It's Jodi...I see many overlaps between the class and Becker’s first chapter. We have discussed some of the fears people have with writing and the importance of having others read our papers to give feedback as well as reading our papers out loud to find errors. Silly mistakes were discussed in both venues as well. The idea of “fancy writing” has been discussed and feeling the need to write more scholarly for our papers to be more respected. (I admit that this idea has been put in my head at some point along my academic journey.) Giving credit where credit is due sticks with me as well which can be hard when you “know” something has been done but you cannot find the source or do not know who gets the credit for it. Writers have habits and comfortable environments they tend to write in which may isolate them to write but does not always help when needing feedback or sharing with others. It is easy to share when you are in a class or have a group of mentors to email and discuss roadblocks or what is missing in the paper. The idea of sharing a paper with someone is becoming a more comfortable idea for me, although I am not saying it is easy to do just yet.
I really enjoyed Becker's chapter! I have struggled with being "too wordy" in my writing and often do have someone edit my work. When I do that, I try not to get offended and genuinely do appreciate what they change. I think this stems from what Becker talks about in regards to undergrad writing where being wordy is ok and often hides whether or not students really knew what they are writing about. I have learned in the doctoral program to be more concise, though I have not perfected it yet. I look forward to reading more in this book and further improve my writing. I think it goes along with our discussion of disciplines...narrow writing with concise meaning could be argued as similar to the concept of focus.
I too feel the struggle! Personally, I agreed with Becker's assertion that students (and myself) feel the need to add a level of pretentiousness to their writing in order for it to be taken seriously. Their (and my) finished product ends up being adjective heavy and verbose, ultimately clouding the intended meaning. The meaning after all is what is actually important...many wars have been fought and many lives have been lost over hermeneutics. I think that's what I am currently struggling with-- forsaking all of the "magic rituals" I've formed, and focusing more so on the message I'm attempting to convey.
Hi! This is Holly. Two things “popped out” at me as I thought about overlaps between Becker’s Chapter 1 and what we’ve discussed in class so far. First, there are parallels between Becker and Labaree’s arguments, although Becker makes his points in a much kinder, gentler way. Both authors posit that previous academic and work experiences leave us ill-prepared for the rigor and specialization of doctoral work. In Becker’s case, he points out how the writing strategies that have served us well up until now – thinking it all through before you start writing, writing one “best” draft, writing at the last minute – no longer work when writing at the graduate level. Now, writing becomes our primary way of thinking through and making sense of ideas. It’s a continual process, in which we clarify our thinking and ultimately our argument through repeated cycles of drafting, revising, and editing, often done in collaboration with others. This also brings me to the second overlap I noticed. On Tuesday, we talked briefly about how all research has value attached to it. We make decisions about what to study, how to study it, which kinds of data to collect, what we highlight in our analysis, what we ignore in our conclusions. Becker makes a similar point about the value attached to writing. We make decisions throughout the writing process that inform and influence our final outcome. We choose topics to write about, words to use, sentences to keep, sentences to discard, the order of paragraphs, etc. As Becker states, and I think it can be applied equally to research and to writing, “each choice shapes the result” (p. 16).
I see a great deal of overlap between the class discussions and Becker’s first chapter. Perhaps it’s the former English teacher in me, but I feel like Becker’s advice serves as a metaphor for the “strange changes” we face as doc students. (Bowie, 1971)
Becker’s students are learning to be open and vulnerable, letting people see the flaws and idiosyncrasies in their writing. To take full advantage of this program, I guess we have to do essentially the same thing with the way we think. The quotes from Ozeki and Toulmin suggest the importance of taking different perspectives and experimenting with fresh views of subjects that seem familiar. That means exploring – and letting other people see – the flaws and idiosyncrasies in our thinking as we blaze our own unique trails through the program. Like Becker’s students who want “to get whatever they put on paper into perfect form before anyone sees it,” I want to have a fully-formed dissertation topic/idea of what my discipline is/answer to this question before I share it with you. *
In other words, I guess a Labereenthian** transformation from subjective teacher to objective researcher requires a somewhat messy, convoluted – and probably less private than I would prefer – process of problematizing the things we think we know about in the service of advancing the body of knowledge. Using the “bringing under control, typically by force” *** meaning of the word subject, we could say our doc studies will free us from thinking that is delimited by experience, helping us to find the agency we need to go beyond working with individual students in a single, concrete classroom to help even more students, albeit in a much more abstract way.
