The Written Word: ODU Faculty Talk Writing in Their Disciplines
By Annette Finley-Croswhite
Any avid reader of The Chronicle of Higher Education is familiar with Rachel Toor's series "Scholars Talk Writing," in which the Eastern Washington University professor of creative writing interviews award-winning scholars about the writing process. Recent interviews include MIT historian Kate Brown and author-biographer T.J. Stiles. The series inspired me to reach out to successful colleagues from all six colleges at Old Dominion University to query them about their thoughts on scholarly writing. Giving them only a seven-day window, I was grateful and surprised by the enthusiastic responses I received, many of them quite long, all of them reflective, and a few of them, humorous. I posed nine questions and received responses from: John Adam, professor and University Professor, department of mathematics and statistics; Mujde Erten-Unal, associate professor, department of civil and environmental engineering; Kaa Hinton, professor and chair, department of teaching and learning; Shaomin Li, professor and Eminent Scholar, department of management; Drew Lopenzina, associate professor, department of English; John McManus, associate professor, department of English; Shana Pribesh, professor, department of educational foundations and leadership; Carolyn Rutledge, professor and associate chair, department of nursing; and Linda Vahala, associate professor, department of electrical and computer engineering. I interject my own thoughts as well, as professor and University Professor, department of history.
Personally, I can think of nothing quite as rewarding as writing. Boston College professor Carlo Rotella states, "There's a deep craft satisfaction in writing that comes before everything except family." Writing is perhaps the first skill I remember being praised for as a young child and the creative outlet I've worked hard to develop as a lifelong pursuit. But that doesn't mean writing has always been easy for me, although I do believe I've become a better writer over time because of a colleague I often work with who keeps me on a strict schedule. Thinking about the way she writes (favoring long dependent clauses and novelistic flair) has also made me more reflective of how I write (simple, straightforward sentences focused on clarity). My frequent co-author also believes that it's important to read one's work out loud. We've written two books together, and during the writing process we've read the various drafts of those manuscripts aloud over and over. This method is tedious and time consuming, but helps us find the music within language as well as merge our writing into one voice.
What follows are comments on writing from our ODU colleagues. Their responses have been occasionally shortened or lightly edited to provide context.
Can you explain your writing process? In other words, some writers produce lots and edit later. Others "tinker" with sentences until they appear just right. What kind of writer are you?
John McManus: I write novels and short stories and occasionally a short piece of first-person nonfiction. Generally speaking I'll write a first draft without much of an outline beyond some very abstract geometrical drawings that wouldn't make sense to any outside observer. Often, and especially with a novel, the first draft is the thing I have to create to teach myself what the story is really about. I wrote a first draft of my current novel in a few months, but it's taken me years to get it to a state of near-completion.
Kaa Hinton: I'm definitely a focused "free-writer" in the vein of Peter Elbow (Emeritus Professor of English at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and author of books on writing). I get as much as I know out about my topic and worry about reshaping at another time. Sometimes I will start my writing session by rereading and editing what I wrote in the previous one because it motivates me and provides me with direction for the day's writing. If topics are hard or I am unmotivated, I might list or brainstorm and play around with the structure of what I want to write.
Drew Lopenzina: When I sit down to write, the first thing I do is review what I wrote the day before or at the previous sitting, listening as I read for things like flow, clarity, and word choice. Even if this takes up the first forty minutes or so of the time I have set aside for writing, I find this is a good way to get back into my "writerly frame of mind" and it allows me to pick up the rhythm from where I left off. I think of it as productive procrastination. So I am doing the "tinkering" alluded to in the question, but once I've performed this preparatory ritual, I forge ahead into all new writing.
Linda Vahala: My papers are on calculations using equations and analysis. My process includes writing a summary abstract first — which includes a description of the problem/equations and a summary of the results that will be presented. The next section I focus on is the results section — describing the results in comparison to previous work. Then, I move to the next section —which describes the equations/problem. Finally, I explore the background of previous work.
How did you learn to write, and specifically how did you learn to write in your discipline? Did you have a writing mentor or mentors?
Kaa Hinton: I learned to write by reading. I am an imitator. I study sentences and structures and think about how I might improve my writing. I am also devoted to writing practice. In fact, I see all writing as writing practice. As if I am in the gym working on a jump shot or free throw, I practice writing. I think I got this from Natalie Goldberg, author of Writing Down the Bones: Freeing the Writer Within.
Shaomin Li: I learned writing in Chinese. My late father, Honglin Li, was an influential intellectual in China and was a good writer. His 1979 article "There should have been no forbidden topics in reading" in Dushu Magazine denouncing Mao's censorship is still well known. My father emphasized the sound of an article — it must read well. He also emphasized that a good article must be understood by reasonably educated people, not only by scholars in one's field. He would have my stepmother (who did not go to college) read his article and critique it. I learned writing in social science by reading. Since English is not my mother tongue, I pay a great deal of attention to the language aspect of writing. I try to memorize good sentences and expressions. I benefited greatly from reading well-written newspaper commentaries (e.g., The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times). I also benefited from writing for them and working with the editors on the rewriting process.
Mujde Erten-Unal: I learned to write by practicing different kinds of writing. In other words, I wrote technical memos, then my dissertation, then I worked for an engineering firm and I wrote reports and proposals. So, I practiced a lot and in the beginning it was not easy since English is my second language. But then, the more I wrote, the more it got easier. Overall, practicing writing helped me; however, I still struggle with starting to write. Once I get over the introduction, it gets better and faster.
Do you think of writing as part of the scholarly process? Explain.
Drew Lopenzina: I think, for me, writing is the scholarly process. I tell my students that I hardly know myself what I think about a particular text until I start writing about it. Writing is generative — it is a form of deep meditation that allows us to access remote quarters of our thought and pull them together in creative and constructive ways.
