So which one should you bother writing if you want to be cited? All researchers (including you) are selfish, time constrained creatures who will only read something if it’s worth their while. If you always know the WIFM ('what's in it for me?') for your audience you will be a successful writer.
According to Rugg and Petre they should be 'solid' and 'interesting'In the sciences it's the type of paper that is designed to help others to replicate the studyYou need good data: Sample size, quality, representativenessFindings should be (ideally)useful and/or surprising
Work-in-progress papers stake out territory - helps you to lay claims to ideas you are working on (important to thesis writers)Needs: strong idea, clarity about how the idea fits in the field and how it is distinguished from other work, speculation about the implicationsMeta studies papers compile and analyse multiple existing studies.Needs: a clearly stated purpose; good data and clear analysis methodAnd a good discussion sectionArtefact papers publicise a new artefact, tool, system, pedagogy, instrument etc & provide information for critique / applicationNeeds: what the thing is, the gap it fills, why it's novel, what ideas it embodies, an evaluation and implications.
Rugg and Petre say these describe a new method, technique, algorithm or process well enough for other researchers to replicate it. Usually written for a very particular audience or communityMethods introductions: describe a new method invented or developed by the author and justify it (what is it good for, why do you need it, how do you know it works?).Tutorial papers: describe a method and how to use it. Usually includes an example. Journals are usually reluctant to publish these, although they are widely quoted when they are.Method mongering paper: describes a method with the aim of promoting it to other scholars in the field. Often includes an example without too much description of the method itself.Demonstration of concept paper: demonstrates that a particular concept (method or framework) is feasible, useful and interesting. Can get away with using less data than other paper types.
Rugg and Petre claim such papers help you to act like a 'navigator' for your research community. They are likely to be cited heavily by people... who either love or loathe youRaise awareness of issue which have not received enough attention in the field. They might give other researchers "interesting new toys to play with", usually by importing an idea from another discipline.Good ones need:vision!genuine authority based on comprehensive and current knowledge of the fieldStrong critical and creative abilitiesMake sure your complaints about the field are justified before proceeding!
Introduce new theory or explain someone else's theory in a way which makes more sense…Different types of papers will appeal to different kinds of researcher audiences. A scientist will be more interested in a methods paper which gives them ideas for what they can do next, than a theory paper which questions the veracity of the scientific method.
Kamler and Thomson suggest your abstract should have four "moves":1. Focus2. Locate3. Explain4.Suggest Implications
Kamler and Thomson suggest you use a series of questions to help you start:What's the research problem being addressed?How do I locate the significance of my work?What conversation am I in? Where am I standing in relation to this research problem?What do I offer as an alternative to existing research?What is my argument (thesis)?
Cut and paste bits of writing you already have into your word processor and start writing the bits that are missing!The trick is to write as fast as you can - not as well as you can. Think "bee": you are flitting between pieces of text when you get stuck - not trying to 'finish' anything.
Don't give up. You have two options:1) Gather more evidence and read more, keep massaging the draft until you have enough to move on, or:2) Go back to week one and rethink which sort of paper you can write with what you do have.
Editing is part of the process, not an end point: there is no such thing as 'writing' - only 'rewriting’There's not room to deal with the whole topic here, so here are two techniques
Don't despair if it's rejected.A 'soft rejection' is when amendments are requested.If rejected outright, consider sending to another journal.
1. Write that Journal Article - in 7 days! (or how to be a plotter and a pantser)Dr Inger Mewburn (a.k.a @thesiswhisperer) & Dr Judy Maxwell
2. (A caveat…)You can turn a messy bunch ofacademic stuff’ into an articlequickly… but you must have:• Data, ideas or artifacts,• Preliminary analysis or thoughts
3. Day: ZeroWhat sort of academic do you want to be?
4. This is an image of an early viva… … can you find the student? RMIT University©2008 Information Technology Services 4
5. What sort of scholar do you want to be?
6. Where will I publish?• Where do people I like to read seem to get published?• Which of these journals seem to get more citations? (impact factors)• Do the editorial guidelines seem sympathetic to the work I do?• What are the open access policies of this journal?
