Communication theory of identity (Part II)

In my previous post, I discussed the main tenets of the communication theory of identity (CTI) and some of its  more recent developments. Specifically, I looked at "identity gaps" but didn't have a chance to talk about negotiation of cultural identity, which Hecht et al. (2005) identify, in their book chapter "A Communication Theory of Identity: Development, Theoretical Perspective, and Future Directions," as another new direction of CTI. I will begin with that and then will discuss the overall strengths and weaknesses of the theory.

In  African American Communication: Ethnic Identity and Cultural Interpretation, Hecht, Collier, and Ribeau (1993) acknowledge the need for more direct examination of identity negotiation processes: "If identities are negotiated in everyday conversation and if identity negotiation is a process, then we need much more information about the negotiation process itself" (p. 173). Both Collier and Jackson accepted this challenge and constructed their own theories of identity negotiation. Collier (2005, 2009) offered the cultural identity negotiation theory, which had evolved from the cultural identity theory (Collier & Thomas, 1988; Collier, 2009). Cultural identity negotiation theory emphasizes researcher reflexivity, calls for attention to the material and social consequences of cultural identity negotiation, incorporates attention to forms of discourse that subjugate certain groups of people, focuses on social equality and justice, recognizes that research methods (i.e., interviews, analysis of public discourse, etc.) can contribute to reproduction of inequality. Arguably the most cited component of that theory is the idea that the interpretive and critical approaches can be effectively integrated for study of cultural identity negotiation. Interestingly, Collier (2009) points to African American Communication: Ethnic Identity and Cultural Interpretation as a part of the earlier development of the cultural identity theory, but despite an apparent family resemblance between CTI and the cultural identity theory, Hecht et al. (2005) don't refer to the cultural identity negotiation theory as a new development of CTI and for some reason limit their discussion to the work of Ronald Jackson.

Drawing on Ting-Toomey's (1986, 1999) identity validation model and utilizing some aspects of CTI, Jackson (2002) constructed his cultural contracts theory. This theory focuses on the notion of cultural contracts as end products of  identity negotiation during communication with others. These contracts specify the rules and conditions for mutual identity coordination. Based on his earlier work, the negotiation of cultural identity is defined as "a bargaining process in which two or more individuals consider the exchange of ideas, values, and beliefs" and which leads to "the gain, loss, or exchange of his or her ability to interpret their own reality or worldview" (Jackson, 1999, p.10). "This negotiation takes place through core symbols, meanings, and labels attributed to individual identity and through which individuals understand reality" (Hecht, Jackson, & Pitts, 2005, p. 34). Jackson (2009) lists three axioms or premises on which his theory is based (namely, (1) identities require affirmation; (2) identities are constantly being exchanged; and (3) identities are contractual) and specifies three types of cultural contracts. Ready-to-sign cultural contracts have been already established and are not negotiable. "These contracts are designed to promote assimilation or maintain one's own worldview" (p. 258). Quasi-completed cultural contracts are most common. They have some room for negotiation and relational coordination of identities. Co-created cultural contracts are fully negotiable. They aim at "mutual satisfaction, rather than obligation to the requirements of the other's culture" and are "the ideal kinds of social agreements" (p. 259). Among the limitations of the theory, Jackson acknowledges its limited insight into how an individual develops, sustains, or shifts his/her cultural contracts over time and how s/he moves from one contract to another with different people.

To me, the first two axioms of the cultural contracts theory (identities require affirmation and identities are constantly being exchanged) seem more self-evident than the third one, which proclaim that identities are contractual. Jackson implicitly justifies that latter assumption by pointing to the similarities between contractual processes of buying a home (or a car) and cultural identity negotiation. In both cases, people negotiate differences of opinion and come (or not to come) to a mutually acceptable deal. Also in both cases, there is some "small print" that contains hidden features of the agreement, which often remain unrecognized or not fully understood by the parties involved. As Jackson (2002) puts it, "the tragic reality is that most people neither understand all of the contracts they have signed nor all of the implications of having signed them" (p. 362). On the other hand, as Jackson's (1999) study shows, a conscious negotiation of cultural identity is not routinely experienced by members of either dominant or minority group, which, in turn, raises an interesting question of whether the results of a negotiation can be considered a signed contract when the parties involved are not aware that a negotiation took place. In my view, there is a significant difference between not understanding all the details and consequences of the signed contract AND not being aware of signing a contract

Overall, as Hecht et al. (2005) point out, negotiation of cultural identity is an important development of CTI, and I think that this development can benefit the theory even more if the analysis of identity negotiation processes is more tightly connected to the four frames of identity and/or integrated with the concept of identity gaps. In my future posts, I'll explain my idea on how to achieve that.

