Comment on the first 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.
Amy Jefferson: The first Becker chapters remind me of going through the National Board process and the facilitators of my cohort spending many sessions explaining how we would, and should, be writing in a “scientific” way. Clear and concise, taking out feeling statements, extra words and how to use abbreviations such as w/, b/c and & to save space for what mattered most…evidence and analysis. At first that type of writing seemed cold and impersonal, I felt there was no voice attached to my words. As I progressed through the process, I came to actualize MY need to truncate (had to throw in a classy word). I needed all the space I could find to explain my whys, to back up my reasons for making specific instructional decisions. So, in my NB writing I migrated from being told to be clear and concise to wanting to.
In Chapter 2 Becker discusses concerns about perception and readers questioning what kind of person is doing the writing. (Especially with the desire to present as an intellectual when writing.) I wonder then who are we writing for? Who is the intended audience? In class on Wednesday Kurt read his paper regarding educational research maybe not being necessary and I couldn’t help but think, “who is the research for anyway?” If educational research is done to improve education…education occurs in classrooms. Are classroom teachers reading research that is laden with “fancy” words and complicated data charts and p values? Or are classroom teachers being told what to do by higher ups who interpret the research and hand down opinions required to be put into practice?
Which brings me back to the National Board…After going through the process myself I became a critical reader/coach for teachers on the same journey. I always give this advice, “Approach this type of writing as if you are explaining something to that teacher you know that needs information laid out in simple terms. Don’t be complicated. Say what you need to say and explain why you think that way. You don’t know who your audience will be. Your reader could be a high school Chemistry teacher. If that is the case and you are writing about teaching reading in a 2nd grade classroom chances are details about wpm and fluency impacting overall comprehension, may be lost.”
My take-away from Becker is simple, say what you need to say, don’t “church it up.” Joe Dirt movie reference :)
Elizabeth Severson-Irby: I couldn’t help but think about access to knowledge throughout this entire chapter. I kept coming back to this quote from Biesta and Burbules: “What is important about research, however, is that it is conducted in the open, that it is made totally transparent, so that others (researcher, but not only researchers) can follow critically how the conclusions of a particular inquiry have been reached. Research, in the words of Lawrence Stenhouse, is systematic inquiry made public” (p.70). This gets at the heart of the availability and equity of knowledge. If researchers, scholars, writers, etc. are writing in a way that limits who can access that knowledge, then who is that knowledge really for?
My field is adult literacy and this is an issue I constantly deal with. My students often feel that they are not smart enough because they have a hard time with the vocabulary in a text. It is not that the student can’t understand the concepts, but when overly academic vocabulary is used, it blocks them from accessing the content. I work with my students to break down the vocabulary so they can access the content. I love it when they say, “oh, that’s all [insert tier 3 vocabulary here] meant?” It isn’t the concept they don’t understand, but the way it is presented.
I feel I could go on and on about this topic, but in the spirit of Becker, I will stop here.
Alison Dossick: Much like social science, writing can be nebulous. You must consider all aspects of your audience, the topic, your tone, etc. There can be no clear “end” as you are writing because so many things are in play. It can be difficult to know when to stop editing. This is why getting things published can be difficult. You don’t know what kind of day the reader/editor has had. Did they just have a bad parent teacher conference about the topic of your writing? That is a transaction that you as a writer could not anticipate so try not to take rejection to heart and instead write well and make many submissions. The transactional nature of submissions is very Deweyian as time and interactions are in constant flux. To overcome some of those aspects of things that one cannot change about the writing and submission process, one can only confident in your writing and findings.
This relates to this class as we need to change our viewpoint from student to future faculty who may have these papers reads by many colleagues and hopefully beyond, so we need to write like professionals. This class is also about changing our viewpoint of the university structure to one of “us” becoming part of “them.” Having a book on writing that encourages in a conversational style denotes the heart and feelings of Professor Stemhagen. His view and one that the SOE must also hold is one of less stuffiness, more substance, and more relationship building. While other schools within VCU or other education schools may not feel this way, having writing presented in such a fashion is a welcome change. I know that I have a tendency to write very formally and this allows for a bit of looseness. I do not write with a lot of fluff, either, which can make specified page lengths difficult for me to meet. I have to trust that a less formal style will still be accepted by the “amorphous body of judges” that are the editors of journals.
Tosha Yingling: A lot of what Becker says reminds me when one of my studen ts found something I wrote and was trying to ask me questions about it (this is not a reverse psychology ploy to get anyone else to look it up either). I pulled out my cripple card at the time, hoping muttering “brain injury” would suspend the conversation long enough for me to suture together some prose about my masterpiece, but the reality was that, just like what Becker is warning us against, I was coating theory in my humble little brain with a heavy coat of academic bs. And after years of not writing about that topic, I am unable to translate what the hell I was talking about more days than not.
While I can definitely understand what Becker is saying about the isolation of superficial elevated language (ex: “UTILIZED”), I think a lot of us embrace it. Book larnin’ big words rolling off the tongues of Black people and non-Black POC, immigrants of any generation, queers, dears, and cripples not only directly combats some of the stereotypes enfleshed in these identities, but feels radical and a nerdy kind of badass. Cheeks pushing out the words never meant for those particular tongues. But the master’s tools never dismantle the master’s house, right, so are we just writing research for more academic bs-ers to vaguely comment on? I can see how this creates the “intimate knowledge” paradox, a brotherhood of misinformation bolstered by ego and “expertise,” and churns out issues like the Ruby Payne problem.
It’s nice to be reminded that authors can be confused about what they’re saying too, that we can outgrow our creations, and that new “habits” form our intellectual landscapes. The temporal waves of our own work and understanding seems less intimidating when we are gentle enough to remember that ideas form, mold, shift, and waiver in our brains and on the page. Now. If someone could just explain that to the professor that commented on my most recent lit review.
