Tag Archives: academia

Part I: Learning to write…

…and writing to learn.

I think I’ve learned more about writing in the past 40 pages than I have in the past 12 years and 3 degrees. As many know, writing a dissertation can be both awful and amazing. I’d like to cover a few things in this blog post that have made me a better and faster writer. By developing a writing process that involves a clunky list, discrete tasks, and exploratory or free-writing, I’ve unlocked a way to generate text quickly and make steady, continuous progress towards a finished dissertation.

The benefit of this type of writing process is that it works if you only have 15 minutes a day to work on your dissertation or 5 hours.

writing2

Process writing

As an undergrad, I was trained with a wonky version of writing as a process. The school had the right idea, I think, but the execution didn’t generally achieve what they were looking for. Working with a coach has taught me to develop a better system of process writing. The general steps to process writing that most people recognize are brainstorming/pre-writing, various rough drafts, peer editing, revisions etc.

I’ve found success in breaking down a chapter into various (overlapping and sometimes concurrent steps). I’m in the humanities, and so the type of writing and chapter construction I do reflects that. 

The Chapter List

This has served as my ingredient list for the future recipe. It’s not highly detailed, but it lists the elements that I think are necessary for the chapter. This ranges from broad topics, to mentions of specific works of literature, theories, theorists, research that needs to be done, research that needs to be reviewed etc. It’s meant to be the first step toward a clearer plan. Here’s an example (generic names and such):

  • Review Smith’s poems
  • Write about Example Period
  • Review scholarship on Example Period
  • Write about several of Smith’s poems
  • Review scholarship on Smith and Johnson
  • Review scholarship on Major Theory
  • Review scholarship on Major Theme
  • Discuss Major Theme
  • Review Johnson’s poems
  • Write about several of Johnson’s poems
  • Discuss Major Theme in Smith and Johnson

Working Tasks

on having a plan

The tasks above are all HUGE. Approaching them is frustrating and feels like a mountain. This is the stage where the clunkier items from the Chapter List get broken down into discrete tasks for manageable working sessions. I’ve also learned the need to balance the working time between different types of intellectual activities. I prefer to always have my first activities of a day be writing tasks, before the clutter of life gets in the way. After writing tasks I’ll balance with reading tasks, or something even simpler if I’m stressed, like editing or updating the bibliography.

So, let’s assume you have only 2 hours a day you can devote to writing (if that! Some folks have family and work commitments that leave them with less working time). A lot can happen in two hours if you have a plan. The old way I used to write would often leave me staring at a blinking cursor for a loooong time or struggling through re-reading the same paragraph for an hour. That long time of nothing left my mind screaming for release from that torture. Facebook or Netflix were always standing by to save me. The new way I write always has a plan with movable pieces to account for high-stress days.

My new method is to plan out an entire week of working with small tasks. The key here is to remember to balance the tasks between different types and to make them specific enough that I know exactly what I have to do. No guesswork.

Going back up to grab things from my Chapter List, let’s say there were 4 items that I want to plan for:

A) Write about Example Period of poetry
B) Write about Smith’s poems,
C) Review three sources on Smith
D) Find more sources about Johnson.

These tasks are too big. So they need to be broken down into smaller chunks that fit into a working plan. Write about Smith’s poems. For this, I can break that into 1) review volume (or volumes) of Smith’s poetry to select the ones I want. 2) Write about poem X (etc).  Reading academic work is time-consuming. It’s rarely fun, often boring, sometimes stimulating, and sometimes painful. Unlike reading for pleasure, this is work. I could take large task B and break that down as well. If I’m reading a 25-30 page chapter or article, I should build enough time in for that to cover multiple sessions.

I’m a fan of the Pomodoro technique wherein you work for 25 minutes, break for 5. Work for another 25 minutes, break for 5 (or longer), and so forth. This keeps me focused, and I know that there’s a stopping point if I’m struggling. I use an actual timer (the internet is full of virtual ones, and you can download apps for phones). It’s also important that during the break periods that I actually break. Stretch, walk around, get a cup of coffee. Something that’s not the task.