To sum up, CTI is an appealing communication theory with a considerable heuristic power. It goes beyond simply providing a list of loosely integrated theoretical propositions, which some theories (including cultural identity theory and cultural identity negotiation theory) do, and attempts to construct a coherent framework for communication analysis of multiple and shifting postmodern "saturated" identities. CTI presents a way of bringing together, under one theoretical roof, analyses of personal identities, relational roles, and group identifications, which before presented a gap in identity theorizing (Burke & Stets, 2009). Moreover, by including the enactment layer of identity, the theory moves communication to the forefront of identity theorizing and valorizes its role, which is important for a communication theory. At the same time, this conceptualizing of enactment as a separate layer, along with the personal, relational, and communal ones, is also one thing that I find somewhat problematic in CTI. In my view, this parallel fashion in which the layers are presented obscures the fact that there is no any other access to identity, including personal, relational, and communal aspect of it, but only through communication. Further, according to CTI, each of the four layers or frames of identity  represent a specific "location" of identity: identity resides in an individual as self-concept, in a relationship (for example, as a relational role), in a group as group prototypes and collective memories, and in communication "as a performance, as expressed" (Hecht et al., 2005, p. 263). Hecht et al. (1993) also insist that "frames are not only research or analytical perspectives but are also ways people have of conceptualizing their own identity" (p. 165). It's possible that performance inclined people may indeed conceptualize their identities "as a performance, as expressed," but there is currently no empirical support for the assertion that this is generally the case. What research shows is that (1) an identity provides an individual with a frame of reference in which to interpret both the social situation and his/her own communication actions, (2) this frame of reference is a subject to alteration and revision, and (3) those "revisions" can be initiated by and through interaction (Burke & Stets, 2009).

Despite my attraction to CTI, I think there is a more elegant way of bringing communication to the forefront of identity theorizing and not obscuring the relationship between communication and various layers of identity. This way follows the work of Bucholtz and Hall (2004) and Van Dijk (2009) and is based on approaching identity as a product of situated social action. Then, the locus of identity lies not in a person, communication, a relationship, or a group, but in a communicative situation. This approach has a lot of in common with CTI, but more about this later...




References:

• Bucholtz and Hall (2004). Language and identity. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 369-394). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• Burke, P. J., & Stets, J. E. (2009). Identity theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 
• Collier, M. J. (2005). Theorizing cultural identifications: Critical updates and continuing evolution. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 235-256). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Collier, M. J. (2009). Cultural identity theory. In S. W. Littlejohn & K. A. Foss (Eds.), Encyclopedia of communication theory (Vol. 1, pp. 260-262). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Collier, M. J., & Thomas, M. (1988). Cultural identity: An interpretive perspective. In Y. Y.. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 99-120). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Hecht, M. L., Collier, M. J., & Ribeau, S. A. (1993). African American communication: Ethnic identity and cultural interpretation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Hecht, M. L., Jackson, R. L., & Pitts, M. J. (2005). Culture: Intersections of intergroup and identity theories. In J. Harwood & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 21-42). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
• Hecht, M. L., Warren, J. R., Jung, E., & Krieger, J. L. (2005). A communication theory of identity: Development, theoretical perspective, and future directions. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 257-278). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Jackson, R. L. (1999). The negotiation of cultural identity: Perceptions of European and African Americans. Westport, CT: Praeger.
• Jackson, R. L. (2002). Cultural contracts theory: Toward an understanding of identity negotiation. Communication Quarterly, 50, 359-367.
• Jackson, R. L. (2009). Cultural contracts theory. In S. W. Littlejohn & K. A. Foss (Eds.), Encyclopedia of communication theory (Vol. 1, pp. 257-260). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
•  Ting-Toomey, S. (1986). Interpersonal ties in intergroup communication. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Intergroup communication (pp. 114-126). Baltimore, MD: Edward Arnold.
• Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across cultures. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
• Van Dijk (2009). Society and discourse: How social contexts influence text and talk. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Communication theory of identity

Pre-surgery jitters and post-surgery blues have disrupted my writing schedule and delayed this post. I will try to return to weekly postings. In this post, I'd like to talk about communication theory of identity.

