Slides from a Faculty of Education workshop at the University of Cambridge, conducted by Susan Robertson and Mark Carrigan in February 2018.

1. The Purposes, Politics and
Practicalities of Writing (for
Publics and Impact)
Susan Robertson and Mark Carrigan
Culture, Politics and Global Justice
Cluster

2. VOICE
SHARIN
G
PURPOS
E
PROCES
S
PRACTIC
E
PRODUC
T
who is it for?
to communicate,
limit jargon
assembling
parts
drafting
iterations
write regularly
the more you
write the better
you get
A
C
A
D
E
M
I
C
/
W
R
I
T
I
N
G
‘good’ writing
should be an
aspiration for
everyone
find your own
style
take a
position/so
what is going
on?
criticality not
advocacy
reveals the
taken for
granted
learn how
others write
basis for
dialogue
COMMUNICATIVE PRACTICAL

3. SPECIALIS
ED
PUBLIC
POLICYMA
KERS
PUBLIC
SOCIOLOG
Y
PROFESSI
ONAL

4. What is Quality? Or Excellence?
• The answer is not straightforward. Is it cutting
edge? Popular? Fashionable? Topical?
• Do we look at SSCI citations? Or google
scholar citations?
• Do we look at the criteria established by
journals?
• Or, do we look at reviews of the field, and get
a sense of the weight of work (splash, ripple
etc)

5. Journals and the Framing of
Quality

6. Environment and Planning A
REFEREE’S REPORT FOR AUTHOR(S)
• Referees are requested to comment on scientific and scholarly merit and presentation. The
primary consideration is that the paper should advance knowledge; it should be judged as a whole
from this point of view. Please consider the following points whilst preparing your review.
• - Is there enough original material in the paper (new results, theories) to warrant its
publication?
• - Are there any obvious faults in empirical basis, or theoretical reasoning?
• - Is the order of presentation logical (allowing reasonable latitude for individual preferences)?
• - Are there any parts which should be expanded or condensed, if so which?
• - Does the paper read well?
• - Are the title and abstract adequate?
• - Are the figures and tables satisfactory and correctly labelled? Are any of them redundant?
• - Are there any demonstrable errors in mathematics, calculations, units, etc?

7. Globalisation, Societies and Education (2003-)
“Manuscripts should be written clearly and
concisely, using arguments that are fully
substantiated with well-reasoned analysis
and, where appropriate, empirical evidence.
All acronyms for national agencies,
examinations, etc. should be spelled out the
first time they are mentioned.”

8. Evaluations of Quality - Effects
• Ripple – some citations
• Wave – caused others to alter their thinking
• Splash – major changes – affects other
domains/disciplines/fields not only the one
where it was presented

11. Quality through numbers

18. REF criteria for ‘excellence’

19. Identifying and Working with ‘Quality’
Critieria
RESEARCH EXCELLENCE FRAMEWORK - Nature of outputs
All types of outputs from research that meets the Frascati principles (involving original investigation
leading to new insights) will be eligible for submission. This includes ‘grey literature’ and outputs that are
not in conventional published form, such as confidential reports to government or business, software,
designs, performances and artefacts. Given that we see research as a process of investigation that has led
to new insights effectively shared, we would expect all submitted work to include evidence of the
research process, as well as presenting the insights in a form meeting the needs of its potential audience
both within and beyond the academic community.
Draft definitions of levels for the outputs sub-profile
• Four star Exceptional: Quality that is world-leading and meets the highest standards of
• excellence in terms of originality, significance and rigour
• Three star Excellent: Quality that is internationally excellent in terms of originality,
• significance and rigour but which nonetheless falls short of the highest
• standards of excellence
• Two star Very good: Quality that is recognised internationally in terms of originality,
• significance and rigour
• One star Good: Quality that is recognised nationally in terms of originality, significance
• and rigour
• Unclassified Quality that falls below the standard of nationally recognised work. Or work
• which does not meet the published definition of research for the purposes of
• the assessment

20. Unpacking criteria
• ‘World leading’ – emerging as the main
reference point in the debate (wave, rising star,
hot topic)
• ‘Originality’ – a new way of looking at some
event or problem (methodology, substantive,
geography, discipline)
• ‘Significance’ – how important is this for our
understandings in a particular setting or beyond
• ‘Rigour’ – the methodology (broad approach,
kind of data presented, tools used, reference to
appropriate literatures)

21. Taking a look at reviews and learning
from them

22. Environment and Planning A
REFEREE’S REPORT FOR AUTHOR(S)
• Referees are requested to comment on scientific and scholarly merit and presentation. The
primary consideration is that the paper should advance knowledge; it should be judged as a whole
from this point of view. Please consider the following points whilst preparing your review.
• - Is there enough original material in the paper (new results, theories) to warrant its
publication?
• - Are there any obvious faults in empirical basis, or theoretical reasoning?
• - Is the order of presentation logical (allowing reasonable latitude for individual preferences)?
• - Are there any parts which should be expanded or condensed, if so which?
• - Does the paper read well?
• - Are the title and abstract adequate?
• - Are the figures and tables satisfactory and correctly labelled? Are any of them redundant?
• - Are there any demonstrable errors in mathematics, calculations, units, etc?