Here’s a sample working plan with the elements above:

Day 1
Freewrite about Example Period (25 minutes)
Break
Freewrite about Example Period (25 minutes)
Longer break
Review volume of Smith’s poetry for examples (25 minutes)
Break
Review volume of Smith’s poetry for examples (25 minutes)

Day 2

Freewrite about Smith’s poem X (25 minutes)
Break
Freewrite about Smith’s poem X (25 minutes)
Longer Break
Review chapter on Smith pp x-y (25 minutes)
Break
Review chapter on Smith pp x-y (25 minutes)

When I sit down to my computer to work, I know exactly what I have to do. There’s no guesswork involved. Let’s say on day 2, there’s a lot going on in life. I’m super stressed and when it comes to reading, I just can’t seem to focus. But, I really want to get things done and make progress. Netflix is already calling to me. Instead of forcing myself to read the same paragraph over and over again, I can contribute to my dissertation in another way. I can update my bibliography for newer sources that I’ve found, I could go back and copy edit pages for mundane mechanical problems etc. Most importantly, though, if I can’t manage that, it’s ok to walk away. Forcing the work when I’m incapable of it will only leave me resentful the next day and contribute to negative feelings about working on my dissertation. I only walk away as a last resort, but it’s more important to make small progress than no progress.

I’m forming a writing habit. It’s super important to show up to my writing time. Even if only part of it can get done. Showing up for it builds reinforcement (pretty much like going to a gym). It’s important to try and persist, but it’s most important to show up for the work every writing day. If I’m consistently not meeting my daily goals, it’s time to adjust the working plans and make them realistic. If I can only get an hour and a half done, only schedule an hour and a half. Anything beyond that is overachiever bonus points for me. And who doesn’t love crossing off their completed tasks and saying “Oh wow, I did 30 extra minutes of work today. Way to go me.”

The Importance of Free-Writing

I loathed free-writing. I looked at it as a torturous waste of time. If all roads didn’t lead directly to the promised land of a finished dissertation in the most efficient way possible, I wasn’t on them. I viewed free-writing as time spent producing text that wasn’t useful. I was thinking like an undergrad. Write the paper from start to finish crafting each line as I go. I wasted more time staring at the cursor this way than I did producing “perfected” text.

I free-write to get ideas out that may not be clear in my mind, but also to get myself thinking. There’s enough research and methodology about writing out there to support that writing is thinking. Unfettered writing is a great way to think. By unfettered I mean no books, no notes, no spell check, no grammar revision, no insistence on complete sentences, punctuation or any of the restrictive and prescriptive editorial rules we use in formal writing. This serves several purposes, two of which I’ve found the most important to generating work. 1) Go full stream of consciousness and write freely to expose thoughts you may not have had otherwise. Free-writing often reveals lightning fast connections and thoughts 2) Write freely to learn what you think without critical support. In a dissertation, where we’re expected to finally think for ourselves within a framework of our own construction, it’s crucial to know what you think vs. what the other experts think. Only read fellow scholars after you know what you think. It will make the differences and similarities much easier to represent.

Not every word I write makes it into my chapter. This would be the same even if I worked line-by-line without free-writing. But with this type of exploratory writing, the fodder is already present. And when I am ready to integrate scholarship and my own writing together, I already know what I need to say–and there is zero guesswork.

It took me a awhile to appreciate doing exploratory writing as a first step. But now, I find I crave that first worry-free step into engaging a text because I know that when I’ve done it, pages start appearing.


On knowing, a new pillory

John_Waller_in_pillorySomeone has reinterpreted the pillory–it was only a matter of time, really. Right? It might make me an awful person, insensitive to a whole range of questions (I hear your future rants, ranters), but I am experiencing a certain schadenfreude in the very concept of this blog, Public Shaming, where certain types of social media detritus are exposed.

