Writing a journal article in 12 weeks: Week Three

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 Three

This week is about building and advancing an argument. Belcher insists that the main reason journal articles get rejected is a lack of the argument: “When you center your article on a single persuasive idea, you are a giant leap closer to publication” (p. 82). In Belcher’s view, the word “persuasive” is the key to distinguishing between a topic and an argument. The easiest ways to determine whether the main idea of the article is an argument is “if it consists of a statement to which you can coherently respond ‘I agree’ or ‘I disagree’” (p. 83). If not, then the main idea is a topic, not an argument. Belcher juxtaposes argument-driven and data-driven articles. Unlike data-driven articles, argument-driven ones “don’t have streams of data without any argument” and are more likely to get published (p. 89).   

On the first day of the week, I read the workbook and answered all the questions posted in that section. I learned that my paper is data-driven; it has a topic, but not an argument with which one can agree or disagree. On the second day, I drafted the argument for my article, as I currently understand it. Then, I compiled a list of evidence that supports my argument and revised my abstract. On the third day, I once again reread my paper; this time I concentrated on reviewing my argument. I finished with making a list of revision tasks. 

I didn’t do anything on the fourth or fifth day. At the beginning of the week, I was preparing for my dissertation prospectus defense. Then, the defense aggravated my cough and forced me to pay more attention to my health at expense of other activities. I definitely need to catch up next week.

Writing a journal article in 12 weeks: Week Two

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 Two.

In the Week 2 section, Belcher discusses different types of articles (i.e., annotated bibliography, book review, review article, theoretical article, social science research article, etc.). If a junior scholar works on revision of a paper which is not a research article, Belcher recommends to consider converting it into one. Then, she debunks the myths about publishable journal articles and explains what gets published and why. Belcher insists that “a publishable article is organized around a single significant new idea that is demonstrably related to what has come before” (p. 49). A publishable article can approach new evidence in an old way, look at old evidence in a new way, or pair old evidence with old approaches in a new way. Belcher asserts that writing an abstract should be one of the first steps of revising an article, because writing an abstract helps to clarify the purpose, structure, and content of the article. According to her, a good abstract should state the topic of the article, explain the methodology used, describe the findings, and discuss the conclusions that can be drawn from the project/argument.

On the first day of the week, I read the workbook and worked on refining the topic of my paper. First, I described to a friend what my paper was about. Then, I wrote one sentence starting with “My article is about …” After completing that exercise, I felt more confident that my paper indeed has a clear point, which I need to successfully convey to my audience to get published. On the second day, I located my paper on my computer, printed it out, reread the hard copy—first without changing anything, just to get a sense of it, and then with pen in hand. After that, I made a list of revision tasks. On the third day, I followed Belcher’s directions and drafted my abstract. On the fourth day, I went through online databases in search for an article that can serve as a model in revising my own. I found several, read them, and picked one that seemed to be a better model. Then, I studied the how the article is structured, how it presents information, how the argument is built, etc.

There are also some tasks that I failed to accomplish this week. On the third day, I was supposed not only to draft my abstract but also to share it with someone else to get suggestions for revision, and on the fifth day I needed to revise the abstracts. I didn’t do that and will have to deal with these tasks later, which is not a good thing. On the other hand, I’m glad I’ve managed to accomplish something because I’m still recovering from the bug I caught in Europe, tired from feeling unwell and trying to get rid of lingering cough.

Writing a journal article in 12 weeks: Week One

For some time, I have a number of research papers lying around without any movement. I need to start sending them out for publication. I've heard high praise for Wendy Laura Belcher’s book Writing Your Journal Article in 12 Weeks: A Guide to AcademicPublishing Success, and decided to engage its help. Belcher argues that it’s possible to prepare an article for publication within 12 weeks if one works on it somewhere from 15 minutes to an hour 5 days per week. The book provides a week by week (and a day by day) plan on what needs to be done. I will try to follow this plan and see where that takes me.

This is Week One. The first day was devoted to reading the workbook. That section talked about the importance of understanding your feelings about writing and keys to positive writing experiences. On the day two, I selected a paper for revision. On the day three I needed to choose my writing site, which was rather straightforward because I like working at home and there are several writing sites that work well for me. Day 4 was about designing my writing schedule, which included (1) establishing a firm deadline for sending my paper to a journal, (2) setting a realistic writing goal, and (3) anticipating writing obstacles. A deadline for sending my paper to a journal is on November 30th. Setting a realistic writing goal was more problematic for me. Belcher suggests to identify in advance the days of the week when I plan to work on my paper, and for each of them schedule specific writing time. I tried this approach in the past but was unable to stick to the preplanned schedule. So, this time I decided to do what I’ve been doing this week: spending as much time as necessary on Sunday to accomplish the tasks of the day one, do the same for the day two on Monday, and so on until all goals for the week are met. Day 5 was supposed to be about documenting how I spent my time. Belcher recommends to keep track not only on how much time one spends on writing but also to list all recreation activities, household tasks, etc. She explains, “This is an excellent exercise for finding out where your time goes and a useful tool for identifying how you to use your time more efficiently.” I’m all for efficiency unless the quest for efficiency overextend the person and hinders progress toward personal goals. To me, continuous progress, even if it happens in tiny increments, is more important than a short-term efficiency. Thus, instead of recording all my daily activities, I chose to write down 3-5 things which I did that day and which bring me closer to my goals in various areas of my life. I’ll keep monitoring how these practices work for me and make some adjustments if necessary.

Construction of luxury and privilege

I’m currently attending the Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines (CADAAD) conference in Budapest. Yesterday’s keynote was about elite products/services and discursive construction of luxury. The speaker (Crispin Thurlow) opened his talk with a personal story of losing his membership in the British Airways “Elite” Club after his husband and he adopted a child. He described the benefits of the elite programs, examined the symbolic construction of the elite, talked about luxury resorts, etc. When the talk was over, a keynote speaker who gave her talk the day before raised her hand and suggested that it’s important to distinguish between “luxury” and “practicality.” She explained that, as a frequent traveler, she values some of the elite benefits, such as having a more comfortable place to wait for flights, being able to take a shower, etc. She concluded that those are not about luxury but practicality.

For me, this comment raises interesting questions about the relativity of luxury and the limits of scholarly reflexivity. For one, the distinction between luxury and practicality is rather arbitrary and depends on the positionality of the speaker. Wouldn’t a person who suffers from hunger and thirst consider a luxury the idea of transatlantic travel, not to mention taking a shower while waiting for a plane? I’m also thinking about the potential danger of being securely positioned as an expert who reflectively examines the world and constructs a social critique. The expert status may obscure the extent to which this person and his/her evaluations are implicated in the system of power/knowledge.