Comment on the first three chapters of Becker. Any
surprises? Think about and share any links you see between this book on writing
and the other stuff we have been doing in class, thus far.
9 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Hi, everyone. Cat here: Becker’s former student Hertz wrote candidly about what she meant by “classier” prose – and wow what an appropriate word that turned out to be. I’m guessing many of us can relate to her honest and deeply metacognitive response and identify with her compulsion to reproduce a scholarly persona (like Haraway’s “disembodied voice” of science). In his discussion of the tension between worldviews of teachers and researchers, Labaree names dichotomies that characterize the bumpy transition from teacher to researcher:
“… the shift from K-12 teaching to educational research often asks students to transform their cultural orientation from normative to analytical, from personal to intellectual, from the particular to the universal, and from the experiential to the theoretical” (see end of p. 16).
Hertz’s testimonial is a performance of this tension. (By the way, I almost said, “… is in some ways a performance …” but it sounded lamely non-committal. Becker might say “cowardly.”) Listen again to fragments of her response (see p. 29) as she describes not understanding something written in a scholarly journal:
• I give the author the benefit of the doubt • I’m not as smart • It is my inability • It’s my problem
The readership she describes (constructs?) is characterized by self-deprecation, a submission to a Knowledgeable Other. It’s a readership marked by an imbalance. Wow.
Dana Brookover- Chapter one was exactly what I needed to read to harness the motivation to work on a draft of a paper in another class. The mentality of what you are writing being the only draft you are going to turn in is a lot of pressure. I appreciate in this class and another we are breaking that up and having peer review workshops to look at our writing. I also am trying to have the mindset that papers I am doing now will be revisited and improved upon/totally changed in the future in the program. The chapters read to me like students use the personae they choose for their writing as a sort of defense mechanism for the impostor syndrome many of us feel. One thing that was surprising/different from what we've talked about in this class from the chapters was the author suggesting being unwilling or unable to make causal statements is a negative trait. Our class's emphasis on pragmatism makes causal statements seem like a bad thing, like its not humble. The author also is emphasizing being humble and not adopting a authoritative, "smarter-than-thou" personae. This seems like a fine line to negotiate and a skill to hone.
Yingying: The author explained expects does not want to make their hard work sounds like anyone could say. As an international student, this feeling of almost having to apply “a higher level cognition” to read academic articles/technical writings compare to reading a regular book confuses me. I guess having these kinds of experiences all the time (having to guess what the author really mean because the sentence is super complicated and long, and even have to give up some content when reading) makes me think that it is how we should write an academic paper. So it’s sad to know that It might just because authors have nothing to say or are afraid to get criticized, they add tons of twisted words to cover. On the other hand, it is good to learn that drafts and revisions have such a big impact on writing. I feel more confident with our approaching draft now. After all, I just put everything I want to include in the draft and let the revision do the magic work after.
I was honestly a little intimidated to start reading a new text for this class. After finally feeling I had gotten a better handle on understanding the language used in our readings, I was nervous to work dive into this. However, I was pleasantly surprised with Becker. Not only does he seem to avoid "using twenty words where two will do," but he was also so reassuring (p. 5). Adjusting to being a student again means not only adjusting to academic reading again, but academic writing again, too. It was so refreshing to read writing that is both academic and authentically conversational (scholarly yet almost informal, in a sense). I have already fallen victim to adding words and phrases that basically say nothing, and to overthinking a draft instead of just putting words on paper. I also appreciated insight into how other people begin - or avoid beginning - their own writing processes. My goal this semester is to get into a reading schedule for all my class texts/materials. I am hoping this will eventually become a writing schedule as I get closer to my dissertation. I definitely have my own quirks and necessities when it comes to writing; it was great to not feel so alone.
Wow! I actually loved reading these chapters because they really spoke to some of the tensions I have been feeling in the program so far. I know I can write in a way that is engaging and clear, but the writing I have done for my other class always seems to come out overly wordy without a clear sense of purpose. Becker provides honesty and freedom to move forward and improve our writing to really say what needs to be said.