Mitchell Waters - I was surprised when I was reading on “persona and authority.” It seems that Becker is trying to break down years of division between “classy” people and “non-classy” by the way someone writes. He rejects the idea that simply using big words makes someone smart and, therefore, deserving of some higher class or form of being. This chapter made me think about what Kurt read in class the other day about not believing in Educational Research (Capital E and Capital R). If the knowledge being attained in educational research is then presented in such a way that only the social or intellectual elite can comprehend it, what service is really being done for the educational field(s)? Educational research, it seems, is like a younger sibling trying to prove to their bigger siblings (psychology, chemistry, biology and the like) that they are “big” like them and should be accepted too. Perhaps using big, intelligent words is a way of doing that. Perhaps this reinforces the fact that research is only accessible by certain people in certain elevated groups. It will come as no surprise to know that there are many teachers that have no interest in being a titan in his or her field but really just have a passion for shaping younger minds and helping them learn. I would argue, as would Becker I think, that if we are not writing research in a way that most teachers could access, comprehend and implement, we are doing a great disservice to the entire field and educational research is completely and utterly pointless.
Kori Nicolai: These early chapters lined up well with my experience writing a personal statement a few weeks ago. My adviser was going to review it for me and I was incredibly nervous to have her see my work. I eventually put it down on paper and said this is good enough.Becker reflects on the type of writing done during undergrad. You turn in your rough draft to your professor and they grade it with the understanding this is a rough draft. During undergrad I would rather turn something in without any reviewing done by my friends. I appreciate Becker making it clear most people are very unwelcome to feedback on writing. Becker also speaks to the idea that we want our writing to be hard to understand and "fancy". But it shouldn't be "fancy" to the point that no one can understand it. I think this lines up well with the theme of humility in our class. As academics we want to make it clear we know more in an area than others, an easy way to do this is to use words(that have nothing to do with our field) to make the writing sound "academic". We need to realize if people can't read our writing what is the point of us conducting and sharing our research.
Amy Taloma: Within the Becker book, so far, the main take away, for me, is humility and confidence. In the first chapter, the freshmen lack confidence in their writing and are really self-conscious. They are nervous to turn in their writing sample to other students for the editing assignment out of a fear of being labeled unintelligent. There is a lack of understanding that it is through a process like this that the students can become better, more confident writers. I really like Becker’s group counseling approach to help normalize the students’ feelings and normalize that good writers are not born good writers. I think this process can help students to develop humility and self-efficacy. I also thought it was interesting how Becker talked about his colleague’s lack of confidence in what they are writing and his pointing out of their excessive use of qualifiers. This related back to Dewey, for me, because of the writers’ inability to commit to their research findings. They did not want to write down, in definite terms, that A is related to B because they knew it would undoubtedly be proven to not be related at some point. This relates to Dewey’s theory in that context can change everything and knowledge is not static.
Robyn Lyn: I had three thoughts reading Becker’s chapter two: 1) daughter; 2) I just gotta be me; and 3) groundhog’s day. Allow me to elaborate (classy? rhetorical… lol)
1) When my daughter was accepted to a PhD program in their senior year of undergrad, I noticed a shift in the way they articulated their contemplations (we can all play the game if we want to). My academic accomplishments up to that point were completing a single semester of junior college 24 years previously. I found myself attempting to assimilate incomprehensible knowledge, or so I thought at the time, expressed with their newly acquired and integrated academic language while they were orating. It was at that moment, during a conversation we were having, that I found myself wondering if we would ever be able to have a coherent dialogue with each other again as I was linguistically challenged by our verbal interactions (or are they transactions?). It took me another 6 years before I decided to enter the university so I could try to meet them at their level eventually, instead of them always having to come down to mine. Their education was the impetus for me completing my degrees.
2) While writing my thesis, I found qualitative readings. Until that time, I thought I would have to write like the confusing journal articles and academic books mandatory for the courses in my study program. Wow. People write “normally,” I thought with surprise! (My surprise came in 2013, not from this reading. This reading confirms what I discovered then.) At that moment I realized that maybe, just maybe, I could complete my degrees and write the way I write without superfluous language and “uppity” inferences. After all, I am probably not that “classy.” I hate conformity. I question everything. And above all, language that attempts to privilege one person over another is abhorrent to me. I was excited to discover qual research because, at my advanced age, I am done pleasing other people and doing what other people want me to do. I just gotta be me. (shrugs) As an aside, I still bought, “The Only Academic Phrasebook You’ll Ever Need,” for my dissertation… just in case I have to be someone else for my committee. I am nothing if not flexible! HA! ;)
3) The conclusion from the chapter is the definition of groundhog’s day: “They generally find dull, verbose, pretentious writing, perpetuating the problem” (page 42). Isn’t this the very definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again... why do we constantly "perform" for others instead of being ourselves? Honestly, nothing is worth pretending to be someone we're not. Not even for a PhD.
The book up to this point does have a Dewey-esk voice of reason. Writing academic research, similar to thoughts about how knowledge and theory are created, isn’t necessarily an esoteric out-of-this-world experience only for the few but a practical means to a pragmatic cycle that invites everyone to participate and create. Writing academic research should relatable and readable, can be messy and chaotic and constantly changing, and all of that is perfectly acceptable. Your article might not be accepted for publication in a journal of your choosing but there are more ways than one to deliver your message when you have something to say.
