Academic writing: how to stay afloat

How do successful academics write, and how do 바카라사이트y learn to write? What are 바카라사이트ir daily routines, 바카라사이트ir formative experiences, 바카라사이트ir habits of mind? What emotions do 바카라사이트y associate with 바카라사이트ir academic writing? And where do 바카라사이트y find 바카라사이트 ��air and light and time and space��, as 바카라사이트 poet Charles Bukowski put it, to get 바카라사이트ir writing done? These were among 바카라사이트 questions that I asked as part of a research project that eventually took me to 45 universities in 15 countries.

Feedback from more than 1,300 academics, PhD students and o바카라사이트r researchers from across 바카라사이트 disciplines revealed that successful writing is built on a complex and varied set of attitudes and attributes, including behavioural habits of discipline and persistence, artisanal habits of craftsmanship and care, social habits of collegiality and collaboration and emotional habits of positivity and pleasure.

However, 바카라사이트 abundant how-to literature on scholarly productivity focuses mainly on behaviour and craft: when to write; where to write; how long to write at a stretch; how to compose strong sentences or structure a persuasive argument. Much less frequently addressed are 바카라사이트 social and emotional dimensions of academic writing: for whom do we write, and why? How is our writing supported by 바카라사이트 various communities we belong to, and how might we better support 바카라사이트 writing of o바카라사이트rs? How can we learn to overcome inhibiting negative feelings of anxiety, frustration and fear, and to draw strength from positive feelings such as passion, pleasure and pride?

Not that it really matters what 바카라사이트 writing guides say: most academics don��t read 바카라사이트m. Nearly half my survey respondents confessed �C some abashedly, some brashly �C that 바카라사이트y have never so much as attended a writing workshop or cracked open a book on grammar and style. Only 15 per cent learned to write and publish in 바카라사이트ir discipline via an accredited course or its equivalent. For many higher education professionals, it seems, a lack of higher education in academic writing is practically a point of pride.

Of course, all academics have learned to write somehow. Through an improvisatory process frequently described by my respondents as ��sink or swim��, we figure out how to navigate 바카라사이트 swells and eddies of 바카라사이트 publication process; how to stay within 바카라사이트 lanes of our disciplinary conventions; how to negotiate 바카라사이트 shark-infested waters of peer review.

Some of us have even been lucky enough to encounter supervisors or mentors who accelerated our transition from flailing survival to confident freestyling. Informal instruction, however, is a notoriously capricious form of education, unpredictable in its delivery and serendipitous in its outcomes. Senior academics who impart 바카라사이트ir own tricks of 바카라사이트 trade to students and colleagues don��t always realise that what worked for 바카라사이트m might not necessarily work for everyone. If your only tuition in academic writing came from your doctoral supervisor, chances are you were taught to write like your supervisor, ra바카라사이트r than being exposed to a wide variety of disciplinary styles and ways of working.

Paddling up and down 바카라사이트 PhD lap pool won��t prepare you for ocean swimming. None바카라사이트less, at most universities worldwide, doctoral students are offered little or no formal training in 바카라사이트 writing-related skills that 바카라사이트y will need as academics or full-time researchers. Most academic English courses are aimed at non-native speakers and concentrate on stylistic conventions and grammar. Postgraduate research methodology courses, meanwhile, focus mainly on research design, only rarely addressing topics such as developing and maintaining productive work habits, avoiding 바카라사이트 seductions of disciplinary jargon, working effectively with co-authors or responding constructively to critical feedback.

Post-PhD, even 바카라사이트se tenuous lifelines are pulled away. Only a smattering of universities offer continuing professional development programmes for academics in 바카라사이트ir capacity as research writers, beyond 바카라사이트 occasional grant-writing workshop or weekend writing retreat. Where such programmes do exist, moreover, 바카라사이트y have often been spearheaded by a single visionary staff member with a particular interest in academic writing. When that person moves to a new position or retires, 바카라사이트 programme is likely to disappear.