Becker’s students clearly believe taking the risk will help them in the long run. Presumably, this program will also pay off in the long run. I’m just hoping to remain, like Bowie’s spat-upon children “quite aware of what [I’m] going through” so that I can follow Kurt’s advice to take control of my own program and do the things I need to do to make a contribution … and pay off those student loans. (Bowie, 1971)
* Apropos of nothing, my youngest child almost failed eighth grade art because he refused to turn in any work he didn’t think was perfect. ** I have not seen the movie “Labyrinth,” but the trailer includes the line “you take too much for granted,” which somehow seems appropriate for this class/program. Feel free to correct me if you have seen the movie. Muppets, George Lucas, and David Bowie? I wish I could find the time for that. *** Paraphrased from Google.
Yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away…and then I became a doc student.
I admit that I don’t know a lot of Beatles music, but there are coincidentally a lot of Beatles lyrics that seem to speak to me about the transformation that I am expecting to “magically” take place as I journey from the lowly practice of teaching to the upper echelons of educational researcher.
I do see a lot of parallels regarding what we have discussed about the “cultural conflict” of worldviews between teachers and researchers that Labaree suggests calls for a “ potentially drastic change in the way students look at education and at their work as educationists” (Labaree, 2003, p. 16).
So it makes sense that this conflict manifests to the task of writing, which as Howard Becker says, is really a form of thinking. As for me, I consider myself an old school writer. I must write using paper and pen in long hand. This affords me the opportunity to edit and rearrange and get everything out until I’m completely satisfied. I like to see everything all at once. Only then, do I begin typing my FINAL COPY. The nice thing about this is that when I am truly finished, I only have to go through the mechanical and mindless act of typing which I learned to do on a good old-fashioned typewriter (now known as a keyboard). According to Virginia Richardson, I should develop the habit of mind to develop my writing and to see writing as part of interpretive and analytical work, not merely “writing up” research (2008, p. 263).
“Doesn’t have a point of view / Knows not where he’s going to / Isn’t he a bit like you and me?”
These lyrics form “Nowhere Man’ are said to be the first Beatles song not written about love that John Lennon wrote after not being able to come up with any good words for a song. I admit that this is usually how I feel when I embark upon drafting a paper, which is more often than not destined to become the only draft, and thus the final draft, too. I have been known to “write fancy” and use “meaningless placeholders” as well. I liked Becker’s simple advice:
1. Write so clearly that no one could misunderstand 2. Writing is not a one shot all or nothing venture 3. If you think clearly, you will write clearly 4. A mixed up draft is no cause for shame
It is said that Lennon also came up with these lyrics for ‘Across the Universe’ while he was trying to fall asleep…“Words are flowing out / Like endless rain into a paper cup / They slither while they pass / They slip away across the universe”
I think there is overlap in our class discussion and Becker in speaking to the challenges of becoming a doctoral student. I enjoyed Becker's chapter and have found myself relating to the many challenges with writing papers. Graduate school definitely removed the cloak of keeping my paper just between my professor and me. I still have anxiety when someone is reading a paper that I have written. Questions whirl in my head - is it good enough? Will they say I am a fraud and how did I even get into school? I like the idea of surrounding myself with a circle of friends who will provide feedback based on my writing stage. I also like the idea of being short and concise. When Becker referenced people’s feelings getting hurt because the reader couldn’t see what they meant. Clearly it means you need to write in such a way that there is no lack of understanding. Finally, I like the notion of having time. I take time to absorb material and try to make connections with my thoughts before even beginning to write. Viewing each draft as just as a draft - working on the paper, taking a break, and then returning. I wish we had more time but the classes can’t afford to give away too much time.