According to the National Communication Association, the communication studies discipline deals with all forms, modes, media and consequences of communication. Not surprisingly, the discipline's theorizing of identity usually focuses on the role of communication in construction and negotiation of identity. It won't be an exaggeration to say that most of communication identity theorizing falls into the area of intercultural communication. Communication theory of identity (CTI), which I use in my dissertation, is not an exception.

One of the earlier developments of CTI was presented in  African American Communication: Ethnic Identity and Cultural Interpretation, by Michel Hecht, Mary Jane Collier, and Sidney Ribeau (1993). The book attempts to articulate how African Americans define themselves and how they perceive intra- and inter-ethic communication. The study follows an interpretive approach, with researchers focusing on the group members' perceptions and interpretations of social and communicative processes. So-called "sensitizing constructs" play a central role in the study. These constructs "point out the means by which persons create ethnic culture and identity and reinforce their commonality" (p. 22). There are several types of sensitizing constructs. The first two are core symbols and prescriptions. Because people define themselves and their experiences through their beliefs and understandings as expressed in core symbols and through prescriptions, those two sensitizing constructs point the researchers toward central ontological and axiological beliefs of the ethnic culture. The authors provide several examples of core symbols identified in the previous research. For instance, Collier (1989) argued that communication among African American friends reflects the core symbol of respect for the individual, and Carbaugh (1989), in his analysis of popular TV shows, found that "self-expression" is a core symbol of mainstream U.S. identity. Hecht et al. insist that, in addition to understanding of 'what is' that comes from the engagement with core symbols, researchers also need to understand participants' notions of 'what ought to be' that are provided by prescriptions. Their next sensitizing construct is  communication as problematic. The authors conceptualize communication "as a problematic event during which persons assign meanings and jointly create identities and social reality" (p. 26). Additional sensitizing constructs are conversation, code, and community. They help to shift "our attention to how symbols, meanings, and norms occur in conversations and become codes of conduct that create shared identities" (p. 28). Using these sensitizing constructs as guiding tools, Hecht et al. explore the ethnic identity of African-American participants, link it to communication issues, and make further connections to communication competence and communication satisfaction. In the conclusion of the book, the authors return to the explications of the meaning of "identity" made from the existing literature and discussed earlier in the book and, based on them, list eight overall assumptions of the theory:

1. Identities have individual, enacted, relational, and communal properties;
2. Identities are both enduring and changing;
3. Identities are affective, cognitive, behavioral, and spiritual;
4. Identities have both content and relationship levels of interpretation;
5. Identities involve both subjective and ascribed meanings;
6. Identities are codes that are expressed in conversations and define membership in communities;
7. Identities have semantic properties that are expressed in core symbols, meanings, and labels;
8. Identities prescribe modes of appropriate and effective communication. 

The main proposition of CTI is that there are four frames of identity: personal, enacted, relational, and communal. Hecht et al. view these frames as locations of identity. "Identity is 'stored' within individuals, relationships, and groups and is communicated within and between partners and group members" (p. 164). Those four frames or levels of identities don't exist in isolation from each other, but interact and interpenetrate one another. The authors insist that frames are means of interpreting "reality" and can be considered as sensitizing constructs.

Identity as a personal frame provides an understanding of how individuals define themselves.  There are three additional assumptions that are characteristic for this frame:

1. Identities are hierarchically ordered meanings attributed to the self as an object in a social situation;
2. Identities are meanings ascribed to the self by others in the social world;
3. Identities are a source of expectations and motivations.

Identity as an enactment frame focuses on the messages that express identity and on the meanings that are created through (and by) identity enactment. This frame has two additional assumptions:

1. Identities are emergent;
2. Identities are enacted in social behaviors, social roles, and symbols.

Identity as a relationship frame has three levels. First, identity is relational because individuals' enactments of their identities (and ultimately, their identities) are shaped by their interactional partners. "The person I am with you is not the person I am with someone else" (p. 167). Second, identity is relational because people gain identity through relational roles (i.e., spouse, friend, parent, etc.) and define themselves in terms of those relationships. Third, identity is relational because a group of people involved in a relationship becomes an entity with a distinct identity (e.g., family, dating couple, etc.). "Identity as Relationship shares the assumptions of Identity as Enactment, although this time the focus is on the mutual or relational aspects" (p. 168).