Bloviating-to talk at length, especially in an inflated or empty way. Becker refutes the necessity of the wonky self talk and puffery that undercuts the purpose of the writer’s message. As in all writing, determining the audience is critical for delivering the message but in education research writing, it seems to be even more important because of the acknowledged communication gap between researchers and practitioners. Last week, we discussed Ruby Payne and Angela Duckworth (“grit”) and how these unresearched, unconfirmed and methodologically unsound ideas are able to proliferate with the practitioners because of their accessibility. Their ideas are easy to understand and easy to articulate. Perhaps because education research has spent so much time focusing on the scientific method to legitimize its findings, it has not devoted as much time to clear concise, coherent presentation methods communicate those findings, to the people that need/want it most. As a result, good research dies in vocabulary on paper and bad research thrives in TED talks.
Education researchers have an ethical imperative to make their findings accessible to ensure the advancement of quality research. The institutional review board (IRB) is designed for front end ethical considerations in research. Similarly, education research and all of its focus areas may also require a Practitioner Review Board during or after the writing phase to ensure the public is protected from the irresponsible PRESENTATION of findings, including bloviating,oversimplification of complex phenomena and harmful extrapolation.
Jia Becker emphasized rewrite many times in this chapter to reduce students’ stress on writing. However, he pointed out my weak point. I have to admit that I don’t like to rewrite. I believe the formulation of this bad habit started since my undergraduate study when all the papers due at the same time. My preference was to write one draft and submit it the night before the dead line. After reading chapter 1, I feel like I am growing with Becker’s students because I fully understand that writing need not to be a one-shot venture. Throwing ideas on paper is more important than pursuing clarity and polish at the early stage of writing. All Becker’s suggestions helped me with my recent literature review assignment. Also, I am surprised to know that “Every teacher of English composition and every guide to writing criticizes passive constructions, abstract nouns” (p. 9). I wonder why I was always told by my English teachers that passive constructions are the most popular in English writing
Jonathan Staylor: As I have progressed through the program, I have found validation in the method of re-writing papers and also in knowing that it is "ok" to refine and revise your original ideas. It also adds the layer that we are human beings and perfection is unattainable unless your view of perfection has a different meaning. This made me think about Dewey's idea of habits and how our habits are an object construction of events that are meaningful to us. It is important to me to be able to make meaningful contributions to my discipline and I feel that having the ability to write esoterically can be valuable. I also feel that there needs to be an integration of "layperson" terminology as well so that the educational research can be beneficial to a larger population.
I really related to the chapter on persona and authority. As a prior educator, I have always found that educational research isn't relatable to the actual educators in K-12. We have also talked about the gap between research and K-12 educators often in class. A big issue with that is the language and word choice. This also really touches on the humility piece. When I was writing a paper recently I had my sister go over it who is in the clinical psych PHD program. In her peer edits she added in things to make the paper more authoritative; such as the "we must recognize", "we cannot ignore" and when I asked her why she just that's the writing style and what is expected. After reading this chapter, I definitely reflected on that and understood it, but realizing I also want to keep in perspective that research needs to be relatable.
I find the first two chapters of Becker to be in opposition to what I would have expected. Usually, I find advice pertaining to writing to focus on organization or grammar, but also subtly suggesting the writer use more diverse vocabulary in oder to express their thoughts more accurately. Becker, instead, focuses on editing and rewriting; within the first few chapters, it seems the biggest errors he points out are “redundancies, ‘fancy writing’, [and] pompous phrases” (7). I agree with his former student, Rosanna Hertz, that academic writing often contains large intimidating words that cause the reader to be biased and assume the writer is correct. Although I think vocabulary expansion is a natural part of academic learning and writing, I do agree with Becker that the point is to succinctly express oneself without “dull, verbose, pretentious writing” (42). I think in fields such as social science, psychology, and education, writers do tend to use “code words” to refer to topics or theories within the field, and I like how Rosanna Hertz explained that when using these codes or “classy writing”, the writer needs to define what they mean the first time, and then they can continue to use the code words throughout the text (30). I think this relates to our previous class discussion about how education researchers and the social sciences are seen as soft and applied. I think because the field is soft, social scientists and researchers feel the need to use extravagant wording in order to appear more factual or knowledgable. I think Becker is pointing out that rather than trying to sound intelligent, it is more important to fill one’s writing the substantial information that actually supports your claims that “A causes B” (8).
Lauren: As I was diving into the first couple chapters of Becker, I was struck by several factors unique to educators becoming social scientists largely around the shift in mentality of drafting writing. First, as educators, we are very careful with our word choice. This ensures clear delivery of concepts and directions to our students. This can translate to a more pervasive sense of hesitation to submit drafts because they aren’t perfect. But, good teachers also understand the importance of brevity. This allows for more power behind your words as you’re instructing and this has direct ties to brevity in writing. Lastly, teachers model good learning strategies for their students daily. One of them being how to take first drafts and build off of them. They also model collaborative learning environments, which can be done through the writing process. This all brings me back to Labaree and the ideas that educators have qualities that would help or hinder their pursuits into academia. To me, I think past educators can use the skills they taught their students to become productive social scientists.
In reflecting on this week's Becker Chapters, I was taken in by Becker's criticism of writing in the social sciences. I have always been critical of the way our ideas are presented and written. Majority of the social science literature is institutionalized and behind several barriers to begin with, namely access, money, and prestige. Social sciences have long functioned under an inferiority complex compared to the "hard sciences", which I believe, has lead to some of the over-therozing and complex language to take hold. I believe social scientists writing their shibboleths betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of what it means to be a public intellectual. Social scientists distinguish themselves from hard scientists, in their arguments by regularly arguing that capturing human experience in a cause and effect pattern is challenging and frankly, impossible to do ethically. Social scientists work is first and foremost, for the people, they argue. It seems ironic to me that fields of knowledge, rooted in understanding human experience tend to over-theorize and put barriers linguistic and cultural barriers behind their work. This makes it challenging for a "lay person" to understand. I think Becker is correct to point out the need for a re-assessing of our language use. However, I'm cynical that the need will change anytime soon. People want to show they are educated and have as much to offer as the hard sciences in prestige and distinction. I fear that the talmudic lense in which social science operates in, is not going anywhere.
