c. neil haigh, edquest research writing. the agenda making the decision to write: considerations and...

c. Neil Haigh, EdQuest

Research Writing

The Agenda

Making the decision to write: Considerations and decisions

Conceptions of ‘good’ research writing

The act and art of writing

Making the decision to write

• I have a point of view that I feel compelled to communicate to

others – and that I can support with convincing evidence

and/or arguments.

• I can state the point of view and related ideas clearly and

precisely

• I know whom I want to communicate to.


• I have identified a journal that is an appropriate

publication option with respect to my topic and the

format and style of article that I wish to write.

I have read the aims, editorial policy, author guidelines

I have assessed the journal’s reputation (e.g. impact factor)

I have read a sample of articles


My point of view

My audience is ………….

My target publication

Personal review - and writing (the point of view)

Share and compare – fine tune

Conference Presentations

Oral Presentation - Refereed Paper – Poster

An opportunity to try out, obtain feedback, rehearse language, make contacts

Pros and cons of conference papers

Haigh, N. J. (2009). Engendering ripple effects when improving learning and teaching. In Annual Conference of Tertiary Education Research in New Zealand (TERNZ). Auckland, New Zealand. Haigh, N. J. (2010). The case for and insights into engendering ripple effects from SoTL projects. In Annual Conference of the International Society of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Liverpool, UK.

Conference Presentation(s) To Journal Article

Your Conceptions of ‘Good’ Research Writing

Reviewer and Editor Conceptions of ‘Good’ Research Writing

The paper provides an important critical and/or analytical insight that contributes

something new to the field (of higher education studies).

The issue/problem is well situated in an appropriate literature.

The paper demonstrates methodological soundness.

The conclusion is well supported and persuasively argued.

The paper is succinct and coherent.

Overall, the paper reads well and will engage an international (higher education)

audience.

All papers must make it clear how the findings advance understanding of the

issue under study. (Higher Education Research and Development)


Examples of reviewer criteria - See handouts

‘Guidance for reviewer decisions on papers’

Accept - Minor Revision - Major Revision – Reject

International Journal for Academic Development (IJAD)

‘Questions that reviewers will ask of your article’ International Journal for Art and design Education (IJADE)

‘Review Guidelines’ International Journal of Design


See alsoRefereeing a journal article parts 1 and 2

http://patthomson.net/2012/01/07/refereeing-a-journal-article-part-1-reading/

http://patthomson.net/2012/01/13/refereeing-a-journal-article-part-2-making-a-

recommendation/

How to get published in an academic journal: top tips from editors

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/jan/03/how-to-get-published-in-an-

academic-journal-top-tips-from-editors

Publishing tips from a journal editor: selecting the right journal

http://blog.oup.com/2014/08/publishing-tips-journal-editor/

The act and art of writing

Writing task:

In a nutshell – (10 minutes sustained writing)

Immediate reactions to experience

Share – compare – 2 commendations & 2 suggestions

For an activity to be designated as scholarship, it should manifest at least three

key characteristics: it should be

public,

susceptible to critical review and evaluation,

accessible for exchange and use by other member’s of one’s scholarly community

Shulman, 1998

Ways of Being a Writer: Some Perspectives

• diver, patchwork writer, grand planner, architect

(Crème and Lea)

• architects, bricklayers, oil painters, water colourists

(Chandler)

• time of day

• preferred environment – the introversion/extraversion

factor

• soloist – collaborator

Diver Writer?

Starts writing - to find out what wants to say.

Starts anywhere - sees what emerges -

before developing a plan.

Makes several dives - before considers tying

together what written.

Writing considered a part of thinking process

Patchwork Writer?

First - decides on some subtopics - writes

about them

While writing - decides whether subtopics

relevant – whether/how can be

combined.

Later - combines subtopics with linking

ideas and words.

Writing is an aid to thinking.

Grand Plan Writer?

Reads, makes notes, thinks

Does not write until has plan for ‘what

to write’.

Can’t say what plan is until write it

down.

Then plan comes out nearly complete

= an epiphany.

Writing is an outcome of thinking

Architect Writer?

First - makes lots of notes, sketches out

many ideas.

Has sense of structure almost before

content.

Produces complex plan/‘map’ early in

process.

Sees writing as – communicating ideas

already clear in mind.

?

Which way is most like your own?

How stable is your way?

Have you changed over time?

How do you think your way is different?

What might be advantages and disadvantages of these

different ways?

Might there benefits from adjusting your way?

Architects

• Have conscious planning and design processes for writing.

• Less likely to see writing as – a way of thinking

• Generally follow classic plan – write – edit sequence

• More likely to leave and come back to writing.

Bricklayers

• Built up text slowly

• Every sentence/paragraph polished before go on.

• More likely to leave and come back to writing.

• Usually have clear idea of what they want to say.

• Thinking leads to writing.

Oil painters

• Work fairly slowly

• Keep making alterations (over paint)

• Tendency – minimal planning + maximum alteration

• May be too writer-centred - not sufficiently reader-oriented

Water colourists

• Work quickly (once paint dried, picture cannot be altered).

• Minimal alterations

• In single attempt – produce near perfect product

• May be insufficiently attentive to readers

• If word processing skills limited may feel

– cannot work fast enough

– and dissatisfied.

When and Where?

• Do you have preferred times of day for writing?

– circadian rhythms

– am or pm person?

• Do you have a preferred environment – the introversion/extraversion factor?

Writing Alone - Together?

What preferences? What pros and cons?

Some of my thoughts – when writing

Are my thoughts clear enough – to write clearly about?

Should I think, read, talk more – before writing?

What story am I telling about my point of view?

e.g.

origins of the view – the context and case for my attention to this view – the questions I asked - how I answered the questions – the answers – the evidence and arguments for my view - my claims now re the status of the view – research and practical implications


Will this story be clear and coherent- to them?

-Will these words be familiar, accessible – is translation required?

-Am I writing ‘clear’ statements?

-Am I helping them ‘follow the story’ by- Using an appropriate structure for telling the story- Proving an overview of the structure- Providing sufficient and appropriate navigational cues.


Should I turn off the editor until later - produce

rather than polish?

Do I need large chunks or small slivers of writing time – to make progress?

Do I needs someone else’s perspective now – on the content/the writing?

Is the text free of grammar and spelling errors?

Am I following the author guidelines?

Time to submit

• Revisit submission process (usually on-line).

• Prepare copy‘for review.

Remove all references to your own previous publications, or statements that would allow your identification.

Submit both ‘for review’ and ‘not for review’ copies.

Receiving and responding to the editor and reviewer feedback

• Read, react, re-read, sleep on it, discuss, decide on response

• There will almost always be some negative critique and variation across reviewers.

• Editor may highlight priorities for revision and correction.

• Decide how to respond to feedback and suggestions – do, challenge, not do.

• Do the rewriting ASAP. There will be a timeframe.

• Take the opportunity (looking back) to polish the original further.

Receiving and responding to the editor and reviewer feedback

• Write a cover letter detailing how you have responded to/

addressed the reviewers’ comments.

• Re-submit

• May, or may not, go back to original reviewers. Sometimes

another reviewers’ opinion sought.

Its accepted!!

• Publisher receives article and does another proof-read.

• Sends a proof with queries and requests

• Complete copyright transfer form.

• On-line publication, then hard-copy publication.

Another, different, briefer story

resolve resilience persistence

c. neil haigh, edquest research writing. the agenda making the decision to write: considerations and...

Documents