1. Identities emerge in relationship to other people;
2. Identities are enacted in relationships;
3. Relationships develop identities as social entities.

Identity as a communal frame provides understanding of something which is central to the group identity and which brings its members together. The following is the assumption of Identity as Communal Frame:

1. Identities emerge out of groups and networks.

In his essay "A Research Odyssey: Toward the Development of Communication Theory of Identity," Hecht (1993) restates main assumptions and general propositions of CTI, but instead of connecting them to a specific empirical project, as Hecht, Collier, and Ribeau did in African American Communication: Ethnic Identity and Cultural Interpretation, he puts the theory into the context of the communication research development during the next 10 years.

"A Communication Theory of Identity: Development, Theoretical Perspective, and Future Directions," by Hecht, Warren, Jung, & Krieger, in Theorizing About Intercultural Communication, edited by Gudykunst (2005), presents a revised version of CTI. One of its main differences is in the wording and number of  basic assumptions of the theory, which I discussed above. Moreover, in the revised version, these assumptions are called "basic propositions." In fact, in their book, Hecht et al. also use the word "proposition," but that happens only once (on p. 168) and in the rest of the discussion the word "assumption" is consistently used. Another difference deals with new directions in CTI, such as identity gaps and negotiation of cultural identity.

The concept of "identity gaps" has been introduced to better account for the interplay, interpenetration, and divergences between the identity frames. According to Jung and Hecht (2004), although CTI is "particularly concerned with this quality of interpretation or juxtaposition of identities," that specific "part of the theory is not well articulated or understood" (p. 267). Identity gaps are discrepancies that can exist between or among any of the four identity frames. For example, "The personal-relational identity gap refers to discrepancies between how an individual views him- or herself (personal identity) and his or her perception of how others view him or her (a type of relational identity)" (Hecht et al., 2005, p. 268). Research shows that such discrepancies (or gaps) are associated with multiple undesired outcomes, such as, stress, insecurity, relational dissatisfaction, etc. (e.g., Breakwell, 1986; Deaux, 1992; Thoits, 1991). Hecht et al. argue that examining identity gaps could lead to better understanding of various aspects of identity, their connections to communication, and ultimately to a higher communication satisfaction. I agree with Hecht et al. on the importance of better understanding the interplay of different identity layers, and I appreciate them developing a specific conceptual tool to approach that issue. At the same time, as a communication scholar, I'm not so much interested in identity gaps per se, but in how individuals deal with those gaps and how the living of one's identity in its all-encompassing and self-contradictory complexity is reflected in and shaped by daily communication. This question is difficult to approach empirically. For one thing, people are not always conscious of the steps they take to manage identity gaps. Moreover, the nature and perceived intensity of identity gaps vary across situations. Identifying identity gaps among and between different identity layers is an important first step, but, to get a better insight, additional conceptual tools may be  necessary (More about it later, when I get to a discussion of the theoretical contribution of my dissertation).

My post is getting too long, and I still have a lot to say about CTI. I guess I better stop here and discuss the rest in my next post.

References:

• Breakwell, G. M. (1986). Coping with threatened identities. New York, NY: Methuen. 
• Carbaugh, D. (1989).  Talking American: Cultural discourses on Donabue. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
• Deaux, K. (1992). Focusing on the self: Challenges to self-definition and their consequences for mental health. InD. N. Ruble, P. R. Costanzo, & M. E. Oliveri (Eds.), The social psychology of mental health: Basic mechanisms and applications (pp. 301-323). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
• Hecht, M. L. (1993). A research odyssey: Toward the development of communication theory of identity. Communication Monographs, 60, 76-82.
•  Hecht, M. L., Collier, M. J., & Ribeau, S. A. (1993). African American communication: Ethnic identity and cultural interpretation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Hecht, M. L., Warren, J. R., Jung, E.,  & Krieger, J. L.  (2005). A communication theory of identity: Development, theoretical perspective, and future directions. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 257-278). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Jung, E., & Hecht, M. L. (2004). Elaborating the communication theory of identity: Identity gaps and communication outcomes. Communication Quarterly, 52, 265-283.
•  Thoits, P. A. (1991). On merging identity theory and stress research. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54, 101-112.