This is Vivian... I recognized myself in Becker’s description of writers in Chapter 1. While I have frequently contributed my activities leading to writing as procrastination, I do also consider them preparation. During my many activities, which in the past have included anything from clearing my desk of old papers to rearranging the furniture in several rooms, a engage in a significant amount of thinking and processing information and ideas while I prepare. I also take breaks when writing, using that time to continue to process and think about my ideas. Sometimes, when I return to writing without first reviewing what I had written earlier, I find myself repeating my thoughts in a different way – sometimes better, sometimes worse. Even though I have followed my writing routines for more than two decades, I have always wished I had a better approach. My routine gets the job done, but in my opinion it comes at a cost. My approach is stressful because my preparation/procrastination activities delay the start of my writing, pushing me closer and closer to the due dates. As a result, I almost always feel that I could have done a better job if I had more time; after turning in a paper, I always think of other things I could have said or ways I could have made it better. Becker’s description of Writer-Based prose seems to offer an approach that could be helpful to me. If I don’t worry about having my ideas organized as a final product before I write, I could identify all my ideas first, then go back and review, revising and improve. The idea of private vs. public writing was very interesting to me, too. I find it difficult to share a final version; it would be very difficult – if not impossible – to share an initial draft that may actually resemble a ‘free-write.’ However, I see the value in this practice and think it benefits the writer and the reader. This concept overlaps with the class discussion regarding the importance of making connections with individuals who share your interests. Becker described the benefits to creating a collaborative writing team or partnership with trusted peers/colleagues. While learning to be comfortable with the concept of public writing will be challenging, I can see additional challenges to the part time doctoral student. As a part-time student, finding time to engage in collaborative writing practices will be a challenge.
Carolyn ~ In class we have discussed the tensions or “problems” doc students confront when facing the transition from practitioner to researcher, from normative to analytic thinker, from a particular to a universal perspective, etc. Similarly, Becker talks about the problematic transition from the writers he says we are socialized to be as undergrads, using a shorter format which, so long as it is “kept confidential, in the conventionally private teacher-undergraduate relationship, it won’t embarrass the author too much,” to the writers of journal articles and dissertations we are becoming as doc students. Because graduate-level documents are too lengthy to plan out in our heads, and because they are subject to broader, more public scrutiny, they require a process that is longer, more deliberative, and more supported. Socialization to this level of writing seems to be one more transition in which we can expect to confront culture shock and self-doubt.
We have also talked about the necessity of finding one’s “tribe” of like-minded scholars, among whom we can gain the benefits of community and support. Becker talks about cultivating an intellectual community for oneself when he says “writers solve the problem of isolation by developing a circle of friends who will read their work in the right spirit…” and gives “hints” on how to make these reciprocal relationships work (pp. 21-22). In 702, Maike repeatedly advocated finding a supportive “buddy” to review and comment on our writing. Because we are beginning to represent ourselves, our ideas, and our institutions to a wider audience than just our teachers and classmates, it’s a good idea to have a sympathetic colleague check our writing before turning it loose for broader criticism or evaluation.
The main overlap I see is that of being open to the experience, like the Ozeki quote we discussed in class. Writing is such a vulnerable process, like Becker talks about. Once a piece of writing is published, it's out there for criticism, which can make the writing process extremely nerve-racking. I know from my own experience that when the stakes are higher, I procrastinate and edit much more. Laberee's article makes stakes seem higher, because if we know that people are particularly critical of educational research, then there is more pressure for our research and writing to be extraordinary. To accept this challenge, instead of running from it, is to be open to the experience. Becker talks of this in terms of considering others' edits while in the writing process. We must be open to the vulnerability of making the writing process a social activity instead of an isolated one. By doing so, we create a supportive community and strengthen the area of education as a discipline.