I feel like Becker's second chapter is hitting home with a lot of the reasons that academic writing is frustrating and sometime's anxiety inducing depending on the context. Just this week I had a manuscript (my first manuscript in the context of being a PhD student) due for a professor that I am doing research with and it was causing me so much anxiety in trying to write beyond my persona and into what I had constructed in my head that my professor was looking for. (If only I had read this chapter before Wednesday!!!! ;)). Becker worked to address the power dynamic that frustrates me in academia, in that we (as graduate students) are typically socialized to write beyond our means/personas in favor of feigning intelligence in order be perceived in a certain light by our faculty/profession. This concept of "intelligent" or "classy" writing when putting together manuscripts truly grates at my soul as it makes the information inaccessible to the layperson in which we base our research off of in hopes of impacting change. This "classy" writing also often makes research inaccessible to non-PhD practitioners in the field, who have the most potential to utilize research to impact their day to day work with clients/students. In writing this way, academics contribute to the gap between practitioners and researchers. How do we get more faculty take on Becker's stance on writing styles?
This TED talk by Erica Stone is related to our class discussions about how research, in education specifically, is not relatable nor publicly known information to the public. Erica starts with how she often quotes tweets about research findings yet she in unable to access these original articles easily and free of charge.
She explains the vicious cycle that occurs when research grants use public tax dollars, yet only share findings with private journal. She talks of her vision of universities not only promoting their sports teams, but academic findings from students; as well as her vision of researchers working with police departments or schools in order to directly use their findings and then publish these things in public newspapers or social media platforms.
I like her final quote explaining that she would like researchers to see the public not only “as a valuable audience, but a constituent, a participant, and in some cases even the expert”. This reminded me of our first few weeks of class talking about experts and if it is possible to be an expert. Her talk also reminded me of Becker in that she mentioned that research should not be dumbed down to the public, but intended for the public.
Something that resonated with me in the first couple chapters of Becker is the non-scientific-y means in which he approaches writing and editing. I found it interesting and it gave me insight into some of the edits I would see in my own papers in my master’s program. In chapter two, the conversation with his student, Rosanna, about succinct writing and about how she thought her way of writing was “classier” made me think about my approach to writing. I remember when I started graduate school I thought I was a pretty decent writer until I got my first paper back in my student development theory class. My advisor taught that class, and everyone said “Oh, Joan will teach you how to write. You think you know how, but you really don’t.” And, they were right. My first paper had more red than black on it when I got it back and her suggestions for re-wording sentences made them so…dry. Or at least, that’s what I felt at the time. As I’ve reflected on that experience, I’ve realized that I was trying too hard to make my writing sound “good” or “smart.” And, let’s be honest- there’s always a fear of not meeting the minimum number of pages for a paper. But, I think there’s always been (and still is, to an extent) a little bit of me trying to prove to others that I belong in an academic environment, not dissimilar from Rosanna in chapter two. At any rate, Becker has reminded me of the creative process around succinct writing and I’ve enjoyed seeing further discussion and examples of how it is more creative than scientific- even in the context of scholarly or academic writing.
So, when I take this a step further to think about this in relation to other conversations in our class…I think it’s no secret that the discussions around pragmatism and the philosophy behind education as a discipline or not have been challenging for me. There’s a (small) part of me that says “why does it matter, I’m getting a PhD in education regardless so why are we talking about this”, there’s a (much larger) part of me that wants to “get it”, and then there’s the (still growing) part of me that is realizing that maybe there’s nothing to “get” about it. But, all of that is constantly in conflict and sometimes makes me question my “fit” in a PhD program. Much like my writing woes in my master’s program I think the content of this class is changing the way I think of myself as a student and how I present myself in academic spaces.
One aspect of writing that Becker discusses is the process of writing and rewriting or revisions. Up until the start of the doctoral program at VCU, the majority of my papers have been written once with little editing or feedback requiring edits from professors. I viewed instructors requiring rewrites as a negative thing. My first semester in the doctoral program my professor requested that I rewrite a manuscript and gave suggestions and pointers on my writing. This allowed me to alter my thinking and see rewrites as a tool rather than setback. I have realized the benefit or refining and revisions. In fact, it is a large portion of submitting manuscripts for publications.
Becker also writes to educational writing should be easy to understand for readers. This is something that resonates with me as well. If we are writing for best practices or evidenced based practices for future and current counselors in the field, it should be of easy readability for them. A majority of the time they don’t have the same exposure to manuscripts and educational writing.
The idea of classy vs ordinary writing reminded me of an insult I have both heard and used to critique a written piece. The insult is the term “elementary”. An example of its use is ‘This sounds elementary, you should make it sound more sophisticated.’ The perception in sounding ordinary or elementary means you aren’t intellectual or knowledgeable. I find that I to, like Rosanna experience an “imposter syndrome” when I read educational articles. You yearn to sounds “smart” and hope the key to intellect is through your words. I appreciated Beeker’s stance on educational research. Becker believe that educational writing should be easily understood and accessible to all of its readers. If all educational writing took this stance, I imagine that educational research would be more accessible to practioners (whom the research is supposedly for anyway.) “Elementary” or “ordinary” writing could potentially close the gap between the word of academia and the world of K-12.
