#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?

#14daypaper Part 1. Planning

Welcome! This is the first in a series where I try to write a paper in a fortnight, and document it. If you're wondering, 'why on earth would anyone do this?' check out part one here.

I started by focusing on two things. Firstly, getting my main points clear. Secondly, by identifying gaps in my knowledge so I don't spent far too long on tangential research.

Which begs the question(s): how do you start writing a paper? Do you take it from something you're working on? How do you condense your ideas? Do felt tips help anyone else? 

Day 1

I'm developing this paper from a piece I wrote six months ago, so I start by re-reading the original piece. It's about 4000 words, so I need to cut it down by about half. I use an orange pen to cross out what I don't need and highlight areas I want to keep.

Next, I need to plan the structure of my paper, so I get out my coloured pens and go to work. This is what you can see above. I test out an approach I learned at a recent training session.  Usually, I would write out a long list of things the audience need to know. Instead I map out my key points, and how they relate to each other. I have three main points I'm taking the audience through - they're outlined in orange. Red indicates detail.

This is the basic outline of my paper. Now I need to focus on supporting information or quotes which I already have. These are in lavender.  This leaves the gaps in knowledge I need to fill in to support my arguments. These are in brown.

I'll admit, I feel silly playing with felt tips. However, this approach means that my paper already has a structure. And I know exactly where I need to focus my research.

I finish by re-reading my two primary texts, and review my notes on them.

Day 2

Today I have 5 hours of meetings other projects. By the time I sit down to start work at 3pm, my mind is already occupied. I have a late lunch and write a to-do list for all my other tasks.

Back to the paper. Since lunch hasn't revived me, I decide to review the criticism I read for my original piece. I still have some of the articles I used, so I skim read them. I order additional books from the library. Where I find a useful quote/paragraph, I write it down in full.

Day 3

I arrive at the office for an early start, and the books I ordered yesterday arrive at the library. I carry on taking notes. Even though I read these books 6 months ago, I'm surprised by how much I missed the first time round. (Is this a sign of intellectual progress? Or sloppiness?)

I park that thought, and focus on taking useful notes. I usually scrawl notes, then have to come back to them when I write my first draft. Then, I flail around for the right way to contextualise the quote or the paraphrase. This tends to slow down my writing process.

To try and avoid that, I'm not scrawling notes. I'm taking down quotes in full and phrasing them the way I want to use them in my paper. This is only possible because my felt pen map has made it clear where I need more evidence.

Before I can feel too smug about this, I start feeling a migraine coming on. I go home.

Day 4 (Half Day)

I come to the office straight from work. Since I've been up since 6am, I find my half day is useful for smaller admin tasks. This means I spend most of my day working on other projects.

I plan my reading for tomorrow so I'm ready to get ready.

_____

Using the map has made the first stages of writing the paper much easier than usual. However, I know that I struggle not to go off into research tangents. That'll be the next challenge. 

Evernote for Research

When I started my PhD, I knew a few things:

1. I'm quite disorganised;
2. I vary between taking notes with a pen and paper, and typing notes;
3. Our flat wasn't large enough to accommodate folders of handwritten notes.

I can't remember how I initially discovered Evernote, but it seemed to be a tool that would suit those three things I knew. Tagging might help me keep my notes organised: being able to scan documents would enable me to work flexibly. And I'm not accumulating mountains of paper.

I'm still early on in the literature review stage, but I've found Evernote to be a really useful tool so far. Rather than offer an overview of how it works, I'm going to focus on the pros and cons of using Evernote for research.

(For context, I use the Evernote app on my phone and also on my mobile.)

Pro: Tagging allows me to cross-reference easily.
Tagging features are almost ubiquitous at this point, but it's incredibly useful for writing a thesis. Evernote allows you to apply multiple tags to a single note. So if a secondary text is referring to one primary text, but also has implications for others, I can tag them too.

Since you can search for specific tags, this means that I can easily pull up all the things I've read about The Knight Who Forgave His Father's Slayer, or all the notes I've made that refer to miscellanies. At this early stage, it's useful. In three, four, or five years' time, it will be invaluable.   

Pro: Evernote allows you to use combine different media.
If I find a diagram, image or figure that is useful to my research, I can quickly take a photo on my phone and save it into a note. Rather than having to pause what I'm doing, scan that page and file it with my notes, I can simply snap a photo (including the source) and come back to it later when it's useful.