In all seriousness, I have become very interested in social media (like the rest of academia) and its role in the creation of knowledge. Because, clearly, this type of trending seems self-perpetuated where the volume of believers outweighs the ‘facts.’ (Not that this is new, cf belief)

I know because they know instead of I know because I checked.   This isn’t a new by any stretch of the imagination. But with the instantaneous proliferation of ‘knowing,’ is common knowledge even knowledge anymore?

Knowing is hard.


Literature hacked to death at *-Mart

I’m going to spare the rant about the quality of the book – most people have already expressed it.  I came across a great blog post this morning (as I am avoiding doing any type of grading or producing). The writer raises a fear that I’ve had for a while now. In the post  Assault on Literature through 50 Shades of Yuck, the writer laments the current phenomenon of inserting into already existing stories.

The prime example here is the phenomenon that swept the world by storm, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.   Yeah yeah, I can hear the post-modern protests already. But But But. It’s funny. But but but, it’s not hurting anyone. But but but lighten up.

book knifeI’d be less worried if I knew that everyone’s spawn actually knew works of literature. I’m disheartened on a regular basis that they do not, in fact, know much about literature at all (or care, or want to care). I fear the parody of these works (and the thriller/comedy/sex ification of them) is replacing the works themselves (insert rant on education/values/art/entertainment).

Hey, I think spoofs are funny. I think they’re only a good idea, however, when we know what they’re making fun of and why.

The decade of the reboot and the remake (not that these haven’t existed before) in such proliferation and zeal has annoyed me. I’ve enjoyed some, loathed others. But I knew the originals. Sure, some are going to argue that the reboot or remake may inspire seeing the originals. Ok, but that’s giving people a lot of credit. Yet, I’ll readily believe that people will see the original movie before they read the original book.

Flaubert spent 5 years writing Madame Bovary. Not due to laziness, but rather to an obsessive attention to words, sentences, and sounds.

I wonder how long the mommy porn author took to copy Sade’s homework before class.


Abracadabra

Make it so.

Or so we all heard for a good 7 years in the late 80s and early 90s. More of an imperative than an performative utterance, it gets us a little closer to the bull’s eye. Recently, a judge in France ruled the auction of Hopi masks legal, as the previous owner had obtained them legally.  That seems logical.

Image

Art Et Communication / Ho / EPA
An undated handout picture provided by Art et Communication press office in Paris, France on April 11, 2013 shows a mask entitled ‘Angwusnasomtaqa’ or ‘Tumas Crow Mother’ as part of the ‘Katsinam Masks’ auction sale at Drouot-Richelieu. care of worldnews.nbcnews.com

Yet, the complication is in the role the masks play for the Hopi, who view them as living things, sacred beings. Naturally, money and collecting are involved (un passe-temps du 19e siècle), so the dispute over the masks’–scratch that. The dispute over the legality of the sale was hauled before a judge, who subsequently ruled that since the current owner had obtained them legally, years before, the masks could be legally auctioned.

The most frightening part, I think is the power that the law wielded here and invested in others:

Before starting, the auctioneer, Gilles Néret-Minet, told the crowd that the sale had been found by a judge to be perfectly legal, and that the objects were no longer sacred but had become  “important works of art.”

The ability of language to perform is powerful indeed. Big magic. In one deft tongue maneuver, Néret-Minet changed the status of the masks from sacred beings to important objects all because of another performative utterance, the legal ruling.

The irony, perhaps, is in this line:

[Néret-Minet] added, “In France you cannot just up and seize the property of a person that is lawfully his.”

Whew, well I sure feel better now.

Suddenly, Judith Butler, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and Eve Kosofsky Sedgewick surge out of the dry pages of theory and into the consequence-filled world of practice.


Internationally righting: gay rights, emerging equalities, Foreign Affairs

This needs some international attention and hopefully a vote.  Standing in my friend’s kitchen in her 4th story walk-up, I had the pleasure of meeting an engaging thinker.  Earlier in the day, I had been frolicking about with a friend when we came upon a campaign table for the President.  Naturally we shelled out some money for campaign swag and got some stickers too.  Merrily, and some what obliviously, I walked around with a campaign sticker on my shirt for the rest of the day–which as it happens was a conversation starter.