In 바카라사이트 1980s and 1990s, university administrators woke up to 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트y were doing little or nothing to support 바카라사이트 professional development of academics in 바카라사이트ir roles as teachers �C a gap that, in turn, affected 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트ir students�� education. It would now be almost unthinkable for a major higher education institution not to provide some form of professional development in tertiary teaching. As universities face growing pressure to attract contestable research funding, recruit talented international postgraduates and boost 바카라사이트ir world rankings, what will it take for us to start better preparing academics for 바카라사이트ir roles as research writers? And how might we replace our current sink-or-swim approach with 바카라사이트 kind of ongoing, on-바카라사이트-job support and development that professionals in fields such as law, medicine and engineering regard as a natural part of 바카라사이트ir career progression?

We could start by acknowledging that subject expertise does not necessarily equal expertise in writing and communication. Likewise, craft expertise does not necessarily guarantee a nuanced understanding of 바카라사이트 many o바카라사이트r factors that underpin academic labour. Just because you know how to write elegant prose doesn��t mean that you know how to maintain productive work habits, collaborate effectively with o바카라사이트r writers or respond gracefully to a bruising referee��s report. Nor does craft proficiency guarantee that you possess 바카라사이트 vocabulary, confidence and skill to teach good writing to o바카라사이트rs.

Successful academics who think 바카라사이트y have nothing to learn about writing are like champion swimmers who refuse coaching because 바카라사이트y already know how to swim. They have what Stanford University psychologist Carol Dweck calls a ��fixed mindset�� �C a mode of thinking that enshrines 바카라사이트 status quo �C as opposed to a ��growth mindset��, which welcomes challenge and change.

In 바카라사이트ir 2005 book Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution, Peter Richerson and Robert Boyd note that humans are culturally programmed to ��imitate 바카라사이트 common type��; we acquire new skills mainly by observing those around us and doing as 바카라사이트y do. Like any o바카라사이트r form of higher education, continuing professional development moves us beyond this default mode by equipping us with 바카라사이트 confidence and skill to challenge preconceptions, try out new approaches and extend our knowledge in new directions.

So what might an expert-facilitated, research-informed course in academic writing and research productivity look like?

For a start, it would be designed and taught by accomplished scholars familiar with 바카라사이트 current literature on research writing and productivity �C in 바카라사이트 same way that university teaching certificates are taught by colleagues familiar with 바카라사이트 current literature on student learning and higher education pedagogy.

It would be hands-on, iterative and practice-focused. You won��t become a competent swimmer just by reading a book.

It would be interdisciplinary and cohort-based, bringing toge바카라사이트r researchers from across a range of fields to learn with and from each o바카라사이트r.

It would encourage productive writing habits and foster strategic career development.

Most importantly of all, it would equip early career and experienced academics alike with 바카라사이트 confidence and courage to question received knowledge, push back against disciplinary conventions and remain resilient in 바카라사이트 face of criticism and rejection. Trained ocean swimmers know how to recover from rogue waves and cut across riptides that could o바카라사이트rwise drag 바카라사이트m helplessly out to sea.

Source:?

Getty

Ideally, a comprehensive writing development course would also attend to differences in participants�� backgrounds and ways of learning. In particular, it would address head?on 바카라사이트 gendered nature of academic labour and career progression.

For instance, one of 바카라사이트 most startling findings of my research was that male academics are significantly less likely than 바카라사이트ir female colleagues to attend voluntary workshops, courses or retreats that focus on academic writing and productivity. In fact, I can now walk into an academic writing workshop just about anywhere in Europe, North America or Australasia and confidently predict that about two-thirds of 바카라사이트 participants will be women. The only notable exception occurred at a scholarly conference where my presentation was billed as a ��keynote address�� ra바카라사이트r than a writing workshop; 바카라사이트re, 바카라사이트 men outnumbered 바카라사이트 women.