I don't really have much need to make use of Evernote Web Clipper, but you might find it useful for your research. It's a browser plugin that will 'clip' webpages and save them to Evernote for you. I might start making use of this when preparing for conferences: this would allow me to keep Call for Papers, travel details and drafts in the same notebook.  

Con: You do need an internet connection.
As I'm using Evernote Web, I do need to be within reach of an internet connection to use it. This isn't too much of a problem for me because I don't mind hand-writing notes so I can work offline. But if you don't care to hand write your notes, this might be a consideration.   

Pro: If I'm working on paper, I can scan my notes and access them away from the office.
I didn't want to commit to always having to work at a computer. Sometimes (especially when working on my own ideas), I prefer being able to draw mindmaps, or work in different colours. So, I write my scribbly notes on paper, then scan and attach them to a note. I tag them as usual and can access them later.



Pro: I can take a note when I'm away from my desk.  
Because I've installed the Evernote app on my mobile, I can also take notes on my mobile. I find bus journeys and walking spark my best ideas. I'm much more likely to have my mobile than a pen and paper with me, so I can quickly make a note.

Con: This is not a word processor.
This is one of my few disappointments with Evernote. Which is silly, really, because I don't think it purports to be a word processor replacement.  It does have some useful word processing features like tables, bulletpoints and hyperlinks. This means it is useful for writing drafts. However, for me, I still need Word for anything that requires footnotes. 

 _________

I know using Evernote for a thesis is unconventional (my tutors are still bemused) but it's been 9 months and, for me, it's working well. Do you use Evernote? How have you found it?

A Late Summer Lull

Photo taken by me.

A few weeks ago, I visited home for a week. Although I was back for a family christening, I decided to take full advantage of 'home' being an island. 

I caught up with friends and family. I ate a lot of seafood. I swam in the sea. I went for walks along the cliffs. I didn't check twitter. I read a lot. 

And then I came back. 

And then, not much, really.

It's been just under two weeks since I arrived back and I've been struggling to get back into the pattern of work I'd established. I've been having to use pomodoros to manage my time, otherwise I find myself ankle deep in tabs that have nothing to do with work. 

I think there are a few things that have contributed to this. Firstly, I got out of the habit of getting up early while I was home. I'm most productive before lunch. This means that I'm still struggling to get into my stride before lunch time. Secondly, because I'm focusing on a manuscript collection, I am still reading my primary texts. And - because of a lack of foresight - I am now left with mainly theological texts. Which aren't really my primary area of interest. It isn't that I don't find them interesting, it's just that they don't spark off lots of tidbits and trains of thought like other texts might. This means I'm less motivated to get on with reading them. 

Also linked to this is the fact that there is very little secondary literature on some of these texts. Which gives me less of a framework with which to approach them.

I haven't blogged about this until now because - frankly - I've been too busy beating myself up for this lull. How could I possibly be this demotivated? Why am I so lazy? Am I just too thick to 'get' theological texts? Or am just intellectually immature?

But now that I've sat down and had a stern talk with myself, I'm going to try this instead:

1. Set smaller goals. It's unlikely I'm going to write 4000+ on every grouping of texts this early on. Instead, I'm going to aim for more manageable goals. This week, for example, I want to finish the secondary texts and note down areas I'll explore.
2. Remind myself why I procrastinate, and stop it. Like most people, I procrastinate because I'm a perfectionist. I'd rather do less work than produce shoddy work. So I'm getting strict with myself: as of this week, LeechBlock is going to be back on my browser.
3. Figure out what I need to come back to. These texts are really exposing my unfamiliarity with theology, and reading history scholarship. Which is going straight on the list of areas to explore later.

Does anyone else feel demotivated after taking a break? Any tips would be gratefully received!

Music to Write a PhD By

There are plenty of people I've spoken who say they can't possibly hope to study with music on. There are others who need music on to focus. And then there are people like me: my ability to study with music in the background depends hugely on the type of music and the type of task I'm engaged in. I've found I can't possibly read while I have music on.

 

But writing to music? Is a MUST for me. It sets a pace, keeps my mood up, and help's me focus. Accordingly, for me, writing music must be pacy, upbeat, and instrumental.

Here are some artists/tracks that have been fueling my writing at the moment: what are you listening to? (All hyperlinks are to Spotify; all videos are youtube.)