Focus on the grades and learning process

After attending a writing boot camp, I decided that I need to use university resources more while I still can. I set a goal of one university event per week and started going to various workshops and meetings that are of interest to me. Last Thursday I went to  the "Get Students to Focus on Learning Instead of Grades: Metacognition is the Key!" workshop, which was offered by the UNM Support for Effective Teaching and conducted by Dr. Saundra Yancy McGuire, who is Assistant Vice Chancellor for Learning, Teaching and Retention and Professor of Chemistry at Louisiana State University. I saw the workshop flier in the hall and its title caught my attention. I thought about how much I've been enjoying auditing classes versus taking classes for grades. I audited one class (ANTH-530: Semiotics of Ethno History) last semester and am currently in the process of auditing another one (LING-529: Discourse Analysis). I've learned a lot in both of classes and enjoyed them much more than the majority of the courses I took as part of the official coursework. Although these two classes are not much different from the others I took, there is something liberating in being able not to participate in online discussions, not to do small assignments if I chose so, not to stress about submitting a final paper, and not to be assigned a course grade. I never had problems with grades and had a 4.0 (out of 4.0) GPA throughout my entire undergraduate and graduate career and didn't expect that not being engaged with the minutiae of the course requirements would make any difference for me. I remember my surprise when one of the professors told us in class how much she enjoyed auditing classes when she was in her Ph.D. program and how many of them she took. At that time, her confession sounded rather odd to me, and I didn't expect to follow in her footsteps. Initially I decided to audit a class last semester because I was looking for an outside committee member (someone from a different university department), and the professor who taught the course seemed like a possible fit. By the mid of the semester, I knew not only that I found my missing committee member, but also that I would look for other possible courses to audit in the next semester and probably in the following semester as well.

When instructors design their courses, we are often advised to start with desired learning outcomes and develop all our assignments and assessments so that they bring students closer to achieving those objectives, which is called backward course design. In a way, we (instructors) presuppose that, through completing weekly tasks (i.e., reading, posting on the discussion board, participating in class discussions, doing exercise assignments, or taking tests), students would come closer to mastering whatever we expect them to learn in the course, and the final project (e.g., a term paper, cumulative final exam, etc.) often serves as a crown opportunity for students to learn, and for instructors to assess their learning. Undoubtedly, there is some sound logic behind that approach. A few (if any at all) would argue against the notion that students need to do course readings and practice applying that material. Although (almost) any practice can be beneficial, my concern, as a student, is with the cost-outcome ratio, as well as with the opportunity costs. Some exercises and assignments take more time than others, and from some I learn more than from the others. As a student, I prefer to effectively invest my time and to focus more on the stuff that benefits me most. As an instructor, my concern is that students don't always know what benefits them most and that something that seems pointless to them at the moment may be of great value in a month, year, or so. Moreover, different students have different strengths and weaknesses, different background and different interests. Reading mid-semester student evaluations of my teaching, I usually discover that something that one student finds most effective in the course seems to be least effective for another; people prefer different methods of informational delivery, different formats of assessments, etc. Thus, for me as an instructor, it's always a challenge, how to balance that diversity of needs and preferences. As a student, on the other hand, I'm mostly concerned with my own learning and evaluate any given course based on what I take out of it and how it serves the needs of my professional development, which, by the way,  may be rather different from the learning objectives of the course. Then, I have to balance my responsibilities as a student with my personal interests. When I audit a class, my responsibilities are limited to readings, attendance, and participation in class discussions. Since I am interested in the course content, I gladly perform all of the above tasks as essential to my growth as a scholar. In addition, I do some homework assignments, those that correspond to my needs, but I don't have to spend time on the activities that I find less useful. As a result, auditing courses is a much more enjoyable and efficient way of learning for me, than taking classes for grades. I understand that, as a student, but, as an instructor, I don't know how to use this information to make my classes  more effective and enjoyable for students. Secretly I hoped that the workshop would indirectly address some of those issues, but predictably I was wrong.

