In a recent post at Inside Higher Ed, Lee Skallerup Bessette discusses the way writing sometimes comes easy and sometimes comes hard. She is noting how a general love of writing doesn’t necessarily mean that academic writing will get done. To combat this unfortunate fact, Bessette has adopted a more consistent approach to writing productivity. To learn more about this process, I also recommend her series, An Academic, Writing, on her work with a writing coach from Academic Coaching & Writing.
I am particularly interested in the idea that we might be setting ourselves up for an unrealistic goal if we strive to love writing. Graduate students will sometimes say to me that they used to love writing before they came to graduate school. Before, in other words, all the unspecified expectations and ambiguous requirements and confusing genre conventions. During graduate school, writing often becomes deeply unlovable. Unfortunately, some of us stall as writers while we wait for the loving feeling to come back: if we can’t love it, we may conclude that we hate it. Or, to put it another way, we may give up on writing when it isn’t going well, rather than just persevering in the knowledge that writing is often nothing more—for long stretches of time—than hard work.
Following the #acwri Twitter feed, you sometimes see people saying that writing just isn’t working out for them that day. Now, of course, there are times that abandoning writing for the day is absolutely the right thing to do—and only you will know when the best response is a run or a drink or a bit of quality time with Netflix. But I know from my own experience with thesis writing that waiting for inspiration in order to write would lower my productivity to undetectable levels. For most people—including me once I eventually figured this out—theses get written through many bouts of uninspired productivity and rare moments of inspiration. Those moments of inspiration are amazing, but if we wait for them, we usually hamper our ability to reach our own writing goals.
Recent links from @explorstyle on Twitter
From @nomynjb, a helpful
#Storify about learning to use Twitter for academic purposes.
From @evalantsoght, a great approach to writing captions for your figures.
From @GradHacker, an honest account of surviving a serious change to the topic of a dissertation.
From @ProfHacker, concrete advice on how to regain control of your inbox.
From Geoffrey Pullum in the Lingua Franca blog, on the apostrophe: Do we need it and is it even ‘punctuation’?
From FT Magazine, a claim that social media is actually improving the quality of writing.
Have you tried an
#acwri chat? Here’s a #Storify of the latest one on literature reviews.
From @cplong, an op-ed on the value–both holistic and professional–of a liberal arts education.
From @Nadine_Muller, exploring the line between blogging the personal and professional.
From @ScholarlyKitchn, a good overview of a recent survey on attitudes towards Open Access publishing.
From @ThomsonPat, great strategies to keep your thesis reader on track from start to finish.
From @WritingCommons, info on the Duke composition MOOC.
From @RohanMaitzen, an insightful discussion of the issues facing a graduate student deciding whether to blog.
From @NSRiazat in @PhD2Published, a discussion of the evolution of
#phdchat as an academic research community.
From @thesiswhisperer, a reminder how the supervisory relationship can be derailed by mismatched expectations.
From @MacDictionary, differences in education terms between UK and US.
From @UA_magazine, an interesting exploration of the gender divide in university-community engagement.
From @DocwritingSIG, is it possible to create a ‘thesis assessment matrix‘?
From @GradHacker, advice on managing your digital identity.
From @Ben_Sawyer in @GradHacker, some tips for turning your dissertation into a book.
From @NewYorker, an interesting comparison of Google Reader and Twitter.
From @guardian, the past and future of
From @financialpost, outgoing
#UofT president David Naylor discusses the future of the Canadian university.
From Lingua Franca, a great discussion of the Oxford comma and the broader issue of consistency in punctuation.
From @yorkuniversity, interesting research on how people multitasking on laptops in class may distract others.
From @ProfessorIsIn, an excellent guest post on managing mental illness during graduate study.
From the NYT, what reverse outlining looks like for a fiction writer.
From @thesiswhisperer, what we can all learn from the impressive time management skills of part-time doctoral students.
From @readywriting in @academiccoaches, an important reminder that we must recognize academic writing accomplishments.
From @MacDictionary, helpful corpus-based account of when we actually use ‘who’ and ‘whom’.
From @m_m_campbell, an inspiring account of how to raise a future researcher.
From @rglweiner in IHE, an essay on the role of virtual community for graduate students.
From @ThomsonPat, wise words on needing to be alert to the language we use for talking about our research.
From @DocwritingSIG, some great questions about MOOCs and doctoral education.
From IHE, a discussion of the proposal at Duke to require a short and accessible video to accompany a thesis.
From @NewYorker, plagiarized theses in Russia.
From @raulpacheco, an explanation of how he uses
#ScholarSunday to recommend academics to follow on Twitter.
From the Crooked Timber blog, a great
#IWD post on equality for women in academia.
From @ProfessorIsIn, the value of presenting what you can do, not just what you are interested in, in an application.
From @fishhookopeneye, an excellent analysis of the distorting effects of familiarity on thesis writers.
From @qui_oui, thoughts on the benefits and real costs of public engagement for academics.
From the NYT After Deadline blog, a great reminder of what dangling modifiers are and why they are worth avoiding.
From @ThomsonPat, a post about verb tense in theses, demonstrating how it’s a matter of authorial stance not grammar.
Silvia’s “How to Write a Lot” cites a nice study where people were either asked to write when inspired, stick to a schedule (and doing something they disliked when they fail to sick to it), or they were forbidden to write for all non-emergency writing. The stick-to-a-schedule group wrote more *and* had better ideas, so there’s much to be said for making writing a habit. Silvia also cites Keyes with “Serious writers write, inspired or not. Over time they discover that routine is a better friend to them than inspiration”. Silvia’s book is great in many other ways too ( Silvia, P. J. (2007). How to Write a Lot. Washington D.C.: APA. ).
Thanks for commenting, Daniel. I like Silvia’s book–I should find an opportunity to talk about it here.