23. Making the Most of Reviews and Feedback

24. Feedback on Your Writing at Multiple Points of the
Process
1.‘Surface editing’ versus ‘deep reading’ – know when each
is the best for you?
2.Getting others to read – FOR……? Specify the task (an
expert; a person not in the field; use of statistics; as a native
user of the language; country expertise – and so on.
3.Writing an abstract to clarify the argument and perhaps
use this to discuss your argument.
4. Try and ‘listen’ to the feedback – and put aside feelings of
not being good enough….that this is a professional and not
a personal task.
5.If not clear what the reviewers want, ask the editors to
clarify.

25. Practical Tips for Writing and
Responding to Feedback

26. Writing for different audiences - while
having fun

27. NEWSPAPE
R
POLICY-
ORIENTED
PAPER
BLOG
JOURNAL
BOOK
SYNTHETIC
REVIEW
1-2 PAGE
BRIEFING
NOTE
WORKING
PAPER
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
RAPPORTE
R

28. Some Thoughts To Begin With …
Be open to a diverse range of opportunities to write and
communicate
Some forms of writing can be ‘stage posts’ for bigger
writing projects
Use a range of communication resources, including the
new media (podcasting, blogs, webpages)
Think about audience, their needs, your findings, liability
issues, evidence…
Think about how to make ideas travel (‘ripples’ versus
‘splashes’)
Don’t give all your pearls of wisdom away at once
Open source issues versus IP………

29. JOURNAL
S
Check journal requirements on
line..…think about… ‘discipline’,
‘audience’ (who) and mandate for the
journal; what is the dominant paradigm of
the journal (check journal editors); what are
the current ‘buzz topics’; how is issue
already covered in the journal; length
(could be a special debate piece or book
review); review clarity and style of own
argument; ensure you are up to date with
the literature especially if coming from work
that has been written some time ago;
accessible style of writing; rework thesis
work as style is usually different; be
conscious of colloquialisms and
assumptions (journals are international in
readership); referencing style….

30. Journal Writing
1. Title -(think of search engines)
2. Know the field and which journals are ranked where
3. Who reads it? (Board members )
4. Where is the journal located? US, UK, Europe, Asia??
5. Requirements/formatting?
6. Throughput? Impact? Distribution?
7. Length?
8. What has been written before in the journal (is this
new? Or a new angle on an issue that has been
pursued in the journal)
9. Have you published something like this elsewhere?

31. Journal Writing continued
10 Abstract - does it repeat the first paragraph?
11 Keywords? What are they?
12 Is there material that tells us about the methodology?
13 Who has read it before you have sent it in?
14 Should I contact the editors? And sent them
something before?
15 Are articles the only format? Can I do book reviews,
essays, point of views, debate pieces, interviews etc
16 How can I link to my other work?
17 Can I be different? Visual, narrative, etc

32. SPECIALIS
ED
NEWSPAPE
R
…think about… audience (who) ….what the ‘genre’ allows
you to do (700 words)…accessible style of writing, be
conscious of colloquialisms, issues of translation and length
when going from one language to another..visual possibilities
for the photographers…..how to maximise impact through
‘title’, ‘take’ and ‘relevance’…

33. PERSON
AL
WEBPAG
E

34. Press
Release

35. Audience, length
of the piece, key
findings, kind of
evidence used,
methodology for
the study, who to
contact for
further
information

36. POLICY-
ORIENTED
PAPERS
…think about… audience (policymakers) and nature of your
own expertise…purpose of your advice…. nature of the
evidence mobilised and supporting references… accessible
style of writing (be conscious of colloquialisms and
ethnocentric assumptions)…structure of the communication…

37. Legal, formal language, assumes non-specialist
audience, highlighting positives/infers negatives,
good practice, evidence footnoted
RAPPORTE
R

38. Is it edited or sole authored? Is it
pieces of work that you have
been writing which are knitted
together, or a coherently argued
work. What do you do about
reporting methodology? Who is
your audience? Who will write
the ‘blurb’? Who will do the
review? How will it be marketed?
Is it hardcover or softcover? How
will you make sure that you meet
the terms of the contract.
BOOK

39. MY PIECE IS NOW OUT!! HOW DO I
PROMOTE IT TO GENERATE A
SPLASH…........

40. BLOG
…think about… audience (who) and when they read….what
the ‘genre’ allows you to do (links, 500-1000 words, visual
data)…accessible style of writing and be conscious of
colloquialisms…..how to maximise impact through ‘title’,
‘take’ and ‘timing’ of stories… use of tags and other meta-
data…audience search behaviour…use of email updates….