Amy Jefferson: The first Becker chapters remind me of going through the National Board process and the facilitators of my cohort spending many sessions explaining how we would, and should, be writing in a “scientific” way. Clear and concise, taking out feeling statements, extra words and how to use abbreviations such as w/, b/c and & to save space for what mattered most…evidence and analysis. At first that type of writing seemed cold and impersonal, I felt there was no voice attached to my words. As I progressed through the process, I came to actualize MY need to truncate (had to throw in a classy word). I needed all the space I could find to explain my whys, to back up my reasons for making specific instructional decisions. So, in my NB writing I migrated from being told to be clear and concise to wanting to.
ReplyDeleteIn Chapter 2 Becker discusses concerns about perception and readers questioning what kind of person is doing the writing. (Especially with the desire to present as an intellectual when writing.) I wonder then who are we writing for? Who is the intended audience? In class on Wednesday Kurt read his paper regarding educational research maybe not being necessary and I couldn’t help but think, “who is the research for anyway?” If educational research is done to improve education…education occurs in classrooms. Are classroom teachers reading research that is laden with “fancy” words and complicated data charts and p values? Or are classroom teachers being told what to do by higher ups who interpret the research and hand down opinions required to be put into practice?
Which brings me back to the National Board…After going through the process myself I became a critical reader/coach for teachers on the same journey. I always give this advice, “Approach this type of writing as if you are explaining something to that teacher you know that needs information laid out in simple terms. Don’t be complicated. Say what you need to say and explain why you think that way. You don’t know who your audience will be. Your reader could be a high school Chemistry teacher. If that is the case and you are writing about teaching reading in a 2nd grade classroom chances are details about wpm and fluency impacting overall comprehension, may be lost.”
My take-away from Becker is simple, say what you need to say, don’t “church it up.” Joe Dirt movie reference :)
Elizabeth Severson-Irby:
ReplyDeleteI couldn’t help but think about access to knowledge throughout this entire chapter. I kept coming back to this quote from Biesta and Burbules: “What is important about research, however, is that it is conducted in the open, that it is made totally transparent, so that others (researcher, but not only researchers) can follow critically how the conclusions of a particular inquiry have been reached. Research, in the words of Lawrence Stenhouse, is systematic inquiry made public” (p.70). This gets at the heart of the availability and equity of knowledge. If researchers, scholars, writers, etc. are writing in a way that limits who can access that knowledge, then who is that knowledge really for?
My field is adult literacy and this is an issue I constantly deal with. My students often feel that they are not smart enough because they have a hard time with the vocabulary in a text. It is not that the student can’t understand the concepts, but when overly academic vocabulary is used, it blocks them from accessing the content. I work with my students to break down the vocabulary so they can access the content. I love it when they say, “oh, that’s all [insert tier 3 vocabulary here] meant?” It isn’t the concept they don’t understand, but the way it is presented.
I feel I could go on and on about this topic, but in the spirit of Becker, I will stop here.
Alison Dossick:
ReplyDeleteMuch like social science, writing can be nebulous. You must consider all aspects of your audience, the topic, your tone, etc. There can be no clear “end” as you are writing because so many things are in play. It can be difficult to know when to stop editing. This is why getting things published can be difficult. You don’t know what kind of day the reader/editor has had. Did they just have a bad parent teacher conference about the topic of your writing? That is a transaction that you as a writer could not anticipate so try not to take rejection to heart and instead write well and make many submissions. The transactional nature of submissions is very Deweyian as time and interactions are in constant flux. To overcome some of those aspects of things that one cannot change about the writing and submission process, one can only confident in your writing and findings.
This relates to this class as we need to change our viewpoint from student to future faculty who may have these papers reads by many colleagues and hopefully beyond, so we need to write like professionals. This class is also about changing our viewpoint of the university structure to one of “us” becoming part of “them.” Having a book on writing that encourages in a conversational style denotes the heart and feelings of Professor Stemhagen. His view and one that the SOE must also hold is one of less stuffiness, more substance, and more relationship building. While other schools within VCU or other education schools may not feel this way, having writing presented in such a fashion is a welcome change. I know that I have a tendency to write very formally and this allows for a bit of looseness. I do not write with a lot of fluff, either, which can make specified page lengths difficult for me to meet. I have to trust that a less formal style will still be accepted by the “amorphous body of judges” that are the editors of journals.
Tosha Yingling:
ReplyDeleteA lot of what Becker says reminds me when one of my studen
ts found something I wrote and was trying to ask me questions about it (this is not a reverse psychology ploy to get anyone else to look it up either). I pulled out my cripple card at the time, hoping muttering “brain injury” would suspend the conversation long enough for me to suture together some prose about my masterpiece, but the reality was that, just like what Becker is warning us against, I was coating theory in my humble little brain with a heavy coat of academic bs. And after years of not writing about that topic, I am unable to translate what the hell I was talking about more days than not.
While I can definitely understand what Becker is saying about the isolation of superficial elevated language (ex: “UTILIZED”), I think a lot of us embrace it. Book larnin’ big words rolling off the tongues of Black people and non-Black POC, immigrants of any generation, queers, dears, and cripples not only directly combats some of the stereotypes enfleshed in these identities, but feels radical and a nerdy kind of badass. Cheeks pushing out the words never meant for those particular tongues. But the master’s tools never dismantle the master’s house, right, so are we just writing research for more academic bs-ers to vaguely comment on? I can see how this creates the “intimate knowledge” paradox, a brotherhood of misinformation bolstered by ego and “expertise,” and churns out issues like the Ruby Payne problem.
It’s nice to be reminded that authors can be confused about what they’re saying too, that we can outgrow our creations, and that new “habits” form our intellectual landscapes. The temporal waves of our own work and understanding seems less intimidating when we are gentle enough to remember that ideas form, mold, shift, and waiver in our brains and on the page. Now. If someone could just explain that to the professor that commented on my most recent lit review.