This is Mo...I see a great deal of overlap between Becker’s first chapter and what we have been discussing in class. As indicated in the syllabus, one of the objectives of the course is to encourage students to reflect on what it means to be a doctoral student. What this means in Becker’s terms is to reflect on the personae we adopt as graduate writers while aspiring to be recognized in our fields. Recognition comes with a price of repeating “ the worst stylistic excesses the journals contain, learn[ing] that those very excesses are what makes [our] work different from what every dam fool knows and says”. This kind of writing is a mystery that everyone, including professional writers, struggles with. Because we are embarrassed to admit how difficult it is to write according to a set of standards that are not always explicit, we perform (consciously or unconsciously) magical rituals with the hope of influencing the outcome.
Unlike many books I read about writing, the chapter as well as class discussions do not give specific advice on how to find mistakes in writing and how to deal with them. The discussions focus more on the norms of writing at the graduate level and why writing is such a problem. Becker argues that bad writing cannot be separated from the theoretical problems of a discipline. The way people write is embedded in how social institutions define writing, style, organization and other writing elements. It is important to be aware of those norms to be able to overcome the fear of writing as “ a scholar”.
There are certainly overlaps between the Becker article and the topics discussed in class. Each article and classroom discussion has focused on the topic of transition. We have spent time discussing the transition from practitioner to researcher, from a typical student to a doc student. The Becker article also speaks of transition, in this case, from undergraduate writer to someone producing scholarly writing. Scholars often feel more pressure than undergraduate writers because they know the opinion of their peers and superiors regarding their writing can have an impact on their future. This pressure can make the writing process more difficult. Like many, I have found academic writing cumbersome to read and often appears to be complicated for no reason. It gave the impression that as a writers of research we must use complex words and highlight our extensive vocabulary. But, as Becker explains this can often lead to convoluted prose that fails to explain them actual topic at hand. Using common English is much more effective the using large “foreign” words in attempt to appear intelligent.
This is Weade...There are two areas mentioned by the author which overlaps with what we’ve discussed in class: 1) the role and responsibilities of stewards of education; and 2) shifting from practitioner to researcher by deconstructing what we’ve been accustomed to. As stewards of education, one of the responsibilities mentioned in the Richardson reading is to “represent knowledge to others both within and outside of the field.” One of the ways in which we represent knowledge is through our scholarly writing via journals, op-eds, policy briefs, white papers, etc. The author described the importance of being intentional during the writing process. As scholars, we engage in specific behaviors during the writing process to achieve a finished product. Certain behaviors yield better results (excellent papers) than others (average or below average papers). It is important to routinely engage in behaviors that we know will produce the best written products. The author also mentioned strategies to evaluate and improve our writing through self-reviews, editing, re-writing and peer reviews with other scholars.
Another topic that overlapped with our class discussion has to do with the idea of developing practitioners into researchers. As practitioners we’re conditioned to be more verbose in our writing because we’re actively engaged in the practice of education and have significant experiences to contribute to the knowledge field of education. As doctoral scholars and future researchers, we must ensure that our writing is simplified can clear rather than confusing and ambiguous.
There are several overlaps that I see with the Becker book and class readings and discussions so far. The first that jumped out at me was the similarity between some of Becker's criticism of the field of Sociology and the criticisms we have read about the field of Education. On the soft-hard, applied-theory continuums I feel that sociology would fall into quadrant IV for soft and theory based. However, Becker talks about students qualifying their writing to provide themselves with loop holes to prevent from having to defend their ideas against exceptions. One of the main complaints about Education has been that the field qualifies the work because they know that the solutions and theories will not work for all students.
Becker focuses on converting his students into researchers, much like our formal articles argue must happen for doctoral students. However he is more practical and offers more advice about how this should happen. One example is when he advises his students to begin writing prior to all their research being done, this way they can see where they still need to gather more information.
Finally, Becker and Pring both discuss ambiguity in writing and how detrimental that can be. They point out that ambiguity makes it hard for the reader to follow your logic and can cause your point to be lost or even not made at all.