He seems to have a pragmatic view of writing, especially in the third chapter. I like his perspective that good writing communicates well. There is no one "right way" to do so, because the emphasis must be on meeting the task directly and clearly.
(Even in writing this blog post response, I kept having to remind myself to be direct and not use confusing words and structures just to sound smarter - this is a deeply ingrained belief we have as academics. Yikes!)
Reading about writing was refreshing and helpful! I also agree with what many others were saying that this helped to normalize the intimidation of writing scholarly work and the need to just get started somewhere. Sometimes it does seem like writing concisely gets lots in the academic pressure to be an expert. It leads me to wonder about how sometimes the big pictures of things gets lost in the language, like it did to some extent with Dewey's work. I was trying to define and relate terms that didn't work out as I thought they should. Perhaps that's different though.
Yingying I'm definitely interested in hearing more about your perspective about writing and reading academically as an international student! And Dana I am right with you and your comment on imposter syndrome. Sometimes I forget (or deny!) that that might not end with our doctoral studies.
Persona and Authority (Ch.2) hit on some really important points that I had wondered. Breaking it down to Who, What, and Why...
Who is saying it? What are they saying? Why are they saying it?
I find myself reading materials for classes as well as journal articles and asking these questions. Are we required to take the words of the writer for granted? Are we to be critical of the writings? What is the motive behind the writing? Is it to expand thinking in the field or is it to make a point? Why did the writer decide to word the statement in the way in which they did?
When it pertains to my writing, I get wrapped into these questions. Especially during proofreads, I find myself questions sentence structure and point of view (as it relates to the way in which the statement is intended to come across). Do I need to use a stronger or more intelligent wording in order to get this point across or is it too verbose that distracts the reader from the point.
Becker both clarified and muddied the discussion as to proper writing for social scientists in Chapter 2. Becker stated, "None of these classy locutions mean anything different from the simpler ones they replace. They work ceremonially, not semantically." (pg. 31). I agree and disagree with this statement. There is an elegance to well-worded sentence (in my opinion) but there is also a danger of too simplistic of language or overboard with unnecessary wording. There is a balance that is needed in writing. I think it both gives persona to the writer and establishes an authority for the reader to believe the presence of the words. I do agree that people sometimes "want very much to show their theoretical colors, to signal to the hip reader that they are on the right side of a controversial issue." (p.39). It's where some of these "classifications" or explanations of categorization lie.
Andrea Moreau As I began to read chapter one I noticed almost immediately that I can relate to some of these writing mistakes. The author discussed sharing Gusfield’s rhetoric of social science with his class, and Gusfield’s main point made me think guilty as charges. Gusfield “showed how writers in the students’ own field manipulated stylistic devices to sound ‘scientific’, particularly nothing now passive constructions could produce a façade of impersonality the investigator could hide behind” (pg 15). Writing in the passive voice is something I have certainly been guilty of many times. I would say working this and choppy writing are my biggest weakness when it comes to writing. Another area of improvement in my writing has been forcing myself to edit my writing. For whatever reason editing my writing makes me very uncomfortable. I equate it to reviewing all of my faults, which I know may not make any sense. Throughout my higher education, especially my master’s program, I have forced myself to spend significantly more time on the review and edit process. Still to this day, I am constantly reminding myself to slow down and review any writing for grammatical errors. I’m sure some of my blog posts have grammatical errors that I have not caught. I found Beker’s advice in Chapter 3 to be extremely helpful and I am going to try his suggested method for our paper in this class. I almost always start my paper with an outline and Beker argue that the best way to start after compiling your research is to do a thought write down. If you begin “ by writing down everything, by spewing out your ideas as fast as you can type” (pg 60). I have never attempting to write academically this way and honestly I am excited to give this technique a try. I wonder if anyone else have ever given this technique a try?
I found Becker's first three chapters quite interesting and enlightening.
Particularly, I could completely relate to a point made by Dr. Rosanna Hertz in her letter - "When I read something and I don't know immediately what it means, I always give the author the benefit of the doubt." (page 29)
This resembles with the struggles we, as the graduate students, make to understand the scholarly writings.