Mitchell Waters - I was surprised when I was reading on “persona and authority.” It seems that Becker is trying to break down years of division between “classy” people and “non-classy” by the way someone writes. He rejects the idea that simply using big words makes someone smart and, therefore, deserving of some higher class or form of being. This chapter made me think about what Kurt read in class the other day about not believing in Educational Research (Capital E and Capital R). If the knowledge being attained in educational research is then presented in such a way that only the social or intellectual elite can comprehend it, what service is really being done for the educational field(s)? Educational research, it seems, is like a younger sibling trying to prove to their bigger siblings (psychology, chemistry, biology and the like) that they are “big” like them and should be accepted too. Perhaps using big, intelligent words is a way of doing that. Perhaps this reinforces the fact that research is only accessible by certain people in certain elevated groups. It will come as no surprise to know that there are many teachers that have no interest in being a titan in his or her field but really just have a passion for shaping younger minds and helping them learn. I would argue, as would Becker I think, that if we are not writing research in a way that most teachers could access, comprehend and implement, we are doing a great disservice to the entire field and educational research is completely and utterly pointless.
ReplyDeleteKori Nicolai: These early chapters lined up well with my experience writing a personal statement a few weeks ago. My adviser was going to review it for me and I was incredibly nervous to have her see my work. I eventually put it down on paper and said this is good enough.Becker reflects on the type of writing done during undergrad. You turn in your rough draft to your professor and they grade it with the understanding this is a rough draft. During undergrad I would rather turn something in without any reviewing done by my friends. I appreciate Becker making it clear most people are very unwelcome to feedback on writing.
ReplyDeleteBecker also speaks to the idea that we want our writing to be hard to understand and "fancy". But it shouldn't be "fancy" to the point that no one can understand it. I think this lines up well with the theme of humility in our class. As academics we want to make it clear we know more in an area than others, an easy way to do this is to use words(that have nothing to do with our field) to make the writing sound "academic". We need to realize if people can't read our writing what is the point of us conducting and sharing our research.
Amy Taloma: Within the Becker book, so far, the main take away, for me, is humility and confidence. In the first chapter, the freshmen lack confidence in their writing and are really self-conscious. They are nervous to turn in their writing sample to other students for the editing assignment out of a fear of being labeled unintelligent. There is a lack of understanding that it is through a process like this that the students can become better, more confident writers. I really like Becker’s group counseling approach to help normalize the students’ feelings and normalize that good writers are not born good writers. I think this process can help students to develop humility and self-efficacy.
ReplyDeleteI also thought it was interesting how Becker talked about his colleague’s lack of confidence in what they are writing and his pointing out of their excessive use of qualifiers. This related back to Dewey, for me, because of the writers’ inability to commit to their research findings. They did not want to write down, in definite terms, that A is related to B because they knew it would undoubtedly be proven to not be related at some point. This relates to Dewey’s theory in that context can change everything and knowledge is not static.
Robyn Lyn: I had three thoughts reading Becker’s chapter two: 1) daughter; 2) I just gotta be me; and 3) groundhog’s day. Allow me to elaborate (classy? rhetorical… lol)
ReplyDelete1) When my daughter was accepted to a PhD program in their senior year of undergrad, I noticed a shift in the way they articulated their contemplations (we can all play the game if we want to). My academic accomplishments up to that point were completing a single semester of junior college 24 years previously. I found myself attempting to assimilate incomprehensible knowledge, or so I thought at the time, expressed with their newly acquired and integrated academic language while they were orating. It was at that moment, during a conversation we were having, that I found myself wondering if we would ever be able to have a coherent dialogue with each other again as I was linguistically challenged by our verbal interactions (or are they transactions?). It took me another 6 years before I decided to enter the university so I could try to meet them at their level eventually, instead of them always having to come down to mine. Their education was the impetus for me completing my degrees.
2) While writing my thesis, I found qualitative readings. Until that time, I thought I would have to write like the confusing journal articles and academic books mandatory for the courses in my study program. Wow. People write “normally,” I thought with surprise! (My surprise came in 2013, not from this reading. This reading confirms what I discovered then.) At that moment I realized that maybe, just maybe, I could complete my degrees and write the way I write without superfluous language and “uppity” inferences. After all, I am probably not that “classy.” I hate conformity. I question everything. And above all, language that attempts to privilege one person over another is abhorrent to me. I was excited to discover qual research because, at my advanced age, I am done pleasing other people and doing what other people want me to do. I just gotta be me. (shrugs) As an aside, I still bought, “The Only Academic Phrasebook You’ll Ever Need,” for my dissertation… just in case I have to be someone else for my committee. I am nothing if not flexible! HA! ;)
3) The conclusion from the chapter is the definition of groundhog’s day: “They generally find dull, verbose, pretentious writing, perpetuating the problem” (page 42). Isn’t this the very definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again... why do we constantly "perform" for others instead of being ourselves? Honestly, nothing is worth pretending to be someone we're not. Not even for a PhD.
The book up to this point does have a Dewey-esk voice of reason. Writing academic research, similar to thoughts about how knowledge and theory are created, isn’t necessarily an esoteric out-of-this-world experience only for the few but a practical means to a pragmatic cycle that invites everyone to participate and create. Writing academic research should relatable and readable, can be messy and chaotic and constantly changing, and all of that is perfectly acceptable. Your article might not be accepted for publication in a journal of your choosing but there are more ways than one to deliver your message when you have something to say.
Catina
ReplyDeleteBloviating-to talk at length, especially in an inflated or empty way.