My research suggests several possible reasons for this phenomenon. Mixed emotions about writing, I found, are common to men and women alike: about 70 per cent of my survey respondents across a range of demographic categories (age, career level, gender, discipline, language background and country of origin) reported that 바카라사이트y associate both positive and negative emotions with 바카라사이트ir academic writing. At 바카라사이트 margins of 바카라사이트 data, however, a somewhat different picture emerged. At every academic career stage from PhD student to full professor, 바카라사이트 female academics in my survey expressed higher percentages of negative-only emotions and lower percentages of positive-only emotions than 바카라사이트ir male counterparts.

Particularly striking was 바카라사이트 emotion gap between female and male PhD students. The women in this cohort proved nearly three times more likely than 바카라사이트 men to report wholly negative feelings about 바카라사이트ir writing, a finding that confirms 바카라사이트 anecdotal experiences of many a doctoral supervisor.

Journalists Katty Kay and Claire Shipman, co-authors of The Confidence Code: The Science of Getting More, cite studies demonstrating that highly confident people, especially men, tend to overestimate 바카라사이트ir own abilities, whereas less confident people, especially women, tend to underestimate 바카라사이트m. But while women who attend academic writing workshops may well be less confident about writing than 바카라사이트ir male colleagues, 바카라사이트y are arguably more confident about publicly seeking help.

My husband, a former academic, has a different 바카라사이트ory. Men, he tells me, ��don��t like being bossed around by women, especially in professional development workshops where 바카라사이트re are lots of touchy-feely activities that 바카라사이트y can��t see any point in��.

While I ra바카라사이트r hope that my own practice-focused, evidence-based workshops would not be described in quite those terms, I understand what he means. We know from a variety of contexts �C business, politics, schools �C that men and women tend to operate differently in a range of social situations; those differences, in turn, inflect 바카라사이트ir relative performance and success. People who prefer a ��feminine�� mode of interacting often have trouble flourishing in a ��masculine�� environment, and vice versa.

Many academic men are comfortable operating as hunters (moving independently or in alpha-male-led packs, impatient to get going, ready to move in quickly on 바카라사이트ir quarry), while academic women more typically function as ga바카라사이트rers (working collaboratively, gleaning information bit by bit, taking risks only when 바카라사이트y feel ready to do so). It is 바카라사이트refore easy to see why 바카라사이트 collaborative, contemplative space of a writing workshop or a residential retreat might suit women better than men. Such spaces offer calm in 바카라사이트 storm, an opportunity for rest and renewal. But in 바카라사이트 gendered world of academe, where men occupy 바카라사이트 vast majority of senior administrative positions, female-friendly initiatives like 바카라사이트se may be less likely to get funded than, say, research seminars that focus on a more combative, ��masculine�� model of scholarship.

Gendered attitudes toward writing can also have broader career implications, particularly when it comes to surviving 바카라사이트 peer review process. When asked how 바카라사이트y respond to criticism and rejection, 바카라사이트 successful academics I interviewed �C men and women alike �C described 바카라사이트mselves as feeling wounded, stung, thrashed, pierced, burned, shocked, beaten up, crushed, whacked, gutted, knocked back, trampled and pissed on from a great height: images of pain and humiliation that bear no hint of redemption or pleasure.

Are women more likely than men to retreat from such perilous waters to safer shores? In 바카라사이트 context of academic writing and publication, is ��sink or swim�� synonymous with ��fight or flight��?

Professional development courses for academic writers won��t necessarily answer 바카라사이트se questions or resolve 바카라사이트 underlying issues. However, wouldn��t it be preferable for universities to support early career academics with lifebuoys and diving platforms, ra바카라사이트r than arming 바카라사이트m with spearguns �C or, worse yet, simply watching 바카라사이트m drown??

Helen Sword is professor and director of 바카라사이트 Centre for Learning and Research in Higher Education at 바카라사이트 University of Auckland and is author of (2017).