How I write
Beforehand …
= a long period of talking to myself and others about the topics
= a body of notes written mostly to myself about the topics
= a body of prior writing on related topics
= a lot of prior reading that can be made relevant to the new writing
… all of which goes into the development of a Discourse over time
= to which has to be added as background: a wider register of the field, a specific genre and its conventions, a writing habitus developed over years
= the context of the writing: in what form, for whom, how soon? [journal article, book chapter, book, grant proposal, evaluation] [wider to more specialist audience, often with a vision of a canonical reader(s)] [days, weeks, months]
= most of my writing in the last 10 years has been invited
… now the writing begins
= with a list of major points I want to make
= several alternative possible titles
= often leading to an abstract … but only if required, and provisionally [preview abstracts vs summary abstracts]
= an intermediate stage in which I elaborate on the major points to paragraph length, or sometimes going on for a page or more … this often triggers the full writing-out process
= or I just start in, often with a first subheading and frequently with a key question
= I may or may not have an organizational principle in mind for the text … it is easier if I do
= I may re-arrange the major points to be made in some order
= I tend to introduce the paper by talking about why its themes are important, then giving an overview of the major argument
= sometimes I add an organizational preview, though often I come back and do this later
= I now write full-out, going from major point to major point, grouping them under sub-heads, and writing fairly smooth rhetorical transitions among them
= when I have written through one complete draft, I tend to end with something catchy and dramatic that echoes a major theme or makes a moral point (value-laden)
= if possible I like to write a complete draft in one day … it is easier to maintain a sense of continuity and a consistent tone or style
= as I write I do not include citations, but leave markers for them (Lemke 19.., or Davis zz) and these days I go back later and use Endnote to put in the citations
= if there is something I cannot remember, I just include a reminder in brackets to come back and fill it in
= sometimes I will go to the web while writing to refresh my memory about something, or go back to some other paper I have written, or my notes on someone else’s writing … but usually I leave this for a later revision
= I put the first draft in the drawer (or folder) and leave it for at least a day, usually a couple of days
= that includes a lot of revision of the writing to clarify meaning and clean up style, and I fill in the missing bits (but not the citations) and maybe add some more markers for citations
= I leave that version for at least another day or two
= then I do the second revision, paying attention mostly to continuity of argument, clarity of wording
= I then check to see by how much the draft is too long compared to the guidelines I was given
= I now try to go through and shorten it to the required length; for me this is the most difficult part of writing because it is very hard to maintain logical and stylistic continuity when cutting; I also tend to add some new bits to restore the continuity
= If I really like a long draft I will often put in all the references; many of them will go during the shortening, but I keep the long draft as the “director’s cut” … and I may put it on my website, or use bits of it in later papers
= I now make sure that all the references are in the shorter version, and do a final copy-editing, during which I will usually discover some ways to improve the wording again
= At this point I am usually done and send it to the editor; based on editorial comments I may revise it again, but minimally
= Rarely, I will show it to friends or send it to colleagues for comments before sending it to the editor (I used to do this more, and it’s a good practice for newer writers/researchers)
= I check the proofs when they come and sometimes make very small changes that I am not supposed to (I am getting better at leaving things alone at this stage)
= on citations: I cite my own work a lot because it forms the context (the intertexts) of currentwork, and I can’t say everything over again each time; I cite my friends when they are relevant, and sometimes just to publicize their work if I think it’s really good; I cite canonical texts to show I know the field; I cite obscure texts to impress readers; I cite members of the editorial board or likely reviewers to make them feel good
Some of the most common faults of manuscripts include:
= a title that is too long, ambiguous, or awkward
= an abstract that is more an introduction than a summary
= a failure in the introduction to (a) say what you’re doing, (b) why it’s important, and (c) how the rest of the paper will be organized
= a failure to maintain a clear line of argumentation (digressions allowed) through the paper
= a failure to anticipate the most common questions readers will be asking
= a failure to consider alternative interpretations and give reasons for rejecting them
= over-claiming in the conclusions section, saying you have established more than you actually have