Becker refutes the necessity of the wonky self talk and puffery that undercuts the purpose of the writer’s message. As in all writing, determining the audience is critical for delivering the message but in education research writing, it seems to be even more important because of the
acknowledged communication gap between researchers and practitioners. Last week, we discussed Ruby Payne and Angela Duckworth (“grit”) and how these unresearched, unconfirmed and methodologically unsound ideas are able to proliferate with the practitioners
because of their accessibility. Their ideas are easy to understand and easy to articulate. Perhaps because education research has spent so much time focusing on the scientific method to legitimize its findings, it has not devoted as much time to clear concise, coherent presentation methods communicate those findings, to the people that need/want it most. As a result, good research dies in vocabulary on paper and bad research thrives in TED talks.
Education researchers have an ethical imperative to make their findings accessible to ensure the advancement of quality research. The institutional review board (IRB) is designed for front end ethical considerations in research. Similarly, education research and all of its focus areas may also require a Practitioner Review Board during or after the writing phase to ensure the public is protected from the irresponsible PRESENTATION of findings, including bloviating,oversimplification of complex phenomena and harmful extrapolation.
Jia
ReplyDeleteBecker emphasized rewrite many times in this chapter to reduce students’ stress on writing. However, he pointed out my weak point. I have to admit that I don’t like to rewrite. I believe the formulation of this bad habit started since my undergraduate study when all the papers due at the same time. My preference was to write one draft and submit it the night before the dead line. After reading chapter 1, I feel like I am growing with Becker’s students because I fully understand that writing need not to be a one-shot venture. Throwing ideas on paper is more important than pursuing clarity and polish at the early stage of writing. All Becker’s suggestions helped me with my recent literature review assignment.
Also, I am surprised to know that “Every teacher of English composition and every guide to writing criticizes passive constructions, abstract nouns” (p. 9). I wonder why I was always told by my English teachers that passive constructions are the most popular in English writing
Jonathan Staylor: As I have progressed through the program, I have found validation in the method of re-writing papers and also in knowing that it is "ok" to refine and revise your original ideas. It also adds the layer that we are human beings and perfection is unattainable unless your view of perfection has a different meaning. This made me think about Dewey's idea of habits and how our habits are an object construction of events that are meaningful to us. It is important to me to be able to make meaningful contributions to my discipline and I feel that having the ability to write esoterically can be valuable. I also feel that there needs to be an integration of "layperson" terminology as well so that the educational research can be beneficial to a larger population.
ReplyDeleteI really related to the chapter on persona and authority. As a prior educator, I have always found that educational research isn't relatable to the actual educators in K-12. We have also talked about the gap between research and K-12 educators often in class. A big issue with that is the language and word choice. This also really touches on the humility piece. When I was writing a paper recently I had my sister go over it who is in the clinical psych PHD program. In her peer edits she added in things to make the paper more authoritative; such as the "we must recognize", "we cannot ignore" and when I asked her why she just that's the writing style and what is expected. After reading this chapter, I definitely reflected on that and understood it, but realizing I also want to keep in perspective that research needs to be relatable.
ReplyDeleteI find the first two chapters of Becker to be in opposition to what I would have expected. Usually, I find advice pertaining to writing to focus on organization or grammar, but also subtly suggesting the writer use more diverse vocabulary in oder to express their thoughts more accurately. Becker, instead, focuses on editing and rewriting; within the first few chapters, it seems the biggest errors he points out are “redundancies, ‘fancy writing’, [and] pompous phrases” (7). I agree with his former student, Rosanna Hertz, that academic writing often contains large intimidating words that cause the reader to be biased and assume the writer is correct. Although I think vocabulary expansion is a natural part of academic learning and writing, I do agree with Becker that the point is to succinctly express oneself without “dull, verbose, pretentious writing” (42). I think in fields such as social science, psychology, and education, writers do tend to use “code words” to refer to topics or theories within the field, and I like how Rosanna Hertz explained that when using these codes or “classy writing”, the writer needs to define what they mean the first time, and then they can continue to use the code words throughout the text (30).
ReplyDeleteI think this relates to our previous class discussion about how education researchers and the social sciences are seen as soft and applied. I think because the field is soft, social scientists and researchers feel the need to use extravagant wording in order to appear more factual or knowledgable. I think Becker is pointing out that rather than trying to sound intelligent, it is more important to fill one’s writing the substantial information that actually supports your claims that “A causes B” (8).
Lauren:
ReplyDeleteAs I was diving into the first couple chapters of Becker, I was struck by several factors unique to educators becoming social scientists largely around the shift in mentality of drafting writing. First, as educators, we are very careful with our word choice. This ensures clear delivery of concepts and directions to our students. This can translate to a more pervasive sense of hesitation to submit drafts because they aren’t perfect. But, good teachers also understand the importance of brevity. This allows for more power behind your words as you’re instructing and this has direct ties to brevity in writing. Lastly, teachers model good learning strategies for their students daily. One of them being how to take first drafts and build off of them. They also model collaborative learning environments, which can be done through the writing process.
This all brings me back to Labaree and the ideas that educators have qualities that would help or hinder their pursuits into academia. To me, I think past educators can use the skills they taught their students to become productive social scientists.
In reflecting on this week's Becker Chapters, I was taken in by Becker's criticism of writing in the social sciences. I have always been critical of the way our ideas are presented and written. Majority of the social science literature is institutionalized and behind several barriers to begin with, namely access, money, and prestige. Social sciences have long functioned under an inferiority complex compared to the "hard sciences", which I believe, has lead to some of the over-therozing and complex language to take hold. I believe social scientists writing their shibboleths betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of what it means to be a public intellectual. Social scientists distinguish themselves from hard scientists, in their arguments by regularly arguing that capturing human experience in a cause and effect pattern is challenging and frankly, impossible to do ethically. Social scientists work is first and foremost, for the people, they argue. It seems ironic to me that fields of knowledge, rooted in understanding human experience tend to over-theorize and put barriers linguistic and cultural barriers behind their work. This makes it challenging for a "lay person" to understand. I think Becker is correct to point out the need for a re-assessing of our language use. However, I'm cynical that the need will change anytime soon. People want to show they are educated and have as much to offer as the hard sciences in prestige and distinction. I fear that the talmudic lense in which social science operates in, is not going anywhere.
