this in mind I sometimes think writing is like seduction: the reader
is seduced by the text, but unaware of the seduction. The seducer (the
author), on the other hand, knows exactly what he is doing.  The seducer
never loses sight of the person to be seduced.

The reviewer or examiner feeling lost in poor writing is often because the
writer loses sight of the reader.  That's easy to do when writing: I get
absorbed in my own thinking and take my mind off the reader.  This is where
I find the idea of three phases helpful.   I don't usually follow them step
by step (although some prefer that), but apply myself to the three
different purposes of writing: to clarify for myself; to communicate with
my reader; and to contribute to the field of knowledge.  When I lose the
gist of the text as a reader, it is usually because the writer has failed
to appreciate all three. And the achievement of the final purpose of
academic writing, which is to contribute to the body of knowledge, demands
the achievement of the other two.

As a PhD examiner or reviewer of academic journals, once I have committed
myself to examine or review a text I am more or less bound to read through
to the end.  As a 'normal' reader of a book or journal article, however, I
can discard the book or article at any stage.  Under these circumstances
seductive power is even more crucial.  Writers failing to maintain my
interest lose me for good.  A publisher is therefore likely to give the
quality of writing an even more prominent place in their criteria for
publication.

Readers are interested in what we have to say rather than us writers as
people.  Academic writing is neither memoir nor polemic; it does not rant.
Either of these, or any other personal involvement, in the Phase 1 writing
is perfect, because it can be thoroughly expressed and explored, until a
draft focused on the specific interests of a readership can be developed a
Phase 2.  George Orwell started the whole discussion about Bad Writing in
1946 with essays 'Why I Write' and 'Politics and the English Language'.
With his carefully worked on command of language he told his readers:

One can write nothing readable unless one constantly struggles to efface
one's own personality. Good prose is like a window pane. (Orwell, 1984: 10)

At Phase 2 a strong argument needs to be developed which communicates.
Readers do not want to be distracted from the argument by writers' emotion;
they want to think of their own feeling in response to the writer's
critical argument and discussion. They want to know why we feel strongly
enough about the subject to write an academic paper.  The writer's response
to the reader's all important why is critical argument, not expression of
feeling.  Here's my version of an old writers' saying:

Put your bleeding heart on the page when you first write (Phase 1).  Clean
off the blood when redrafting (Phase 2), but yet allow the passion to
remain in the final draft (Phase 3).

How to Use the Three Phases

Everyone uses the three phases of writing slightly differently.  Unlike
Stephen I find it helpful to follow the three phases of writing in order,
and circle back to revisit earlier phases as necessary.  Many wish to
extend their enquiry by returning to Phase 1 writing, perhaps feeling their
theory or analysis of their data is incomplete, or needing to be
re-inspired by this dynamic type of writing.  Many sensibly return to Phase
2 methods to check that they really are engaging appropriately with the
right readers. The material written by re-engaging with an earlier phase
will then need to be subjected to either one or both of the later phases,
thorough editing, for example (Phase 3).

Working in this way will enable my writing to:

* Draw upon the wealth of my experience and knowledge
* Communicate well to its intended readership
* Give a coherent message/line of argument with good form and structure
* Develop this theme persuasively
* Have a clear progression, taking readers by the hand from beginning to end
* Say what I want it to say, clearly, succinctly, and as far as possible,
correctly.

Don't just read: WRITE!

Here are activities that will help you move from thinking about writing, to
actually doing it.

1. Tell in writing the story of an inspiration or insight in your research,
an experience relative to the publication you are working on now.  It might
be recent, or some time ago.  Allow yourself to write about the first
occasion which comes to mind, or rather to hand.  Be as descriptive as you
like; it might be useful to remember you have five senses (sight, touch,
hearing, smell, taste).

2.  Write in response to this question; it might come out as a list, or a
single paragraph, or a lengthy piece - write whatever comes:
In what way might the publication you are working on create significant
change?

3. Write about your own writing past.  How did you write when you were a
child?  Was it different at school than at home?  Think about letters,
lists, reports, minutes, exams.  If you speak more than one language, how
is it different to write in one or the other?

4.  Is there anything in your research which makes you feel emotional in
any way: angry, upset, hurt, very happy, excited ... ? Write this feeling
out as fully as you like: use felt tips on a big piece of paper if you
like.  Remember this is a private expression, for no one else to read but
you; though of course it is yours to share if you wish.

And READ some more:

Carnell, E., MacDonald, J., McCallum, B. and Scott, M. (2008). *Passion and
Politics: Academics Reflect on Writing for Publication*. London: University
of London: Institute of Education.
In this study of academics who are well published, the authors examine
seven key themes: the journey to becoming a writer; identities; going about
writing; producing a text; engaging in the process; the politics of writing
for publication; and writing, thinking, and learning.

Clark, R., and Ivanic, R. (1997). *The Politics of Writing*. London:
Routledge.
Although addressed primarily to people who teach writing, this book raises
a lot of questions about what lies behind writing and its political
significance.

Richardson, L. (1990). *Writing Strategies: Reaching Diverse Audiences.*
London: SAGE.
An extremely good writer on the processes of writing, in this essay
Richardson discusses, amongst other issues, approaching and successfully
addressing diverse audiences.
         "Desktop faculty development 100 times per year."
Over 50,000 subscribers at over 850 institutions in more than 100 countries

TOMORROW'S PROFESSORSM eMAIL NEWSLETTER
<http://cgi.stanford.edu/%7Edept-ctl/cgi-bin/tomprof/postings.php>

Archives of all past postings can be found here
<http://cgi.stanford.edu/%7Edept-ctl/cgi-bin/tomprof/postings.php>:

Sponsored by Stanford Center for Teaching and Learning
<http://ctl.stanford.edu>

Check out the Tomorrow's Professor Blog
<http://derekbruff.org/blogs/tomprof/>

NOTE: To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to the Tomorrows-Professor List click HERE
<https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/tomorrows-professor>
  [image: Tomorrow's Professor Facebook Page]
<http://www.facebook.com/TomorrowsProfessor> [image: Tomorrow's Professor
Twitter] <http://twitter.com/tomorrowsprof>


--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==
tomorrows-professor mailing list
tomorrows-professor at lists.stanford.edu
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/tomorrows-professor






-- 


*"A teacher affects eternity; [she]he can never tell where the influence
stops." - Henry Adams*Dr. Teresa Franklin
Director, The OHIO Group
Professor, Instructional Technology
Fulbright Research Scholar to Turkey 2013-14
Department of Educational Studies
The Gladys W. and David H. Patton College of Education
Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701
740-541-8847 (cell)
also: franklinteresa at gmail.com

*~~~~~~Ohio University -- The best student-centered learning *experience in
America~~~~
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/itech/attachments/20150107/85f77f08/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 45EC5348-8056-45E0-B523-A82C1ACBB44F[2].png
Type: image/png
Size: 18041 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/itech/attachments/20150107/85f77f08/attachment-0001.png