Roderigo y Gabriella

Roderigo y Gabriella are a Mexican guitar duo who perform intense, often uptempo, guitar duets. Apart from being in awe of how intricately they play, the pacing of a lot of their music is pretty well-matched to my typing speed.

Good for: Intense bursts of writing.

Bach - Brandenburg Concertos

I've had a soft spot for Bach ever since my first year at university: a graduate student tried to explain a chapter Joyce's Ulysses as a fugue and used Bach as an example. (Now that I've written that down, it's a pretty weird sequence, but it did make sense at the time.)

Anyway, the Brandenburg Concertos are A+ writing music. They're musically interesting, but each piece is pretty consistent (there aren't crashing crescendos here). And, some are more laid-back than others, allowing for shorter breaks, or 'down time' in your writing.

Good for: More paced, considered writing.

'How to Train Your Dragon' OST

OK. Before I start, I am obliged to point out that this film is adorable and if you haven't already watched it, you are missing out.

Good. Now that's out of the way and done with, let me explain why I like writing to this album. Like most soundtracks, this one has little motifs that reoccur throughout. And I like these because they catch my attention and (for some strange reason) help me re-focus if my mind is wandering.

Also, I find it hard to listen to 'Test Drive' and not feel a sense of achievement, which is nice when you're writing.

Good for: Air-punching motivation.

I would love to hear your recs for music that gets you writing: I'm always on the lookout for more.

The 17-Step Plan: An Update

(photo credit)

I am trying very hard to adopt writing habits that make writing less stressful. If you'd like to feel as anxious and squirmy as I do when I think about my writing habits, feel free to read back on the post where I detailed the old system: it's here.

In the last piece I produced for my supervisors, I tried my best to adopt an approach that wasn't necessarily quicker, but one which didn't feel so harried.  After writing my last post, I remembered a useful post by Dr. Nadine Muller in which she suggests a way to get over the fear of the blank page. I should state unreservedly here that I LOVE this approach because it means my work plan now looks like this:

1. Plan argument for essay, paragraph-by-paragraph
2. Collate evidence/sources for each paragraph
3. Write first draft: include references as you're writing
4. Review first draft: annotate each section, then type up annotations.
5. Review second draft.
6. Add any additional references
7. Final proof-read
8. Send it off.

The process is now 8 steps, rather than 17. I don't even feel anxious writing it out or anything.

Apart from making the initial act of sitting down to write, this approach had benefits the whole way through the writing process: it meant that references were always to hand, and that I always knew which part of my argument should be coming next. This meant that I was able to side-step any tangents, and resist the urge to cram in just a little more information than was strictly needed. (A chronic habit.)

Having references to hand also made it much easier to give broader context to my arguments (because the quotes/paraphrases I needed were right there). Having references to hand also makes it easier to distinguish between areas where more evidence is needed, and areas where you just need to insert one reference. Ultimately, this results in better writing (if I do say so myself - I'm yet to see if my supervisors agree).

For me, another key element was pacing. I always want to do things as quickly as possible: it's my default setting. (It's also largely the reason that I have so many bruises, cuts and scrapes and any one given time: speed doesn't always equal safety.) Pacing myself meant a few practical steps. It meant pausing to choose the correct phrase, rather than rushing to get something down. It meant working in short bursts, punctuated by long breaks. It meant dedicating nearly three hours to collating all the references I needed. It meant taking some of the pressure off. It meant a happier writing experience.


I can't say this approach was quicker, or less intense.  If you include the time that I spent collating references, I spent over 28 hours producing 4900 words. I don't know if producing that many words in that length of time is 'good' or 'bad.' 

Increasingly, I don't care: adopting this approach meant an intense week, but one that felt -- ultimately -- fulfilling. I haven't yet met with supervisors to discuss this piece. I know it won't be perfect. But taking more time to write means that I now have enough distance to start appraising my own work. 

And for an arch-perfectionist, that objective space is a huge step forwards.

The 17-Step Plan

I've come into this PhD with a determination to try and write often. This is for two reasons: mainly because I want to hone my outcome (my writing). But this determination is just as much because I want to refine the process (how I go about writing).