9 comments:
Hi, everyone. Cat here:
Becker’s former student Hertz wrote candidly about what she meant by “classier” prose – and wow what an appropriate word that turned out to be. I’m guessing many of us can relate to her honest and deeply metacognitive response and identify with her compulsion to reproduce a scholarly persona (like Haraway’s “disembodied voice” of science). In his discussion of the tension between worldviews of teachers and researchers, Labaree names dichotomies that characterize the bumpy transition from teacher to researcher:
“… the shift from K-12 teaching to educational research often asks students to transform their cultural orientation from normative to analytical, from personal to intellectual, from the particular to the universal, and from the experiential to the theoretical” (see end of p. 16).
Hertz’s testimonial is a performance of this tension. (By the way, I almost said, “… is in some ways a performance …” but it sounded lamely non-committal. Becker might say “cowardly.”) Listen again to fragments of her response (see p. 29) as she describes not understanding something written in a scholarly journal:
• I give the author the benefit of the doubt
• I’m not as smart
• It is my inability
• It’s my problem
The readership she describes (constructs?) is characterized by self-deprecation, a submission to a Knowledgeable Other. It’s a readership marked by an imbalance. Wow.
Dana Brookover- Chapter one was exactly what I needed to read to harness the motivation to work on a draft of a paper in another class. The mentality of what you are writing being the only draft you are going to turn in is a lot of pressure. I appreciate in this class and another we are breaking that up and having peer review workshops to look at our writing. I also am trying to have the mindset that papers I am doing now will be revisited and improved upon/totally changed in the future in the program. The chapters read to me like students use the personae they choose for their writing as a sort of defense mechanism for the impostor syndrome many of us feel. One thing that was surprising/different from what we've talked about in this class from the chapters was the author suggesting being unwilling or unable to make causal statements is a negative trait. Our class's emphasis on pragmatism makes causal statements seem like a bad thing, like its not humble. The author also is emphasizing being humble and not adopting a authoritative, "smarter-than-thou" personae. This seems like a fine line to negotiate and a skill to hone.
Yingying:
The author explained expects does not want to make their hard work sounds like anyone could say. As an international student, this feeling of almost having to apply “a higher level cognition” to read academic articles/technical writings compare to reading a regular book confuses me. I guess having these kinds of experiences all the time (having to guess what the author really mean because the sentence is super complicated and long, and even have to give up some content when reading) makes me think that it is how we should write an academic paper. So it’s sad to know that It might just because authors have nothing to say or are afraid to get criticized, they add tons of twisted words to cover.
On the other hand, it is good to learn that drafts and revisions have such a big impact on writing. I feel more confident with our approaching draft now. After all, I just put everything I want to include in the draft and let the revision do the magic work after.
Erin Hanley
I was honestly a little intimidated to start reading a new text for this class. After finally feeling I had gotten a better handle on understanding the language used in our readings, I was nervous to work dive into this. However, I was pleasantly surprised with Becker. Not only does he seem to avoid "using twenty words where two will do," but he was also so reassuring (p. 5). Adjusting to being a student again means not only adjusting to academic reading again, but academic writing again, too. It was so refreshing to read writing that is both academic and authentically conversational (scholarly yet almost informal, in a sense). I have already fallen victim to adding words and phrases that basically say nothing, and to overthinking a draft instead of just putting words on paper. I also appreciated insight into how other people begin - or avoid beginning - their own writing processes. My goal this semester is to get into a reading schedule for all my class texts/materials. I am hoping this will eventually become a writing schedule as I get closer to my dissertation. I definitely have my own quirks and necessities when it comes to writing; it was great to not feel so alone.
Wow! I actually loved reading these chapters because they really spoke to some of the tensions I have been feeling in the program so far. I know I can write in a way that is engaging and clear, but the writing I have done for my other class always seems to come out overly wordy without a clear sense of purpose. Becker provides honesty and freedom to move forward and improve our writing to really say what needs to be said.
He seems to have a pragmatic view of writing, especially in the third chapter. I like his perspective that good writing communicates well. There is no one "right way" to do so, because the emphasis must be on meeting the task directly and clearly.