It's Jodi...I see many overlaps between the class and Becker’s first chapter. We have discussed some of the fears people have with writing and the importance of having others read our papers to give feedback as well as reading our papers out loud to find errors. Silly mistakes were discussed in both venues as well. The idea of “fancy writing” has been discussed and feeling the need to write more scholarly for our papers to be more respected. (I admit that this idea has been put in my head at some point along my academic journey.) Giving credit where credit is due sticks with me as well which can be hard when you “know” something has been done but you cannot find the source or do not know who gets the credit for it. Writers have habits and comfortable environments they tend to write in which may isolate them to write but does not always help when needing feedback or sharing with others. It is easy to share when you are in a class or have a group of mentors to email and discuss roadblocks or what is missing in the paper. The idea of sharing a paper with someone is becoming a more comfortable idea for me, although I am not saying it is easy to do just yet.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed Becker's chapter! I have struggled with being "too wordy" in my writing and often do have someone edit my work. When I do that, I try not to get offended and genuinely do appreciate what they change. I think this stems from what Becker talks about in regards to undergrad writing where being wordy is ok and often hides whether or not students really knew what they are writing about. I have learned in the doctoral program to be more concise, though I have not perfected it yet. I look forward to reading more in this book and further improve my writing. I think it goes along with our discussion of disciplines...narrow writing with concise meaning could be argued as similar to the concept of focus.
ReplyDeleteI too feel the struggle! Personally, I agreed with Becker's assertion that students (and myself) feel the need to add a level of pretentiousness to their writing in order for it to be taken seriously. Their (and my) finished product ends up being adjective heavy and verbose, ultimately clouding the intended meaning. The meaning after all is what is actually important...many wars have been fought and many lives have been lost over hermeneutics. I think that's what I am currently struggling with-- forsaking all of the "magic rituals" I've formed, and focusing more so on the message I'm attempting to convey.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHi! This is Holly. Two things “popped out” at me as I thought about overlaps between Becker’s Chapter 1 and what we’ve discussed in class so far. First, there are parallels between Becker and Labaree’s arguments, although Becker makes his points in a much kinder, gentler way. Both authors posit that previous academic and work experiences leave us ill-prepared for the rigor and specialization of doctoral work. In Becker’s case, he points out how the writing strategies that have served us well up until now – thinking it all through before you start writing, writing one “best” draft, writing at the last minute – no longer work when writing at the graduate level. Now, writing becomes our primary way of thinking through and making sense of ideas. It’s a continual process, in which we clarify our thinking and ultimately our argument through repeated cycles of drafting, revising, and editing, often done in collaboration with others. This also brings me to the second overlap I noticed. On Tuesday, we talked briefly about how all research has value attached to it. We make decisions about what to study, how to study it, which kinds of data to collect, what we highlight in our analysis, what we ignore in our conclusions. Becker makes a similar point about the value attached to writing. We make decisions throughout the writing process that inform and influence our final outcome. We choose topics to write about, words to use, sentences to keep, sentences to discard, the order of paragraphs, etc. As Becker states, and I think it can be applied equally to research and to writing, “each choice shapes the result” (p. 16).
ReplyDeleteHey, it’s Laurie.
ReplyDeleteI see a great deal of overlap between the class discussions and Becker’s first chapter. Perhaps it’s the former English teacher in me, but I feel like Becker’s advice serves as a metaphor for the “strange changes” we face as doc students. (Bowie, 1971)
Becker’s students are learning to be open and vulnerable, letting people see the flaws and idiosyncrasies in their writing. To take full advantage of this program, I guess we have to do essentially the same thing with the way we think. The quotes from Ozeki and Toulmin suggest the importance of taking different perspectives and experimenting with fresh views of subjects that seem familiar. That means exploring – and letting other people see – the flaws and idiosyncrasies in our thinking as we blaze our own unique trails through the program. Like Becker’s students who want “to get whatever they put on paper into perfect form before anyone sees it,” I want to have a fully-formed dissertation topic/idea of what my discipline is/answer to this question before I share it with you. *
In other words, I guess a Labereenthian** transformation from subjective teacher to objective researcher requires a somewhat messy, convoluted – and probably less private than I would prefer – process of problematizing the things we think we know about in the service of advancing the body of knowledge. Using the “bringing under control, typically by force” *** meaning of the word subject, we could say our doc studies will free us from thinking that is delimited by experience, helping us to find the agency we need to go beyond working with individual students in a single, concrete classroom to help even more students, albeit in a much more abstract way.