"Get Students to Focus on Learning Instead of Grades: Metacognition is the Key!" was a lively talk. Dr. Saundra Yancy McGuire is a good engaging speaker. Her presentation described the model that they developed at Louisiana State University to help students to feel less as victims or patients, upon whom actions are performed, and more in control of their own learning process and its outcomes. McGuire recommended not to explicitly discuss their model with students until they receive grades for the first test/quiz of the semester, which she suggests to have by the end of the second week so that to set up student expectations and start helping them in developing effective learning strategies. In her view, any discussion of these strategies at the very beginning of the term is doomed to fail because, prior to getting their test results, students won't pay attention, believing that their strategies are already effective. The model includes several learning strategies: (1) a more focused reading that requires students to come up with a sentence-long summary of each paragraph written in their own words, (2) reviewing at home what has been learned in class on that day, (3) solving practice problems without consulting textbook examples, (4) conducting mock teaching sessions as a means of test preparation, etc.  McGuire argued that, when given those tools, students are more likely to accept their responsibility for their learning, feel more in control of the learning outcomes, and focus more on actual learning than on grades. After the workshop, walking from the University Advisement & Enrichment Center, some faculty members expressed their skepticism that such a model would be sufficient to shift students' focus from grades to learning, and reluctantly I have to agree. What strategies do you use in your classes?

Trying to become more productive (Part II)

In my quest for increased productivity, I decided to participate in a writing boot camp, offered by the the UNM Graduate Resource Center to provide students with a free from distraction writing environment and to help them jump start their writing schedule. The boot camp has two different formats: a short weekend one and a week-long one. The boot camp begins at 8:30 a.m. with a group meeting that includes a writing warmup exercise and a discussion of effective writing strategies. Then, everyone breaks into smaller groups, where they go over personal writing goals for the day and address whatever problems that need to be addressed. After that, the actual writing begins and continues until 4:00 p.m., with a lunch break at noon. The day ends with a brief joint meeting and small group discussions of how the writing went and what needs to be done the next day. Before signing up for the boot camp, I talked to several people who attended it in the past. They all said that the format is very effective, that they accomplished a lot there, and that they definitely plan to participate again in the future. Boot-campers with whom I worked last week had very similar responses. The vast majority of them were returning "patrons," and, when asked how many boot camps they have attended, many replied 10+. So, indeed this format works for many dissertation writers.

Did it work well for me? To be honest, I don't know. On the one hand, I spent more time on actual writing than I would normally do at home, and, as a result, more was accomplished. On the other hand, I felt exhausted after the boot camp and needed a few days to recover before I could get back to my writing. I attended a week-long boot camp, and it was interesting to observe how the average time spent on writing had gradually decreased from Monday to Friday. At the beginning of the week, people came in earlier and stayed for the whole boot camp period, but soon they started arriving later and leaving earlier. The sole focus on writing was fading away as well; at the beginning, everyone was intensely working on their projects, but, as days passed by, more and more often I saw people doing online shopping, browsing, facebooking, and other unrelated to dissertation tasks. I guess the format was too intense and not just for me. Will I participate again? Yes, I will probably give it another try, but I will definitely make some adjustments from the very beginning. For one, I will take my pomodoro timer with me and will stick to my usual writing routine of working for 25 minutes with short breaks between the periods. I will also try to vary the types of writing to work on during the boot camp, including spontaneous writing, editing, note taking, etc.

After reading Peter Elbow's Writing without Teachers, I started doing regular spontaneous writing sessions, and they seem to be working nicely for me. I begin each day with two pomodoros of this type of writing and work on anything else later in the day. Usually I decide on the topic of my spontaneous writing ahead of time and in the morning simply seat in front of my computer and type whatever comes to mind. I expected that such writing would produce a lot of garbage, but surprisingly I have been able to use almost everything I produced so far. Spontaneous writing has become my way of thinking about the topic, making connections, and trying to articulate possible interpretations. I don't try to be exact or 100% accurate on references to other people's work or ideas; I simply write them down the way I remember, and, if I'm unable to recall something, I include a note and check that later. My goal is to produce no less than 500 words of spontaneous writing per day, but I usually produce more. When I'm done with doing spontaneous writing on a given topic, which usually involves several days of work, I devote some time in the middle of the day to editing that part. I combine all the installments of spontaneous writing together, use my source notes to verify the accuracy of ambiguous parts and to add specific examples or quotations, restructure the piece, and work on its language, grammar, and spelling. This work arrangement helps me steadily accumulate some writing, gives me some sense of achievement, and makes my process of editing easier. In the past, I had a tendency to write in tight paragraphs and to polish sentences as I go. As a result, I often became attached to my writing, and it was very difficult to incorporate new ideas in already written paragraphs or change their structure. What are your most effective writing and editing practices?

