#14daypaper Part 5: Lessons Learned

Welcome back to  #14daypaper - the short series in which I try to write a conference paper in a fortnight. As always, this is not the definitive way to write a conference paper. It's just the way that I'm going about writing this particular conference paper.

Introduction: How to Write a Paper in a Fortnight
Part 1. Planning
Part 2. Research
Part 3. Write, Write Again  
Part 4. Fine Tuning
______


1) Everyone writes to their own schedule.
When I've spoken with people about this project, reactions have varied. Some people think 14 days isn't long enough. Others have wondered why on earth it would take so long to write roughly 2,500 words. In short, I've realised I work quite slowly. It's likely that practice will enable me to work more quickly. But I doubt I'll ever be cavalier enough to write a paper on the way to a conference, or while I'm there. 



2) It helps to walk your audience through your ideas.
This (along with 4.) is the most important technique in this whole process. By framing my paper around what the audience knew, I could easily identify where to offer more detail. Focusing on the audience also made it easier to identify where my argument needed to be stronger.  This meant that when I sat down to research my paper, I had a list of things I needed to know. This is useful if - like me - you have a tendency to fall into research rabbit holes.

You don't need to do this with coloured pens or pencils. You could do it in blue biro on a piece of lined A4. But whatever method you choose, focusing on the audience will change the way you write.


3) Taking 'quick notes' can be a false economy.
Like the use of coloured pens, this might be something that only applies to me. I've spent most of my academic life loathing the process of writing. I've always found it to be long-winded, stuttering and dull. This is because my plans always contain either a) a scribbled half-quotation that I can't quite read or b) a note like 'see J.Blogs page 50.' This means pulling out my original notes and rifling through them. Or worse, going through the book or article, and trying to reconstruct which bit of page 50 was relevant.

Writing down quotations in full meant that when I sat down to write, it was surprisingly easy. I didn't use all the quotations I wrote down. In most cases, I re-drafted the contextual sentences I copied down. So, some of the time copying down notes didn't produce results. However - for me - it was worth the extra time because it made writing less painful.

4) First, record yourself. Then, re-draft.
This. I know I've already been harping on about this on twitter. But, really. I found that recording myself reading my paper has improved it for the better.

Firstly, recording myself meant that I could identify which sentences or phrases are jarring when you try and listen to them. This makes sense: papers are heard by our audience, but we write them as though our audience is readers. When I listened back to the recording, some sentences that sound fluent and clever on paper just sounded convoluted. 

Secondly, recording myself - and listening back to the recording - meant that I could identify where my argument got a bit fuzzy, or a bit lost. This has enabled me to go back and tighten up those sections, and make my argument clear. 


Is it a slightly painful process? Yes. Is it awkward? Absolutely. But recording yourself has benefits in a way that practicing in front of someone doesn't.  But I believe it will make it easier for people to engage with the final paper. And, ultimately, the means the paper will do exactly what it's supposed to do: share new research with a broader audience.

_______

And with that, it's done. I have a paper which is almost ready to present. You (hopefully) have come away with something that might help you write your next paper.

I've really enjoyed having a chance to reflect on writing. It can be a fraught process, especially at the start of a PhD. If you've read along with the whole series so far: thank you.

And happy conferencing!

#14daypaper Part 4. Fine Tuning

Welcome back to  #14daypaper - the short series in which I try to write a conference paper in a fortnight. As always, this is not the definitive way to write a conference paper. It's just the way that I'm going about writing this particular conference paper. I would love to hear how you handle these challenges, so please join in the conversation!

Introduction: How to Write a Paper in a Fortnight
Part 1. Planning
Part 2. Research
Part 3. Write, Write Again 


Day 13
That introduction is still irritating me. On reading through my paper again it seems clunky. I spend a good hour or so trying to come up with something that's punchy rather than procedural.

I fail.

Instead, I decide that it's ready for my supervisors. They're both experienced academics and fantastic public speakers. They're also generous with their feedback. I have the usual moment of anticipation/worry/imposter syndrome when I send off the draft. I feel the fear and press 'send' anyway.

In the afternoon, I work on my handout. This involves a lot of quote-checking and fiddly formatting. I'm halfway through  a rant about Microsoft Word I realise the 14 day paper project is almost over.

Day 14
Day 14 actually comes nearly a week after Day 13. Extra work commitments mean I don't have a single PhD day. I meet with my supervisors. I expect them to agree with me that the introduction is haphazard.

Turns out, they love the introduction. But they do pick up on my other weaknesses. Both suggest more on the debates around these texts. After 45 minutes of discussion, we realise that the arguments I'm making should - really - lead to an entirely different conclusion. This is a little embarrassing. (Who writes a paper that doesn't support the conclusions they draw?) But, thinking this through now changes how I think about this codex as a whole.

I leave the supervision a little flat. All I can think about is how there's still so much work to be done. After wallowing a little, I get some perspective. This paper will be better for that work. Ultimately, the thesis will be better.

_________


And with that, the 14 day period is over. And my paper is not finished, exactly. Admittedly, I could give the paper as it is. But I also want to make it as good as it can be. Is this how other people approach papers: always striving to improve them? Or is done good enough for you?


While I make my revisions, I'll also think about what this experience has taught me. So there's one part left to go in this series.