As it turns out, this engaging thinker, Mr. Pérez,  wrote an article on advancing gay rights internationally that may be featured in Foreign Affairs magazine with the help of supporters. In the era of social media, apparently even FA wants le peuple to choose its feature (which I suppose is also a creative way of foisting the decision on everyone else, thus escaping any residual messiness).  In a piece promoting his article and the vote that FA has called for, Pérez writes:

that some will question the validity of this topic being considered “the stuff of serious foreign affairs.” And judging by some of the comments made about my essay so far, I was right. It is shortsighted to assume that real foreign affairs is limited to discussions of war, territorial disputes, nuclear weapons, terrorism and the like.

We cannot forget that combating anti-gay discrimination touches upon many matters that are also of import to foreign policy: From war crimes in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to public health concerns in Botswana, there are many foreign policy implications to antigay discrimination throughout the world that may not be evident to those who conceive of U.S. foreign policy and gay rights as distinct and unrelated concepts. For as the world becomes more diverse and complex, so [too] will foreign affairs matters become more diverse and complex.

In a time when we still haven’t grown beyond this startling word count of antigay speech, perhaps we should all give Mr. Pérez’s article a read and head over to place a vote. After all, if we don’t decide to raise our hands and say, “this is important,” who else will?  Certainly not the other tweeters scrolling on that page.

See this article from Hunter College for Mr. Pérez’s “Emerging Equality: Gay Rights as a Priority of U.S. Foreign Policy,”  and for voting instructions.


Darth Chancellor and the academic HMO?

The Board Strikes Back — Darth Chancellor weighs in on CUNY brouhaha.

Far be it for me to be so naive that I think money grows on trees and oversight is avoidable.  The Board of Trustees is a function of universities (or maybe a symptom?) that is not going anywhere.  What troubles me, however, is that the majority of boards I am familiar with are not actually staffed with academics (though, surely there is representation).  Now, before you blow the ‘play fair’ horn, I do acknowledge that there is a reason for governance that is not completely by the faculty — there is more going on at a university than education.  Yet, when the board of trustees gets to decide curricular directions I hear alarms sounding (let’s agree this is not the first time a board has asserted itself against the wishes of the faculty— everyone remembers Mitch Daniels and Purdue University, right?)

As one Purdue protester put it:

“What we see again with this appointment is a top-down, corporate driven shaping of education.”

And every American university I have stepped foot in has demonstrated this exact trend. Lamentable and destructive to the integrity of the college degree, standards are loosened, bars are lowered, whining is appeased.  I have witnessed curricula that have been adjusted for certain schools within universities who also happen to secure a plethora of funding externally. The student-as-consumer and education-as-commodity model is, quite frankly, a destructive load of hooey. The best argument I’ve heard against this is actually marvelously simple: college students do not have the knowledge to act as a consumer; rather, they are in college to gain that knowledge.  It is generally up to the educators to determine what they need to know by virtue of their extensive education. Here’s another argument against it, however.

The Rebel Professors are on Dantooine!

All of this to report that Chancellor Matthew Goldstein of the City University of New York, a consortium of many colleges throughout the five boroughs of the city, has responded to the concerns expressed by the CUNY community in regards to the flippant remarks of a Queensborough Community College administrator. (You can find her remarks here.)  The Professional Staff Congress (a cross-campus advocacy body) has voiced its condemnation of the situation. (You can find PSC president Barbara Bowen’s comments here.)  After the PSC body broadcast its condemnation loudly to the CUNY community which was simultaneously joined with an outcry at the QCC administration and the University administration with further condemnation of the Pathways Initiative,  Chancellor Goldstein has sent out an e-mail to the entire CUNY community today:

I am writing to address several issues that have arisen recently in connection with the implementation of the Pathways resolution of the Board of Trustees.

First, earlier this month, the interim vice-president for academic affairs at Queensborough Community College wrote an unfortunate letter to the College’s English Department. The author subsequently apologized for the character and tone of her communication. We should remember that while Pathways established the structure for curricular reform and its implementation, faculty are fully engaged in developing course content. Such collaboration is very much in the tradition and spirit of a great University.