Becker’s students clearly believe taking the risk will help them in the long run. Presumably, this program will also pay off in the long run. I’m just hoping to remain, like Bowie’s spat-upon children “quite aware of what [I’m] going through” so that I can follow Kurt’s advice to take control of my own program and do the things I need to do to make a contribution … and pay off those student loans. (Bowie, 1971)
* Apropos of nothing, my youngest child almost failed eighth grade art because he refused to turn in any work he didn’t think was perfect.
** I have not seen the movie “Labyrinth,” but the trailer includes the line “you take too much for granted,” which somehow seems appropriate for this class/program. Feel free to correct me if you have seen the movie. Muppets, George Lucas, and David Bowie? I wish I could find the time for that.
*** Paraphrased from Google.
Yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away…and then I became a doc student.
ReplyDeleteI admit that I don’t know a lot of Beatles music, but there are coincidentally a lot of Beatles lyrics that seem to speak to me about the transformation that I am expecting to “magically” take place as I journey from the lowly practice of teaching to the upper echelons of educational researcher.
I do see a lot of parallels regarding what we have discussed about the “cultural conflict” of worldviews between teachers and researchers that Labaree suggests calls for a “ potentially drastic change in the way students look at education and at their work as educationists” (Labaree, 2003, p. 16).
So it makes sense that this conflict manifests to the task of writing, which as Howard Becker says, is really a form of thinking. As for me, I consider myself an old school writer. I must write using paper and pen in long hand. This affords me the opportunity to edit and rearrange and get everything out until I’m completely satisfied. I like to see everything all at once. Only then, do I begin typing my FINAL COPY. The nice thing about this is that when I am truly finished, I only have to go through the mechanical and mindless act of typing which I learned to do on a good old-fashioned typewriter (now known as a keyboard). According to Virginia Richardson, I should develop the habit of mind to develop my writing and to see writing as part of interpretive and analytical work, not merely “writing up” research (2008, p. 263).
“Doesn’t have a point of view / Knows not where he’s going to / Isn’t he a bit like you and me?”
These lyrics form “Nowhere Man’ are said to be the first Beatles song not written about love that John Lennon wrote after not being able to come up with any good words for a song. I admit that this is usually how I feel when I embark upon drafting a paper, which is more often than not destined to become the only draft, and thus the final draft, too. I have been known to “write fancy” and use “meaningless placeholders” as well. I liked Becker’s simple advice:
1. Write so clearly that no one could misunderstand
2. Writing is not a one shot all or nothing venture
3. If you think clearly, you will write clearly
4. A mixed up draft is no cause for shame
It is said that Lennon also came up with these lyrics for ‘Across the Universe’ while he was trying to fall asleep…“Words are flowing out / Like endless rain into a paper cup / They slither while they pass / They slip away across the universe”
Maybe that is how I will write my next paper.
Oops! That was me...Tonya!
DeleteI think there is overlap in our class discussion and Becker in speaking to the challenges of becoming a doctoral student. I enjoyed Becker's chapter and have found myself relating to the many challenges with writing papers. Graduate school definitely removed the cloak of keeping my paper just between my professor and me. I still have anxiety when someone is reading a paper that I have written. Questions whirl in my head - is it good enough? Will they say I am a fraud and how did I even get into school? I like the idea of surrounding myself with a circle of friends who will provide feedback based on my writing stage. I also like the idea of being short and concise. When Becker referenced people’s feelings getting hurt because the reader couldn’t see what they meant. Clearly it means you need to write in such a way that there is no lack of understanding. Finally, I like the notion of having time. I take time to absorb material and try to make connections with my thoughts before even beginning to write. Viewing each draft as just as a draft - working on the paper, taking a break, and then returning. I wish we had more time but the classes can’t afford to give away too much time.