(Even in writing this blog post response, I kept having to remind myself to be direct and not use confusing words and structures just to sound smarter - this is a deeply ingrained belief we have as academics. Yikes!)
Reading about writing was refreshing and helpful! I also agree with what many others were saying that this helped to normalize the intimidation of writing scholarly work and the need to just get started somewhere. Sometimes it does seem like writing concisely gets lots in the academic pressure to be an expert. It leads me to wonder about how sometimes the big pictures of things gets lost in the language, like it did to some extent with Dewey's work. I was trying to define and relate terms that didn't work out as I thought they should. Perhaps that's different though.
Yingying I'm definitely interested in hearing more about your perspective about writing and reading academically as an international student! And Dana I am right with you and your comment on imposter syndrome. Sometimes I forget (or deny!) that that might not end with our doctoral studies.
Rachel Regal
Persona and Authority (Ch.2) hit on some really important points that I had wondered. Breaking it down to Who, What, and Why...
Who is saying it?
What are they saying?
Why are they saying it?
I find myself reading materials for classes as well as journal articles and asking these questions. Are we required to take the words of the writer for granted? Are we to be critical of the writings? What is the motive behind the writing? Is it to expand thinking in the field or is it to make a point? Why did the writer decide to word the statement in the way in which they did?
When it pertains to my writing, I get wrapped into these questions. Especially during proofreads, I find myself questions sentence structure and point of view (as it relates to the way in which the statement is intended to come across). Do I need to use a stronger or more intelligent wording in order to get this point across or is it too verbose that distracts the reader from the point.
Becker both clarified and muddied the discussion as to proper writing for social scientists in Chapter 2. Becker stated, "None of these classy locutions mean anything different from the simpler ones they replace. They work ceremonially, not semantically." (pg. 31). I agree and disagree with this statement. There is an elegance to well-worded sentence (in my opinion) but there is also a danger of too simplistic of language or overboard with unnecessary wording. There is a balance that is needed in writing. I think it both gives persona to the writer and establishes an authority for the reader to believe the presence of the words. I do agree that people sometimes "want very much to show their theoretical colors, to signal to the hip reader that they are on the right side of a controversial issue." (p.39). It's where some of these "classifications" or explanations of categorization lie.
Andrea Moreau
As I began to read chapter one I noticed almost immediately that I can relate to some of these writing mistakes. The author discussed sharing Gusfield’s rhetoric of social science with his class, and Gusfield’s main point made me think guilty as charges. Gusfield “showed how writers in the students’ own field manipulated stylistic devices to sound ‘scientific’, particularly nothing now passive constructions could produce a façade of impersonality the investigator could hide behind” (pg 15). Writing in the passive voice is something I have certainly been guilty of many times. I would say working this and choppy writing are my biggest weakness when it comes to writing.
Another area of improvement in my writing has been forcing myself to edit my writing. For whatever reason editing my writing makes me very uncomfortable. I equate it to reviewing all of my faults, which I know may not make any sense. Throughout my higher education, especially my master’s program, I have forced myself to spend significantly more time on the review and edit process. Still to this day, I am constantly reminding myself to slow down and review any writing for grammatical errors. I’m sure some of my blog posts have grammatical errors that I have not caught.
I found Beker’s advice in Chapter 3 to be extremely helpful and I am going to try his suggested method for our paper in this class. I almost always start my paper with an outline and Beker argue that the best way to start after compiling your research is to do a thought write down. If you begin “ by writing down everything, by spewing out your ideas as fast as you can type” (pg 60). I have never attempting to write academically this way and honestly I am excited to give this technique a try. I wonder if anyone else have ever given this technique a try?
Hi everyone!! Preeti Here,
I found Becker's first three chapters quite interesting and enlightening.
Particularly, I could completely relate to a point made by Dr. Rosanna Hertz in her letter - "When I read something and I don't know immediately what it means, I always give the author the benefit of the doubt." (page 29)
This resembles with the struggles we, as the graduate students, make to understand the scholarly writings.
Post a Comment