#14daypaper Part 3. Write, Write Again

Welcome back to  #14daypaper - the short series in which I try to write a conference paper in a fortnight. As always, this is not the definitive way to write a conference paper. It's just the way that I'm going about writing this particular conference paper. I would love to hear how you handle these challenges, so please join in the conversation!

Introduction: How to Write a Paper in a Fortnight
Part 1. Planning
Part 2. Research


Day 9 (Half Day)

Extra work pressures mean that I only have a day and a half of PhD time this week. I get through my admin tasks surprisingly quickly. With no excuses left, and a full plan, I start writing. At this point, I remember something: introductions are HARD.  Or rather, I find them hard.

I know historians have a habit of start by describing a moment, an event, or a quote. I'm trying to do the same. Since I'm late Medievalist, this (of course) means quoting Chaucer. But there's a fundamental problem: I find this method effective when other people do it. But when I do it? I want to punch myself.

I cringe and keep going. By the end of the afternoon, I've written the literature review section. 600+ words down. I congratulate myself and spend the night knitting.

Day 10 
I write best in campus computer rooms. With this in mind, I arrive early and start writing. Within three hours, I have a first draft. Hurrah! After running some errands and having lunch, I begin re-drafting. I re-draft using a pen and paper because I find it easier. Most of my edits are to clarify points. I take this as a good sign: no restructuring!

The only problem: that Chaucer-themed introduction still seems a little tenuous. I spend ages fiddling with it, re-writing it in my head, approaching it in different ways. Finally, I accept what I have.

Since it's Friday, I'm heading out for beer and pizza with my other half. I end the day feeling pleased with my progress. But also mindful that I only have four days left!

Day 11 (Half Day)
Studying part-time means it's hard to build momentum for writing and redrafting. I come back to my fist draft 5 days after making my initial edits. I type up my edits. 

In the evening, I seek feedback from my first port of call: my husband. Usually, he reads a printed copy of the paper. I suggest something different. I read the paper to him, as if I were presenting. I figure that what is clear on paper isn't always clear when read aloud. I feel  self-conscious, but this helps. He identifies a few areas where the argument isn't 100% clear. He's also thinks the Chaucer introduction needs more clarity. I take notes.

Day 12
Usually, I do a lot of ad-libbing when reading papers. While ad-libbing works for training, it doesn't always work for presenting a paper. So, today I focus on polishing the paper so I can avoid ad-libbing myself into a tangent.

I record myself reading the paper aloud. Like last night, I feel self-conscious. And I feel even more self-conscious listening back to my recording. I sound posh and pompus, but also young and terrified.

However! This is a brilliant approach. So much of the phrasing that works in written pieces doesn't work when speaking aloud. Recording means I can correct these now, rather than risk being unclear. 

________

And with that, I only have two days left. I still need to design my power point. I also need to design a handout so that the audience has quotes to hand. But at this stage? I feel good. I have a lot focus because I know that I'm going to have to document my progress.

But I still struggle with my introduction. And I'm having a crisis of confidence about using handout. What are your thoughts? How do you approach introductions? And are handouts passe? I'd love to hear your thoughts!
 

#14daypaper Part 2. Research

Welcome back to #14daypaper, the short series in which I try to write a conference paper in a fortnight. So far, I've explained a bit about why I'm doing this. I've also talked a bit about my attempts to write a good plan:

Introduction: How to Write a Paper in a Fortnight

Part 1. Planning

As always, this is not the definitive way to write a conference paper. It's just the way that I'm going about writing this particular conference paper. I would love to hear how you handle these challenges.

Day 5

After making a reading list yesterday, I know which texts I need to revisit. I also have a few leads for further research on a few key points. This is where I run into a slight problem. 

My paper compares two texts that appear alongside each other in a manuscript. One text is a version of a saints' life, so there's plenty of research material. My other text is more obscure - it's an extract from a longer text. Finding any sustained reference to my text proves difficult. After spending most of the day researching, I can only find dismissals of the genre. I can't even find any critical dismissals of this specific text.

I have a tendency to neglect secondary criticism when I write a paper. However, if I don't have any criticism, what can I do? Should I mention this in my paper? Is it a strength? Or does it make seem like I'm studying nonsense?

Day 6

I have my monthly volunteering session in the morning. After lunch, I sit down to work. I compare my obscure text with the original. I read them side-by-side to see if there are any differences that are relevant to my argument. No luck: apart from a few lines, they're the same. 

I've now filled all the gaps in my knowledge that I identified on Day 1. This means I'm ready to start planning. I follow Nadine Muller's fantastic advice and collate all my notes  and evidence in one document. I then arrange them under one-sentence headers that outline each part of my argument.

This means that tomorrow, I'll just take my evidence, link them together, and write a first draft. Out of curiosity, I check my word count. I have 1200 words already: I'm worried this paper might end up being too long.

Day 7 and Day 8 

I wake up halfway through the night with excruciating stomach cramps. I'm not sure what's caused it, but I spend the next two days between the bed and the bathroom with a tummy bug.

During the long nights, I listen to the World Service to distract myself from the pain. After hearing a piece about Donald Trump, I then have a feverish nightmare where he tells me my paper is crap. Hurrah!

_______________

And on that terrifying note, I've lost two days of writing to Trump-related dreams and stomach cramps. And I still don't know how to approach the fact that one of my pieces is largely unstudied.

Does a lack of existing criticism position a paper as pioneering? Or does it make the speaker seem like they're studying trash?