Academic writing Understanding your process, developing your strategy A webinar with Prof Sarah Moore

1. Introduction to this webinar. Academic writing - matters of the heart and the head (5 mins) 2. Academic writing: understanding your motivation to write (10 mins) 3. What is academic writing? what are the shared features of academic writing across all disciplines? what are the specific features of academic writing in your discipline (15 mins) 4. The importance of analysing target journals - abstract analysis exercise (10 mins) 5. Key lessons and developing your writing strategy and targets (5 mins)

Feelings about academic writing What you like about it What you don’t like about it

Feelings about academic writing What you like about it Opportunity to be original and to have insights heard Make connection with other interested researchers/writers on my topic Sense of achievement Immersion, generation of ideas, insights, breakthroughs What you don’t like about it Difficulty getting started, making progress Sense of incompetence Worrying about all the ‘rules’ of academic writing Feeling constrained by genre Sense of negative surveillance

The writing process Pre writing Composing Revising Editing Releasing

The generic academic writing structure Introduction Background Research methodology Results Discussion Conclusion

Underlying features of most academic writing What’s the difference between academic writing and other forms of writing?

Some key features Explication Intertextuality Objectivity/detachment Rationality Critical thinking

The benefits of freewriting Overcomes a sense of the reader over the shoulder Digs into your real motivation and interests Helps you to feel and become more creative and more engaged about your writing Generates more ideas and more possibilities than trying to ‘get it right first time’

Mathematicians Writing In this article we report on part of a study of the epistemological perspectives of practising research mathematicians. We explore the identities that mathematicians present to the world in their writing and the ways in which they represent the nature of mathematical activity. Analysis of 53 published research papers reveals substantial variations in these aspects of mathematicians’ writing. The interpretation of these variations is supported by extracts from interviews with the mathematicians. We discuss the implications for students and for novice researchers beginning to write about their mathematical activity Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 2000, vol 31 No 4:

Mathematicians Writing In this article we report on part of a study of the epistemological perspectives of practising research mathematicians. We explore the identities that mathematicians present to the world in their writing and the ways in which they represent the nature of mathematical activity. Analysis of 53 published research papers reveals substantial variations in these aspects of mathematicians’ writing. The interpretation of these variations is supported by extracts from interviews with the mathematicians. We discuss the implications for students and for novice researchers beginning to write about their mathematical activity Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 2000, vol 31 No 4:

On the pedagogical insight of mathematicians: ‘Interaction’ and ‘transition from the concrete to the abstract’ Paola Iannone ∗, Elena Nardi School of Education and Lifelong Learning, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK Abstract In this paper we draw on a 16-month study funded by the Learning and Teaching Support Network in the UK and entitled Mathematicians as Educational Co-Researchers. The study’s aims were two-fold. Primarily we intended to explore mathematicians’ reflections on issues identified in the literature as highly topical in the area of teaching and learning of undergraduate mathematics. We also wished to explore the conditions under which mutually effective collaboration between mathematicians and researchers in mathematics education might be achieved. Participants were 20 mathematicians from 6 mathematics departments and the study involved a series of Focus Group Interviews where pre-distributed samples of mathematical problems, typical written student responses, observation protocols, interview transcripts and outlines of relevant bibliography were used to trigger an exploration of pedagogical issues. Here we elaborate the theme ‘On the Pedagogical Insights of Mathematicians’ as it emerged from the data analysis. We do so in two parts: in the first part we present the participants’ reflections on issues of interaction and communication within the context of teaching and learning in higher education. The data suggest that the lecturers believe that mathematical learning is achieved more effectively as an interactive process and recognise that lecturing is not a method generally conducive to interaction. However, they discuss ways in which interaction can be achieved and refer to seminars, tutorials and feedback to students’ writing as other opportunities for interaction that must not be missed. In the second part, we focus on the lecturers’ pedagogical reflections regarding the abstract nature of university mathematics and, in particular, the ways in which teaching can facilitate the transition from the concrete to the abstract. We conclude with a brief evaluation of the project by the mathematicians themselves

Common reasons why papers are rejected

Reasons for rejecting by editor before sending out for review Not relevant to that journal’s readers Does not make a contribution to new knowledge in the discipline Does not meet established ethical standards Poorly written Has not been prepared according to the journal’s guidelines for presentation

Problems with the research Paper describes a poorly conducted study Research conducted was inadequate Literature review is inadequate Paper has methodological problems The sample is problematic Data has been interpreted poorly Analysis is weak Paper duplicates other work / does not report anything new

Problems with writing/presentation Too technical/contains too much jargon Exceeds the word limit Carelessly prepared Badly referenced Repetitive Disjointed

Other problems Timeliness Space High levels of competition in some journals Recently published a special editition on the theme of the paper Publication biases

Targeting a journal  Experts in effective academic writing strategies say: Do not write and then plan to find an appropriate ‘place’ for your writing - rather, analyse target journals carefully and then write with the benefit of this analysis  Get several copies and scan recent editions of your chosen journal  Read full instructions for authors, check website and print off all relevant author info  Work out how you can mould your work to suit the journal’s agenda  Write to the editor with an initial inquiry

ing the editor ‘I am writing a paper on XXX which argues that YYY…Do you think this would be of interest to readers of the journal at this time? If you get a response, reply thanking the editor and letting him/her know when the paper is likely to be completed. This relatively easy exercise does several things: IIt externalises your commitment to writing IIt means that you won’t be ‘writing into the dark’, but that you’ll have a specifi goal in advance of writers’ retreat IIt has the pragmatic effect of differentiating your paper from those that are submitted without an ‘initial go ahead’ from the editor

Simple mistakes that all of us make at some point Wrong journal Wrong format Not following instructions Poor writing Getting carried away with the discussion Suboptimal reporting of results Inadequate description of methods Poor study design Failure to revise and resubmit after peer review

Keeping track Commit to keeping a record of the ‘ecology’ of your paper. (Versions, correspondence, feedback, reviews, ideas, changes in direction and so on). This will become a helpful professional development tool for yourself, and your students.

Some reading: Writers’ retreats for academics: exploring and increasing the motivation to write, Jounal of Further and Higher Education (Moore 2003) Murray, R & Moore, S (2005) The Handbook of Academic Writing: A Fresh Approach, McGraw Hill, London. Moore, S (ed) (2009) Supporting Academic Writing Among Students And Academics SEDA special

Planning an intensive period of writing What resource material do you need What data do you have to identify, gather or bring? What can you do to enhance your focus on writing in an intensive atmosphere What conversations do you need to have and with whom before finalising and scoping your writing task Where does the piece of writing you plan to do ‘fit’ with your bigger writing task and what can it tell you about the nature of your larger challenges and activities?

Your writing strategy Short term, medium term, long term? What ideas do you most want to pursue? Are you familiar with the structure and content of papers in your target journals? What supports do you need to enlist to help you to find time, space, skills to write? Who would you like to collaborate with? What existing successes can you build on, or what quick wins might get you started? What are your ultimate goals? What would a successful academic writing strategy look like?

Thanks! For more ideas on how to engage with writing, see my UL40 talk on this link: f8M