7. Day: OneChoose your flavour…
8. What sort of paper will you write?Rugg and Petre (2003) claim journal articles can beunderstood as falling into genres: – Data Driven – Methods Papers – Agenda Setting / Consciousness raising papers – Review papers – Theory papersWriting in a range of genres shows your versatility as ascholar.
9. Data Driven papers should contain:• What question is being addressed and why?• A description of the study and how it was conducted• The results (data collected, analysis, findings)• Discussion (significance, limitations, claims to generalisation)• Conclusion (implications, further work)
10. Data driven paper variations:• Work-in-progress paper• Meta studies paper• Artifact paperAnd don’t forget the pictures!
11. Method papersshould contain:• What it is• How it works• What its good for (both utility and how its different)• Any constraints
13. Review papersAre usually written every ten years orso - when someone (like a thesiswriter!) "bothers to read everything ina field" again summarises it andprovides evaluative judgment.
14. Theory papers should:• Refine or extend existing theory and / or• critique and debunk it and / or• Set an agenda for new theory
15. Audience First!They WONT want: • Lots of information they already know • a long winded literature review • lots of process-focused information.They WILL want: • A tight, useful review of the literature • Well supported conclusions • A clear and well stated contribution to the field
16. Day: Two“The tiny text”
17. An abstract for this workshopMany Doctoral students have to write journal articlesfor their PhD. While there is a lot of written advice onthis topic, it is often hard to follow because it is not putin context with the daily activities of a professionalwriter ( Kamler and Thomson, 2006). This presentationcollects the best parts of this advice and puts them in atemporal frame work, based on days of the week. Thisframework helps PhD students see writing a paper as apurposeful, step wise process, rather than a list of "dosand donts which are hard to operationalise.”
18. Write an abstract• Start with a couple of sentences: • Aim (“This paper explores….”) • Main argument (“In this paper we argue that….”) • Method (“The study was conducted….”) • What’s new? (“this paper contributes to the debates on….”)• Share your 4 sentences with the rest of your group.
19. Pay attention to the verbs!Examines / AnalysesReports on / OutlinesArgues / justifies / recommendsCompares / ContrastsDiscusses / DemonstratesShows / Refuteshighlights / Illustrates
20. Add a title… for nowThesis Whisperer Jnr (aged 10 and 1/4) wants to do his PhD about“rocks” (with a side interest in gold). Dr Barry White advises there area range of theses Thesis Whisperer Jnr would write on this topicdepending on how he phrased the title:• As a question: “What do school children know about rocks with gold in them?”• As an exploration: “Rocks in ‘scrap heaps’ found in the Victorian gold districts”• As a statement: “Why most school kids are not interested in rocks (even if there’s gold in them”• As an investigation: “Rocks with gold in them: places they are most likely to be found”• As a hypothesis: “If rocks have gold in them, they are more likely to be dug up”• As a thesis: “rocks are cool, especially if there is gold in them”
21. Day: Three“The spew draft”
22. What stops us ‘just writing’?"They feared that what they wrotewould be ‘wrong’ and unspecifiedpeople would laugh at them”Howard Becker
23. Have you got useful notes?• Good note taking helps you to avoid plagiarizing ‘by mistake’• Ballenger (2004) claims good papers start with good note taking. As we write notes (with verbs!) we write parts of the paper, which saves time.• Some note-keeping methods are • Researcher log book • Double entry note taking • Narrative note taking
24. Free writingWrite as much as you can about “what’s new?”for 5 minutes.Just write.If you are stuck for a word use another/different / better word and keep writing
25. How to write 1000 words a day• Write new stuff just after breakfast and before lunch. Cut and paste free writing into / around / through notes you already have.• Use pomodoro technique to focus (25 min writing sprints with 10 min breaks between)• Take the afternoon off• Come back in the evening, outline, edit and rearrange your text• http://thethesiswhisperer.wordpress.com/2011/03/24/how-to-write-1000-words-a-day-and-not-go-bat- shit-crazy/
26. Day: Four“the scratch outline”
27. The ‘screentreatment’ methodTitle: "Write an article in 7 days"• explain why you should write articles• talk about the importance of doing research to find out the best place to publish• Talk about different types of articles in academia• Talk about the importance of audience - explain how academic audiences work• Introduce the idea of a tiny text as a way of focusing for your audience• Talk about the value of doing a spew draft
28. The Big ListWrite everything you have as a list: – facts – issues – detail – FindingsOrganise these in the best way to tell your storythen delete those that are not essential.
