Module 5: The ‘Attitudinal Psychology’ of Drafting and Writing
Compiler: Emeritus Professor Wieland Gevers
1.1 Why a special self-study lecture on this topic?
Many young scholars and postgraduate people have difficulties developing a productive mental approach to ‘writing up’ their research work and results. These can usefully be called aspects of the ‘attitudinal psychology’ of a beginning research career. In essence, they add, to an understandable lack of confidence and experience, the issue of the ‘psychological attitude’ to the writing-up task. This lecture draws inter alia on a recent article by Gardiner and Kearns in ‘Nature’ entitled ‘Turbocharge your writing today’ 1.
1.2 What is the usual sequence of events in writing up research?
Articles are published by a single author, by small numbers of authors (say 2-5), by larger numbers (say 6-10) or occasionally by very large numbers arranged in consortia or as a single long list (‘big physics’ or genomics). Singly authored works are the sole responsibility of the author from first draft to final publication. Articles with more than one author are almost always initially drafted by one person, although multi-author, multi-segment work may well be initially woven together from a number of independently produced first part-drafts or sections. In either case, somebody has to put pen to paper and create something that co-authors can work with and which can then become a basis for further consultation. For some (a few), this is an exciting, even exhilarating moment; for others (most), it is a dreaded moment to be avoided and postponed. The usual indication for the commencement of writing up is the accumulation of enough results to constitute a ‘tellable scientific story’ or a coherent report of the work concerned.
1.3 Why do many people struggle to put pen to paper, so to speak?
Gardiner and Kearns say there are two myths that need exploding to facilitate the writing phase: the ‘readiness myth’ (“I will write when I’m good and ready, and I’m not ready yet”) and the ‘clarity myth’ (“I will write when I’ve got it all clear in my head first”). The first is a myth because it is only when you’re writing up work that you can actually tell whether you are ready, and the second is a myth because writing up is actually necessary in order to get things clear in your head. Writing is an interactive and creative process, not only involving others like co-authors and consultees, but most importantly, yourself. Gardiner and Kearns put it that “writing is in fact necessary for rigorous thinking”.
1.4 How should you write in terms of time and setting?
Gardiner and Kearns use the term ‘snack writing’ to describe the best practice of setting aside short but concentrated (undistracted) times (e.g. 45-90 minutes) at regular, preferably fixed intervals, in order to get away from the debilitating ‘third myth’ of needing a week of more to ‘really get stuck into it’ (they call this ‘binge writing’). The ‘snack period’ approach makes it more likely that you can actually start your writing in otherwise busy research periods, and allows more continuous subconscious processing of your ideas and unresolved issues; it also permits you to do missing experiments, collect missing data, look up missing references or conduct necessary consultations as you progress the overall write-up. Assemble your results and reference materials to facilitate making ready sense of the ‘story’ you’re writing; keep them together as you move on.
1.5 What is the nature of the first draft?
It is critical not to write as though everything has to be crossed and dotted; don’t slow yourself down by getting bogged down with reference searches or perfect phrasing; let it flow, and make liberal use of dot sequences (………) or XXXX for missing names or words, etc. Gardiner and Kearns put it that ‘writing means putting new words on the page or substantially rewriting existing words; it does not mean editing, reading, referencing or formatting, and it definitely does not mean composing emails”.
1.6 How do co-authors become involved, and how is consensus reached?
The role of ‘first author(s)’ is a well-defined one in the literature (see Lecture 1). It is very important not to let other authors seize this from you, even when they are actually your supervisor or laboratory/group head. The skill of writing an article means you must seek to remain the principal drafter, and retain control of successively modified and improved drafts/versions of the article concerned. Consensus on formulation of sections, interpretations and conclusions must be reached in a constructive and creative manner, guided and ultimately defined by the ‘senior author’ who takes responsibility for the ultimate submission to a journal. Once internal consensus has been reached amongst the listed authors, consultation must begin with others who may be able to strengthen the article, such as (non-author) statisticians, experts in various related fields, etc.
Formal presentation at a group, or (better) departmental seminar is very good practice, to iron out the ‘spots’ to which you and your co-authors have been ‘blind’, to test the conviction with which the results have led to conclusions, and generally to obtain a positive local but open peer review.
Exercise: Try to analyse your own approach to scholarly/scientific writing up to this point in your own career, specifically in terms of each of the items covered above. Write down your analysis, and discuss it with a colleague or close friend. Then work out a pathway to strengthening your assertiveness and capacity for writing.
1.7 What is ‘writer’s block’?
Many creative authors develop a condition in which they are either completely unable to begin writing, or become very anxious about their capacity to do so. Most of the cases of supposed ‘writer’s block’ encountered amongst scholars/scientists are actually associated with the swallowing of the ‘myths’ described previously in this self-study lecture. They are therefore addressable and can be overcome.
1.8 What happens during formal peer review and editorial consideration?
Again, you should strive to retain overall drafting control over a paper as referees’ reports arrive and editors articulate requirements for possible publication. Revisions and resubmissions (to the same or other journals) should remain your primary responsibility as first author, guided by your senior and other co-authors. It is a test of your evolving quality and strength as a researcher that you assert, as far as is possible, your rights as first author. It is also the best guarantee that you will have learnt the maximum amount from the whole exercise of writing a paper, and that the second adventure will be smoother and better.
References:
Gardiner, M and Kearns, H. Turbocharge your writing today! Nature 2011, 475: 129-130