ReplyDeleteThis is Vivian...
ReplyDeleteI recognized myself in Becker’s description of writers in Chapter 1. While I have frequently contributed my activities leading to writing as procrastination, I do also consider them preparation. During my many activities, which in the past have included anything from clearing my desk of old papers to rearranging the furniture in several rooms, a engage in a significant amount of thinking and processing information and ideas while I prepare. I also take breaks when writing, using that time to continue to process and think about my ideas. Sometimes, when I return to writing without first reviewing what I had written earlier, I find myself repeating my thoughts in a different way – sometimes better, sometimes worse. Even though I have followed my writing routines for more than two decades, I have always wished I had a better approach. My routine gets the job done, but in my opinion it comes at a cost. My approach is stressful because my preparation/procrastination activities delay the start of my writing, pushing me closer and closer to the due dates. As a result, I almost always feel that I could have done a better job if I had more time; after turning in a paper, I always think of other things I could have said or ways I could have made it better. Becker’s description of Writer-Based prose seems to offer an approach that could be helpful to me. If I don’t worry about having my ideas organized as a final product before I write, I could identify all my ideas first, then go back and review, revising and improve.
The idea of private vs. public writing was very interesting to me, too. I find it difficult to share a final version; it would be very difficult – if not impossible – to share an initial draft that may actually resemble a ‘free-write.’ However, I see the value in this practice and think it benefits the writer and the reader. This concept overlaps with the class discussion regarding the importance of making connections with individuals who share your interests. Becker described the benefits to creating a collaborative writing team or partnership with trusted peers/colleagues. While learning to be comfortable with the concept of public writing will be challenging, I can see additional challenges to the part time doctoral student. As a part-time student, finding time to engage in collaborative writing practices will be a challenge.
Carolyn ~ In class we have discussed the tensions or “problems” doc students confront when facing the transition from practitioner to researcher, from normative to analytic thinker, from a particular to a universal perspective, etc. Similarly, Becker talks about the problematic transition from the writers he says we are socialized to be as undergrads, using a shorter format which, so long as it is “kept confidential, in the conventionally private teacher-undergraduate relationship, it won’t embarrass the author too much,” to the writers of journal articles and dissertations we are becoming as doc students. Because graduate-level documents are too lengthy to plan out in our heads, and because they are subject to broader, more public scrutiny, they require a process that is longer, more deliberative, and more supported. Socialization to this level of writing seems to be one more transition in which we can expect to confront culture shock and self-doubt.
ReplyDeleteWe have also talked about the necessity of finding one’s “tribe” of like-minded scholars, among whom we can gain the benefits of community and support. Becker talks about cultivating an intellectual community for oneself when he says “writers solve the problem of isolation by developing a circle of friends who will read their work in the right spirit…” and gives “hints” on how to make these reciprocal relationships work (pp. 21-22). In 702, Maike repeatedly advocated finding a supportive “buddy” to review and comment on our writing. Because we are beginning to represent ourselves, our ideas, and our institutions to a wider audience than just our teachers and classmates, it’s a good idea to have a sympathetic colleague check our writing before turning it loose for broader criticism or evaluation.
This is Elizabeth.
ReplyDeleteThe main overlap I see is that of being open to the experience, like the Ozeki quote we discussed in class. Writing is such a vulnerable process, like Becker talks about. Once a piece of writing is published, it's out there for criticism, which can make the writing process extremely nerve-racking. I know from my own experience that when the stakes are higher, I procrastinate and edit much more. Laberee's article makes stakes seem higher, because if we know that people are particularly critical of educational research, then there is more pressure for our research and writing to be extraordinary. To accept this challenge, instead of running from it, is to be open to the experience. Becker talks of this in terms of considering others' edits while in the writing process. We must be open to the vulnerability of making the writing process a social activity instead of an isolated one. By doing so, we create a supportive community and strengthen the area of education as a discipline.