ReplyDelete-Waleed
DeleteKristian Robinson
ReplyDeleteI feel like Becker's second chapter is hitting home with a lot of the reasons that academic writing is frustrating and sometime's anxiety inducing depending on the context. Just this week I had a manuscript (my first manuscript in the context of being a PhD student) due for a professor that I am doing research with and it was causing me so much anxiety in trying to write beyond my persona and into what I had constructed in my head that my professor was looking for. (If only I had read this chapter before Wednesday!!!! ;)). Becker worked to address the power dynamic that frustrates me in academia, in that we (as graduate students) are typically socialized to write beyond our means/personas in favor of feigning intelligence in order be perceived in a certain light by our faculty/profession. This concept of "intelligent" or "classy" writing when putting together manuscripts truly grates at my soul as it makes the information inaccessible to the layperson in which we base our research off of in hopes of impacting change. This "classy" writing also often makes research inaccessible to non-PhD practitioners in the field, who have the most potential to utilize research to impact their day to day work with clients/students. In writing this way, academics contribute to the gap between practitioners and researchers. How do we get more faculty take on Becker's stance on writing styles?
Grab Bag:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ted.com/talks/erica_stone_academic_research_is_publicly_funded_why_isn_t_it_publicly_available
This TED talk by Erica Stone is related to our class discussions about how research, in education specifically, is not relatable nor publicly known information to the public. Erica starts with how she often quotes tweets about research findings yet she in unable to access these original articles easily and free of charge.
She explains the vicious cycle that occurs when research grants use public tax dollars, yet only share findings with private journal. She talks of her vision of universities not only promoting their sports teams, but academic findings from students; as well as her vision of researchers working with police departments or schools in order to directly use their findings and then publish these things in public newspapers or social media platforms.
I like her final quote explaining that she would like researchers to see the public not only “as a valuable audience, but a constituent, a participant, and in some cases even the expert”. This reminded me of our first few weeks of class talking about experts and if it is possible to be an expert. Her talk also reminded me of Becker in that she mentioned that research should not be dumbed down to the public, but intended for the public.
Something that resonated with me in the first couple chapters of Becker is the non-scientific-y means in which he approaches writing and editing. I found it interesting and it gave me insight into some of the edits I would see in my own papers in my master’s program. In chapter two, the conversation with his student, Rosanna, about succinct writing and about how she thought her way of writing was “classier” made me think about my approach to writing. I remember when I started graduate school I thought I was a pretty decent writer until I got my first paper back in my student development theory class. My advisor taught that class, and everyone said “Oh, Joan will teach you how to write. You think you know how, but you really don’t.” And, they were right. My first paper had more red than black on it when I got it back and her suggestions for re-wording sentences made them so…dry. Or at least, that’s what I felt at the time. As I’ve reflected on that experience, I’ve realized that I was trying too hard to make my writing sound “good” or “smart.” And, let’s be honest- there’s always a fear of not meeting the minimum number of pages for a paper. But, I think there’s always been (and still is, to an extent) a little bit of me trying to prove to others that I belong in an academic environment, not dissimilar from Rosanna in chapter two. At any rate, Becker has reminded me of the creative process around succinct writing and I’ve enjoyed seeing further discussion and examples of how it is more creative than scientific- even in the context of scholarly or academic writing.
ReplyDeleteSo, when I take this a step further to think about this in relation to other conversations in our class…I think it’s no secret that the discussions around pragmatism and the philosophy behind education as a discipline or not have been challenging for me. There’s a (small) part of me that says “why does it matter, I’m getting a PhD in education regardless so why are we talking about this”, there’s a (much larger) part of me that wants to “get it”, and then there’s the (still growing) part of me that is realizing that maybe there’s nothing to “get” about it. But, all of that is constantly in conflict and sometimes makes me question my “fit” in a PhD program. Much like my writing woes in my master’s program I think the content of this class is changing the way I think of myself as a student and how I present myself in academic spaces.
One aspect of writing that Becker discusses is the process of writing and rewriting or revisions. Up until the start of the doctoral program at VCU, the majority of my papers have been written once with little editing or feedback requiring edits from professors. I viewed instructors requiring rewrites as a negative thing. My first semester in the doctoral program my professor requested that I rewrite a manuscript and gave suggestions and pointers on my writing. This allowed me to alter my thinking and see rewrites as a tool rather than setback. I have realized the benefit or refining and revisions. In fact, it is a large portion of submitting manuscripts for publications.
ReplyDeleteBecker also writes to educational writing should be easy to understand for readers. This is something that resonates with me as well. If we are writing for best practices or evidenced based practices for future and current counselors in the field, it should be of easy readability for them. A majority of the time they don’t have the same exposure to manuscripts and educational writing.
The idea of classy vs ordinary writing reminded me of an insult I have both heard and used to critique a written piece. The insult is the term “elementary”. An example of its use is ‘This sounds elementary, you should make it sound more sophisticated.’ The perception in sounding ordinary or elementary means you aren’t intellectual or knowledgeable. I find that I to, like Rosanna experience an “imposter syndrome” when I read educational articles. You yearn to sounds “smart” and hope the key to intellect is through your words. I appreciated Beeker’s stance on educational research. Becker believe that educational writing should be easily understood and accessible to all of its readers. If all educational writing took this stance, I imagine that educational research would be more accessible to practioners (whom the research is supposedly for anyway.) “Elementary” or “ordinary” writing could potentially close the gap between the word of academia and the world of K-12.
ReplyDelete