Here's how my writing process looks at the moment.  After I finish all my reading, and make all my notes, I:

1. Make a brainstorm of criticism and my ideas;
2. Group ideas and number this. Use this as basis for my paragraphs;
3. Wait until tomorrow, because you can't possibly start writing in the middle of the day;
4. Add headers;
5. Crack out 2,000+ words in less than 4 hours;
6. Print off first draft;
7. Wait until tomorrow, because you can't possibly write and proof-read in the same day;
8. Read first draft;
9. Scribble notes all over it;
10. Despair because I have so much editing to do;
11. Spend 3+ hours making corrections/editions and refining my argument;
12. Print off second draft;
13. Wait until tomorrow because you can't possibly write and proof-read in the same day;
14. Despair because I don't want to read it again;
15. Palm it off on husband to proof read;
16. Make corrections as quickly as possible because I don't want to look at it any more;
17. Send off to supervisors with a feeling of dread because it's drained me so much; then
18. Spend the time until my next supervision berating myself for being bad at this writing lark.

It is possible for me to write, but I can't help that feel this isn't the most efficient way to do it: just typing out this 17-step process has made me feel drained, and anxious. However, typing out the process is making me think about which particular elements of this make the process so hard. I'm going to try and suggest a few changes for the next time I write. I might do a follow-up post to see how they go.

Firstly, it takes a few consecutive days. Which as part-timer, I don't have. The intensity of the process (along with my natural tendency to procastinate) means that by the time I finish one stage (usually within a few hours) I run out of motivation to keep going. There are two solutions to this: stop procrastinating (yeah, right) and allow the process to take longer: I'd rather spend 6 hours writing at a manageable pace then spend 3 working flat out and then be drained.

Secondly, my argument changes between my first and second draft. Not majorly, but it often changes in focus or tone. Often I add more evidence. Often I remove points entirely because they suddenly seem weak. I know this isn't unusual; in fact, it's the whole point of editing. But it happens so often, with so many points that it makes me doubt my academic judgement in including them in first place. With the next piece I write, I want to have my ideas clear and present in the first draft, then keep most of the there.

Thirdly, that last draft almost always involves making bitty corrections to references. This one is simple, I think: I need to do my references as I write! More to the point, I need to start using the bibliography function on Microsoft Word. Or finally figure out EndNote...

I'm finally coming up with ideas that I'm proud of, and I think might go somewhere. I'm hoping that if I sort out these areas, I can actually focus on my ideas, not the strain of getting them down on paper.

Of course, in the meantime, I'd love to know what writing blocks you've faced, and how you cope with them.  

On [not] Blogging

It makes sense to talk about why I'm blogging. What I'll blog about, what I'm hoping to gain from it, what I'm hoping the reader will gain from it. These are all good places to start.

Except this isn't where I'm starting. The eagle-eyed among you may have noticed that this is my third post. The even more eagle-eyed among you may notice that I actually registered this blog months and months ago and that I haven't really posted since then.

I would love to say that it's because I've been super busy leading the glamorous life of the part-time student. But I don't think anyone would buy that. Instead, I haven't blogged for one main reason: I'm terrified. I'm terrified that what I have to say isn't important enough. I'm scared that people won't like what they read. I'm scared that my writing won't be eloquent, and that people think what I'm saying is stupid. I'm worried that people will think I'm stupid.

I think it's interesting that the list of things that scares me about blogging is similar to the list of things that scares me about doing a PhD.

Of course, with blogging, there are other things that might make me not good enough. My photography is mediocre at best: I don't have the money for a DSLR, or Photoshop. (Unfunded graduate student here, hi!) If I take photos of myself, I'm not that photogenic. Or comfortable in front of a camera. Or sure what I could achieve.

But even though a PhD and a blog present vastly different challenges, at the root of my fear, there lies exactly the same thing: perfectionism. I've always been redundantly obsessed with getting it right, to the extent that at school I used to re-copy out pages in my exercise book if I'd messed something up.

I'm trying my best to combat my perfectionism in my thesis by writing a lot of unpolished things and -- here's the scary part -- actually sending it to my supervisors. So, why am I letting the blog defeat me? Why is writing something on the internet that (let's be frank) not many people are going to see more scary than early thesis work?

Well, in answer to your questions, self: 1) I will not let the blog defeat me and 2) Blogging isn't scarier than writing. So this post is a start. I don't know what what this blog is going to be or where it's going to go. But I know that I want to document this process, de-mystify it. And I do know that I can contribute to that desire, one post at a time.

So, consider this step one.