= introducing new arguments, data, or theoretical perspectives in the Conclusions section
= not having a clear theoretical perspective or framework
= summarizing the literature rather than saying where your work fits into it
= revised manuscripts that are not responsive to the editor’s demands for changes (which are different from the reviewer’s recommended changes, being a synthesis and prioritization of them)
= manuscripts that are polemical in nature, arguing against some position but making no constructive contribution
= manuscripts based on trivial or non-significant data
= interesting theoretical arguments that dress themselves up as empirical studies, but where the empirical content is clearly just window-dressing (make the paper explicitly a theoretical contribution)
= studies that include quantitative analysis of matters that are not countable to begin with
= qualitative studies that do not present their methodological choices and methods clearly enough to allow readers to evaluate them (especially common in interview research and “grounded theory” studies, I find; less so in ethnographic or discourse analysis research)
= studies based on qualitative data that do not present substantial examples of the raw data
= manuscripts so badly written that it is painful to read them (excusable for non-native speakers, who just need to get a ghost-writer or translator; also common among new writers trying too hard to write impressively, better to keep it simple; and among avant-garde researchers who don’t realize that most readers don’t have a clue what they are talking about … the point of writing is still communication, not archiving your arguments for posterity)
The Editorial Process
= Do not pay too much attention to peer reviews. Editors often find it difficult to get good reviews from good reviewers and the reviews you get are the result of the luck of the draw. A different group of reviewers might have said very different things about your manuscript.
= Pay attention to anything that is mentioned by more than one reviewer. Pay attention to anything that is highlighted by the Editor in a way that indicates the Editor agrees, especially if you are asked to revise. The rest is optional, take it or leave it.
= Many reviewers are clueless about what you are really trying to do in your paper; they read it as if they or one of their students wrote it, and they put it in the context of a completely different set of research commitments.
= Editors choose reviewers based on: who you cite, who they know, who’s available, who has a reputation for getting their review in before the next Ice Age, and where possible expertise specifically relevant to your topic and methods. If there are 3 or 4 reviewers, the editor may be looking for each to provide one specific kind of evaluation; the rest of what they have to say may be ignored (by the editor, and by you).
= An editor looking at a manuscript is interested in a few key criteria:
Does it say something interesting or important enough to be worth the time of readers?
Does it make its points clearly enough for expert readers to critique them and typical readers to comprehend them?
Are the basic arguments sound and the basic evidence clear?
Is there anything claimed that is not supported? Or probably not true?
= almost all manuscripts that eventually get published are sent back to authors for revisions
= Given the nature of a lot of research data (e.g. video, audio recordings) and topics (e.g. interactions with online environments or software), there is good reason why pure running verbal text is not enough to meet the needs of readers or authors of research
= The development of useful visual representations of data or conceptual relationships is in itself an important contribution to the field
= Visual evidence about context (e.g. photographs) can be extremely useful and concise
= So, the communication of research, both empirical and theoretical, ought very often to include diagrams, charts, tables, graphs, maps, images, photographs, animations, and/or video segments
= Learn to draw good diagrams, especially for theory. (Do not scatter a lot of nodes and connect them all with two-way arrows. That indicates that you don’t really have a theory, just a list of factors.)
= some of these materials are not easily integrated into print medium publication, either for technological reasons (as with video, animation) or economic reasons (e.g. color photographs or color-coded diagrams)
= good research publication should include access via the web or an enclosed CD or DVD to supplementary materials, and ideally to an integrated version of the research presentation which includes both the printable text and the other media
= In addition to multimedia, there is the option of hypertext. Where this consists only of outlinks to supplementary information, it is merely a generalization of footnotes. But if it results in a nonlinear or multi-cursal exposition, then care must be taken that the topology of the resulting web is not in conflict with the goals of the exposition and the efficacy of argumentation. Most extended argumentation requires a unicursal reading. Multicursal webs are best used to allow readers to explore and form their own conclusions, or where there is no overall explanatory structure, only local arguments to be presented.