This is Mo...I see a great deal of overlap between Becker’s first chapter and what we have been discussing in class. As indicated in the syllabus, one of the objectives of the course is to encourage students to reflect on what it means to be a doctoral student. What this means in Becker’s terms is to reflect on the personae we adopt as graduate writers while aspiring to be recognized in our fields. Recognition comes with a price of repeating “ the worst stylistic excesses the journals contain, learn[ing] that those very excesses are what makes [our] work different from what every dam fool knows and says”. This kind of writing is a mystery that everyone, including professional writers, struggles with. Because we are embarrassed to admit how difficult it is to write according to a set of standards that are not always explicit, we perform (consciously or unconsciously) magical rituals with the hope of influencing the outcome.
ReplyDeleteUnlike many books I read about writing, the chapter as well as class discussions do not give specific advice on how to find mistakes in writing and how to deal with them. The discussions focus more on the norms of writing at the graduate level and why writing is such a problem. Becker argues that bad writing cannot be separated from the theoretical problems of a discipline. The way people write is embedded in how social institutions define writing, style, organization and other writing elements. It is important to be aware of those norms to be able to overcome the fear of writing as “ a scholar”.
There are certainly overlaps between the Becker article and the topics discussed in class. Each article and classroom discussion has focused on the topic of transition. We have spent time discussing the transition from practitioner to researcher, from a typical student to a doc student. The Becker article also speaks of transition, in this case, from undergraduate writer to someone producing scholarly writing. Scholars often feel more pressure than undergraduate writers because they know the opinion of their peers and superiors regarding their writing can have an impact on their future. This pressure can make the writing process more difficult.
ReplyDeleteLike many, I have found academic writing cumbersome to read and often appears to be complicated for no reason. It gave the impression that as a writers of research we must use complex words and highlight our extensive vocabulary. But, as Becker explains this can often lead to convoluted prose that fails to explain them actual topic at hand. Using common English is much more effective the using large “foreign” words in attempt to appear intelligent.
This is Weade...There are two areas mentioned by the author which overlaps with what we’ve discussed in class: 1) the role and responsibilities of stewards of education; and 2) shifting from practitioner to researcher by deconstructing what we’ve been accustomed to. As stewards of education, one of the responsibilities mentioned in the Richardson reading is to “represent knowledge to others both within and outside of the field.” One of the ways in which we represent knowledge is through our scholarly writing via journals, op-eds, policy briefs, white papers, etc. The author described the importance of being intentional during the writing process. As scholars, we engage in specific behaviors during the writing process to achieve a finished product. Certain behaviors yield better results (excellent papers) than others (average or below average papers). It is important to routinely engage in behaviors that we know will produce the best written products. The author also mentioned strategies to evaluate and improve our writing through self-reviews, editing, re-writing and peer reviews with other scholars.
ReplyDeleteAnother topic that overlapped with our class discussion has to do with the idea of developing practitioners into researchers. As practitioners we’re conditioned to be more verbose in our writing because we’re actively engaged in the practice of education and have significant experiences to contribute to the knowledge field of education. As doctoral scholars and future researchers, we must ensure that our writing is simplified can clear rather than confusing and ambiguous.
Jorli-
ReplyDeleteThere are several overlaps that I see with the Becker book and class readings and discussions so far. The first that jumped out at me was the similarity between some of Becker's criticism of the field of Sociology and the criticisms we have read about the field of Education. On the soft-hard, applied-theory continuums I feel that sociology would fall into quadrant IV for soft and theory based. However, Becker talks about students qualifying their writing to provide themselves with loop holes to prevent from having to defend their ideas against exceptions. One of the main complaints about Education has been that the field qualifies the work because they know that the solutions and theories will not work for all students.
Becker focuses on converting his students into researchers, much like our formal articles argue must happen for doctoral students. However he is more practical and offers more advice about how this should happen. One example is when he advises his students to begin writing prior to all their research being done, this way they can see where they still need to gather more information.
Finally, Becker and Pring both discuss ambiguity in writing and how detrimental that can be. They point out that ambiguity makes it hard for the reader to follow your logic and can cause your point to be lost or even not made at all.