End of the Year

It’s the end of the year, a time for reflection, evaluation, and goal setting. This year has been much better for me than 2013. I’m in a better shape now, have more energy and less pain than before. This year I defended my dissertation prospectus. I wish I have already received my IRB approval, got an article published, developed a daily writing routine, cleaned the house, etc. That’s what I hope to accomplish in 2015. Next year I also need to complete data collection for my dissertation.

What have I learned in 2014? To take better care of myself and to stay positive. After a long break from going to conferences, I attended CADAAD 2014 in Budapest, Hungary. I realized how much I was missing by not conferencing. I decided to go to at least one conference per year. To ensure that, I organized a panel for ICQI 2015. This panel has been accepted. Thus, all I need to do now is to revise my paper, book a hotel room, buy plane tickets, and attend the conference in May. In 2014, I revised a paper and submitted it to a journal. Belcher’s book Writing Your Journal Article in 12 Weeks: A Guide to Academic Publishing Success gave me some structure and taught me how to better approach editing on both macro and micro levels. I will use this model again, starting January 2, to revise my other paper and will reflect on that process in February and then in March.

During 2015, I will blog twice a month.  In January, I plan to write about Yuri Lotman, his approach to cultural studies, and how this approach may help me in grounding my dissertation project. In February, I will reflect on my trip to Russia and discuss how the revision of my paper is going. In March, I plan to write about my data collection and report on submitting my second paper to a journal. If some more interesting or more urgent topics surface, I may change this plan, but my goal is to write regularly. In 2015, I plan to use this blog to discuss various aspects of my life, including my non-academic goals. Hope you’ll come back in January and share this journey with me! Happy Holidays, everyone!

Writing a journal article in 12 weeks: Weeks Eleven and Twelve

I’m using Wendy Laura Belcher’s book Writing Your Journal Article in 12 Weeks: A Guide to Academic Publishing Success to prepare my paper for publication. During this week I worked on two weeks: Week Eleven and Week Twelve. 

Week Eleven is about wrapping up your article. Belcher warns her readers of the perils of perfection and emphasizes the importance of finishing. She recommends to spend the first day of the week finalizing your argument, the second finalizing your lit review, the third finalizing your introduction, the fourth finalizing your evidence and structure, and the fifth finalizing your conclusion. It took me two days to finalize my article. Then, I moved to Week Twelve.

Week Twelve is devoted to sending your article to a journal. Belcher opens this chapter with a brief section on the perils of finishing, which echoes her discussion of the perils of perfection in Week Eleven. After that, she describes several last steps necessary for getting your submission ready, such as writing a cover letter to accompany the article, preparing illustrations, putting the article in the journal’s style, preparing its final electronic version, sending it to the journal, and celebrating. My article doesn’t have any illustrations, and it’s already in the journal’s format. So, on the third day of the week, I drafted a cover letter. The fourth day was devoted to preparing the final electronic version of my article and revising the cover letter. On the fifth day, I submitted my article to the journal. I was surprised to find out that I’m required to list the names of three potential reviewers along with their academic affiliations and contact information. It took me awhile to decide on that. After the article was eventually submitted, I started working on IRB documents, which I should've finished long time ago. By the end of the day, I felt rather tired and had no energy to celebrate. I gave myself a rain check, planning to have a celebration at the end of the week.  I will reflect on the past 12 weeks and evaluate my experience of revision and journal submission in my next blog post.

Writing a journal article in 12 weeks: Week Ten

I’m using Wendy Laura Belcher’s book Writing Your Journal Article in 12 Weeks: A Guide to Academic Publishing Success to prepare my paper for publication. This is Week Ten. 

In this chapter, Belcher distinguishes between marcostructure revising and microstructure revising. Revisions discussed during previous nine weeks dealt with marcostructure revising, which, according to Belcher, is the most difficult type of editing. This week is about editing sentences. Belcher lists several basic principles of microstructure revising:

• Don’t use two words when one will do;
• Don’t use a noun when you can use a verb;
• Don’t use an adjective or adverb unless you must;
• Don’t use a pronoun when a noun would be clearer;
• Don’t use a general word when you can use a specific one;
• Don’t use the passive voice unless the subject is unknown or unimportant.