29. Spider Diagram
30. Day: Five“Cleaning up the mess”
31. Time to reassessIdentify the strengths and weaknesses of yourwork so far. Ask yourself:• Do I have enough literature?• Am I making knowledge claims or just reporting?• Is this an argument - or a manifesto?• Is my data sufficient to the claims I am making?• Am I being sufficiently speculative?
32. Excessive ‘tinkering’ is a deferment strategy. If you findyourself endlessly polishing and not moving on, plan what to dothe next day. Go straight to that section next time you open the document. At least you will be ‘polishing’ where it is needed.
33. Not working?You might find yourself bouncingaround between these steps forawhile. It usually is a sign that youdidnt have enough stuff to makethe kind of paper you are aimingfor, or you lack confidence in yourideas.
34. Day: Six“Murder your darlings”
35. Stephen King once said: “… killyour darlings, kill your darlings,even when it breaks youregocentric little scribbler’s heart,kill your darlings.”
36. Too many words?• Using the strike through tool - can you live without it?• Moving some text to footnotes• Starting a maybe later folder• Triaging your text paragraph by paragraph• Performing bypass surgery’http://thethesiswhisperer.wordpress.com/2010/06/16/5-ways-to-kill-your-darlings/
37. Too wordy?Zinsser suggests you put brackets around words which couldbe cut or replaced:“All writers (will have to) edit their prose, but (the) greatwriters edit (it) viciously, always trying to eliminate (wordswhich are) ‘fuzz’ – (excess) words (which are not addinganything of value). Zinsser compares (the process of editingout) ‘fuzz’ to fighting weeds – you will always be slightlybehind (because they creep in when you aren’t looking forthem). One of my (pet hates) is (the word) ‘also’. If you searchand replace all instances (of this word) you will find you canlive without it and your writing will improve (instantly).(Likewise the word)’very’.”
38. Let it rest
39. Day: SevenRejection (maybe).
40. Kate Chanock’s 7 stages of resentment1. Outrage, noise, unladylike rejoinders2. Incomprehension3. More outrage4. One or two of the comments might make sense5. There’s a bit of truth in that one6. I’ll just have a go at doing what they said to dohere7. Actually, the paper is a whole lot better for allthose revisions.
41. How will I ‘market’ this paper?Your paper is one of thousands… how can you get itto be noticed? Some ideas:• Send it to authors you referenced• Tweet / blog about it• Lectures to professional gatherings• Write opinion pieces for the paper• Radio / TV• Make a film of it!
42. Some useful references on writing• Becker, Howard (2007) Writing for social scientists: how to start and finish your thesis, book or article, Chicago University Press, Chicago.• Ballenger, B (2011) The Curious Researcher, Longman• Becher, W (2009) Writing your journal article in 12 weeks, Sage.• Boise, R (2003) Professors as writers: a self help guide for productive writing, New Forum Press• Chanok, K. (2008). Surviving the reviewing process and getting published, Journal of Academic Language & Learning. Vol. 2, No. 1.• Kamler, B & Thomson, P (2006) Helping doctoral students to write, Routledge, New York.• Murray, R (2009), Writing for academic journals, Open University Press.• Rugg, G & Petre, M (2010) The unwritten rules of PhD Research, Open University Press, Maidenhead.• Silva, P (2007) How to write a lot, American psychology association• White, B (2011), Mapping your thesis, ACER Press.• Zinsser, W (2003), On Writing, Pan McMillan.
43. Final thoughtsWriting a paper is what designers call a ‘wickedproblem’.There are no right or wrong papers, just betterand worse ones. The more you write, the betteryour papers will be.We hope this presentation helps you writemore and more papers.