Second, Dr. Terrence Martell, chair of the University Faculty Senate, and Dr. Barbara Bowen, President of the Professional Staff Congress, have sent an email to the faculty in which they erroneously state that the faculty have the power to block the implementation of Pathways. This claim misstates the core principle, embodied in state law and the bylaws and policies of the University, that the authority for the governance of the University on all matters rests with the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees has delegated a significant role to the faculty on academic matters, and the faculty have the right to exercise their professional judgment in fulfilling that role. However, the faculty are not empowered to ignore or violate a policy established by the Board of Trustees or the implementation of that policy by the Chancellor.

I hope this clarifies matters and allows us to continue to work collaboratively to implement Pathways in a manner that is in the best educational interests of our students.

The issue of curricular change joined with phrasing like “the faculty are not empowered,” are particularly piquant.  I cannot help but metaphorically reach towards the adage of the corporate bean-counter deciding what treatment physicians can give their patients, the requirement to have procedures and tests approved (you know those physicians, they just love to fire up the MRI and do spinal taps for giggles).

Now, we are told that faculty have “the right to exercise their judgement,” only not when it involves what composes the degree they’re participating in…actively.  Curricular changes forced on a community like a steam-roller (as, with an inside perspective, I can vouch that this Pathways Initiative is like some form of academic Eminent Domain), non-academics making those decisions – wow, it sounds a lot like local public education in America. Let’s have the non-educators decide who learns what and when.  After all, who needs history, literature, foreign language? (See this great post by Carceral Nation).  You can’t quantify them, therefore they must be useless.

Enjoy your degrees. Soon they’ll mean little more than “I was present for 4 years.”


Pot hole in CUNY’s Pathway to Nowhere

As the GC Advocate states:

On Friday, QCC  Vice President Karen Steele announced reprisals against the English faculty.

What has been a nightmare for CUNY faculty and staff over the past year or so is finally leaving the dream world and manifesting itself as reality.   Because faculty at one of the CUNY campuses have refused to change their curriculum to match the Pathways Program they are now threatened with the forced dismantling of their department, the non re-appointment of contingent, contractual workers and the possible firing of tenured or tenure track faculty members.

The email in question reads:

We will no longer be able to offer EN-101, 102, or 103 in their current configuration (i.e., four contact hours) as of Fall 2013. Since we don’t have in place courses that will meet the Pathways requirements for the Common Core, we can’t put forward a Fall 2013 schedule of classes that includes English Composition courses. Given that fact, and the resultant dramatic drop in enrollment, we will have to take the following actions:

  • All searches for full time faculty in the English Department will be cancelled immediately;
  • The existing EN 101, 102, and 103 will not be included in the common core, and therefore will not be offered in Fall 13;
  • Beginning March 2013 (our Fall 13 advisement cycle), continuing and new students will be advised to take the common core requirement for I A at another CUNY institution, since the courses will not be available at Queensborough;
  • Neither EN 101 or 103, nor EN 102 will be submitted to the University in the QCC list of ‘gateway’ courses for the English Major (we must submit the list of gateway major courses by October 1, 2012);
  • Of necessity, all adjunct faculty in the English department will be sent letters of non-reappointment for Fall 2013;
  • The reappointment of full time faculty in the English Department will be subject to ability to pay and Fall ’13 enrollment in department courses.

Check out, as well, Student Activism’s article (and this update) on the same embarrassment to higher education.   In brief, the Pathways program seeks to create a common set of credit hours across the curricula of multiple colleges that are part of the CUNY consortium.  In theory, this is to facilitate transfer of credit between campuses and equalize the degrees at all schools. However as many faculty have discovered, in practice this severely weakens the level of education available to students.  This is a prime example of the faculty, who know their student demographic better than the administrators, maintaining that the students are best served by a 4 (credit) hour course and not the new standard 3 hour course.

Apparently, the mission is no longer to educate students to the best of our ability.