Belcher believes that certain words can signal possible need for microstructural revisions. She offers a diagnostic test to help her readers locate those signal words and improve their writing. The diagnostic test consists of three parts. The goal of the first part is to cut unnecessary words. The second part involves adding extra words for better clarity. The third part of the diagnostic test is designed for revisions that can’t be accomplished by either cutting or adding words and require replacing a weak word with a strong one. 

On the first day, I read the workbook. On the second day, I ran the entire diagnostic test. I used the Microsoft Word search function and applied different colors to different test components. It was a rather mechanical work, but I felt exhausted by the end. Belcher allocates Days Three and Four to making revisions based on the diagnostic test. However, it took me three full days to revise the entire paper. On the sixth day I worked on correcting other types of problem sentences (i.e., problems with comas, quotation marks, capitalization, hyphens, spelling, etc.).

I find this week one of the most productive (except maybe for Week Three, which dealt with building an argument). Belcher’s diagnostic test was very helpful. I remember several years ago I took a qualitative data analysis course, where I learned a lot. One week at the end of the course, we were told to work on micro editing of our analyses. The guidelines were similar to Belcher’s principles of microstructure revising, but, without her diagnostic test, I felt lost and wasn’t quite sure how to implement those principles. This time having the test made all the difference. Now I better understand what to do at this stage of revision.

Writing a journal article in 12 weeks: Week Nine

I’m using Wendy Laura Belcher’s book Writing Your Journal Article in 12 Weeks: A Guide to Academic Publishing Success to prepare my paper for publication. This is Week Nine.

This week deals with giving, getting, and using others’ feedback. Belcher argues that in academia people are a lot better at pointing out what is wrong than in enabling better performance of others. Consequently, she focuses on instructions for giving feedback, not receiving it. First, Belcher explains what not to do when giving feedback:

• Do not obsess about the author’s bibliographic sources (“You job is to focus on what the author does with what they have read”);
• Do not obsess with what not in the article (It is your job to focus on improving what is in the article, not to insist that the author include what isn’t in the article”);
• Do not obsess about fixing the article (“It is not your job to fix other people’s work; it is your job to give them your reading of it”);
• Do not obsess about judging the work (“You need not consider yourself an expert on anyone else’s writing. You are simply a reader”).

Instead, she suggests:

• Start with the positive;
• Be specific (“when starting with the positive, make sure it’s specific.” Also “if you feel that you do have a solution [to the article’s problems], that you do know something specific that would improve the article, be clear about it”);
• Focus on giving a response (“tell them what you understood their article to say”);
• Always suggest (“The period places you as the authority; the question mark places the author as the authority. ‘Sentence fragment. Rewrite?’”);
• Focus on the macro (i.e., the article’s argument, evidence, structure, findings, or methods, and  don’t be distracted by the small stuff);
• Spend time (2-5 hours are usually needed to read and comment on someone else’s article thoroughly).

Then, Belcher turns to what to do when you are getting feedback:

• Give instructions (“Feel free to say that you are not currently looking for line editing, spelling and grammar correction, but attention to more macro issues. Or, vice versa”);
• Separate the delivery from the message (“Try to ignore the emotion with which comments or suggestions are delivered. . . . Criticism delivered in a hostile manner can still be correct; criticism delivered in a kind manner can still be wrong”);
• Listen, don’t talk;
• Take advantage (“Every criticism is an opportunity for you as to explain your ideas more clearly”);
• You are the final authority on your own writing (“You don’t have to do anything anyone tells you to do, no matter how hard he or she pushes”).

Belcher suggests to use Week Nine for giving and getting feedback. On the first day, I read the workbook and exchanged articles with a fellow doctoral student. I asked her to look for gaps in my argument and what seemed unclear, and she wanted pretty much the same thing. On the second day, I read her article following Belcher’s instructions. First, I read it without a pen in my hand, just to familiarize myself with it. Then, I went through the article for a second time putting check marks next to whatever was clear, insightful, or well-written. During the next round of reading, I circled everything that I didn’t understood completely or found unclear. The last step was to write a summary of what I got from the article. After that, I met with my writing partner, and we took turns going over our comments. I took notes as she talked, and, at the end of my turn, gave her the summary I wrote. On the third day, I reread my notes, took another look at my paper, and made a list of what remained to be done. I spent Days Four and Five implementing those changes and revising my paper according to the feedback.