Trying to become more productive

Writing a dissertation is a huge task, and, to accomplish it successfully, I need to get some organization system in place. In the past, right after defending my Master's thesis, I tried to reflect on the challenges of working on a lengthy research project, and, as a part of that process, read a number of books on academic writing. One of my favorites at the time was Robert Boice's Professors as Writers: A Self-Help Guide to Productive Writing. The book discusses psychological causes of typical writing problems, such as being stuck or unable to start writing, and outlines ways to make writing a regular and productive habit, which include establishing momentum via uncensored generative writing, developing a sense of organization that will help in subsequent revisions, cycling through these two steps, and ensuring continuous progress through prioritizing writing, imposing self-control, and soliciting feedback. During my first reading of the book, I learned two important lessons that helped me to grow as a writer. The first one was the idea of cycling through the stages of uncensored writing and revision, and the second, Boice's advice to write in short intervals of 20-30 minutes, avoiding binge writing.

However, as I have recently discovered when working on my dissertation, I need additional tools to achieve continuous productivity and to deal with occasional blocks. I reread Boice's book, hoping to find more useful ideas that didn't register with me during the first reading. One of them was "automatic note taking," which works best for me when combined with the Cornell note taking method. I still stick to my usual reading routine with underlining what I find important and jotting notes on the margins. Then, as Boice suggests, I devote one page of notes to each literature source. Since the notes are so short, they don't require much time, and I made a rule not to move to another source before the notes for the previous one are done. The notes include only those aspects of the source that I can use in the chapter I'm working on. If I plan to use the same source for a different chapter or another project, then I return to it later and make a new set of notes. In the left (narrower) column of a notepad for the Cornell style notes, I put keywords that refer to the subsections of the chapter or some specific points to which the source is related; in the right (wider) column, some specifics on the connections of the source to my project; and in the bottom section, a summary of the implications that the source has for my work.
  
Another tool that has helped me in improving my continuous productivity came from the Pomodoro technique. The idea behind that technique is somewhat similar to Boice's suggestion to write in short intervals of 20-30 minutes, but I found that the Pomodoro technique is easier for me to implement, probably, because it doesn't focuses exclusively on writing, but covers various types of tasks, such as reading, note taking, correspondence, etc. Each pomodoro is 25 minutes of uninterrupted work; then, there is a short 2-5 minute break before the next pomodoro, and a longer one ~15-30 minutes after the 4-th one. I use both a mechanical Pomodoro, which is basically a regular kitchen timer, and Android Pomodoro app; each of them works best for different types of activities.

When the Pomodoro rings, I am "not allowed" to keep working for another minute or two to finish what I've been doing and have to use the time of the break to "disconnect" from my work and to do something good for my health (e.g., some stretches). All completed pomodoros need to be recorded, and the records need to be analyzed to estimate how much time each type of tasks requires. Using the Pomodoro Techniques for reading and note taking allows me (1) to better spread my energy over time and, as a result, accomplish more by taking frequent breaks and (2) to get a sense of accomplishing something meaningful, which is often missing when I'm amidst of extensive reading and note taking.

The Pomodoro technique also gave me a good idea on how to plan my daily activities and ensure ongoing progress. The Pomodoro technique book suggests keeping two lists: "To Do Today" and "Activity Inventory." I use the latter in two different forms: (1) a list of ideas and possible revisions for the chapter and (2) a list of all my weekly activities, which I create at the end of each week and then divide into seven parts for each day of the week. As recommended in the Pomodoro book, I keep adding unplanned and urgent activities to my weekly list and then reassign them to specific days. At the end of the day, I cross out completed tasks and make notes on the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the strategies I used in accomplishing them, to be able to better plan for similar tasks in the future. Although at this point I don't make any estimates of how many pomodoros each task would require, I plan to advance to that in the future. Currently, I only identify the tasks that I need to do, decide on how many pomodoros I have in a given day, and do my best to accomplish what I've planned. If something is left unfinished (or even unstarted), I make notes in my daily to-do list and assign the task to another day. This approach keeps me focused on what needs to be done and allows me to find additional time for work by squeezing a pomodoro in between already preplanned activities.

What strategies and productivity tools do you use to ensure smooth and continuous progress in your work? What did and did not work for you?