John Adam: It most certainly is for me. The fundamental concept for me is communication. If I cannot explain what I do in general terms that are readily accessible to anyone, I think I am all the poorer as a scholar. That's not to say I try to communicate really technical ideas in detail to all audiences, but for me the "big picture" should always be borne in mind when I write.
Mujde Erten-Unal: Yes and no. In industry it is a way of communicating ideas and findings. In academia, it is a scholarly process. In my field, we do experiments, generate and analyze data and explain the results with tables and graphs or figures. I have to have some form of data; I cannot just sit and create a topic and write about it.
Do you enjoy the peer-review process? What do you do about a heavily critical peer review, that mostly negative review scholars often refer to as the "dreaded Reviewer #2?"
Shana Pribesh: I LOVE the peer review process — except for Reviewer #2. Peer review starts with the belief in consensus and that there is a corpus of science that — for now — most accept. The downside is that peer review can stymie innovation and exceptional ideas as well as those who struggle with writing. In my work, I want consensus. Reviewer #2 is often the reviewer who hammers the work. It would be easy to dismiss them as insane, but if I sit with that review for a while, I will find that there is truth buried in the demands. Usually I skim the reviews, drink some wine, let the reviews sit for a week or so and then I start the process of breaking down the reviews. I use a chart that organizes the comments by topic so I can address common areas that the reviewers identified. Sometimes I must diplomatically disagree with Reviewer #2 on some areas, but, truthfully, one can often find ways to address even the harshest concerns.
John Adam: I wouldn't say I enjoy it. It's a necessary process of course, but a heavily critical review can be very discouraging, especially to younger scholars. However, I have found that after putting the review aside (for several weeks perhaps) I can be more objective, and respond accordingly. For example, a couple of summers ago I spent much of my time writing a pretty technical research article, and it was sent to one of the leading researchers in the field. The reviewer was generally supportive of the article, but had many quibbles and perceived corrections to make. Initially I thought of withdrawing the paper because I didn't feel I had the energy to respond, but after a few weeks I sat down and responded point by point. It was clear the reviewer didn't understand or appreciate some of the results I had obtained — and perhaps my poor communication had contributed to that! Nevertheless, the Editor read my responses and accepted the paper the very next day on the basis of my detailed arguments! That was exhilarating!
John McManus: The journals and publishing houses that have published my stories and story collections have editorial boards that do something that's analogous to peer review but nevertheless pretty distinct from it. I've certainly enjoyed working one-on-one with skilled editors to improve my stories; recently at Sarabande (the publisher of my 2015 story collection, Fox Tooth Heart) an excellent editor named Kirby Gann played a crucial role in helping me get certain stories in shape.
Mujde Erten-Unal: I value the peer-review process because even if reviewers criticize my work heavily, and maybe even reject the paper, I can still get their feedback and revise my paper and submit it to another journal.
Kaa Hinton: The review process has been extremely helpful to me. Reviewers push me, and no matter how irate I've been at some of their comments, in the end, they have mostly been right and I have produced better work because of them. When I get a heavily critical review, I read it. Get mad. Argue back. Put it away for a while. Take it out. Highlight where I see their point. Reread it a few days later and then plan my attack.
Do you have a writing ritual, something or some things you might do before you begin writing?
John McManus: Every night before bed I shut my computer and put my phone on airplane mode. In the morning I brew a pot of coffee, read for as long as it takes me to drink my first cup, and then sit down at my desk with my manuscript. On days when I'm not teaching or holding office hours or doing anything else important at school, I'll wait until noon before turning my phone on and learning what's happening in the outside world. Other days I might have to log in as early as 9:30 am. Either way, my best work all happens while I know that no one can interrupt me without knocking on my front door.
Carolyn Rutledge: I pull together the material I need. I usually start in the a.m. early and keep writing until I am done.
Shaomin Li: I get up early, shut down my email and phone and write until noon.
Shana Pribesh: I look at the calendar and start sweating! But really, some folks clean their house and others visit the refrigerator. I do every bit of analysis I can do before I start writing. Then, when I have the story clearly laid out in my mind, I heavily outline the manuscript. Next I write, and I do not worry about citations. I tell the story then go back and fill in the correct citations. This helps me from being sidetracked off the story line, sucked into articles as I search for citations, and ensures that each paragraph starts with a main topic sentence.
Drew Lopenzina: I believe writing is a strict discipline. For the most part I force myself to stay at the computer for five hours. In the end I do not concern myself with how much I have written in a day. I have to stop quite often to sift through my notes or locate important passages I need for a reference or a quote. I try to keep up with my citations while I am writing because I have found it an onerous process to have to go back and track down texts, titles, and page numbers a month or two after the fact. Completing two pages can be a good day of writing. If I remain consistent in this process, I will ultimately get where I am going.
Do you think about audience? Do you only write for other scholars or do you address a wider audience? Do you do both?
John Adam: I try to do both. In my early career the focus was naturally on speaking, writing and publishing for other scholars in my various fields of interest, but now I'm attempting to "give back" by being a resource for others (middle- and high-school teachers in particular), including general audiences. I feel it is important to be able to communicate across the broadest possible spectrum of audiences.
Kaa Hinton: I always think about audience. I select my target journal before I write because I have to have a sense of who I am talking to, what the scholarly conversation there is, and how I might contribute. My preferred audience is teachers. I don't care to talk to other researchers much. I am hoping my work will impact classrooms. I used to blog regularly and I really wanted to reach teachers and parents in that space.
Carolyn Rutledge: I think mainly about the reader and how I want the work to impact them. I also think about changes I would like to see occur as a result of my findings. I try to get the reader passionate about what I am saying.
John McManus: I doubt any of my books will ever be a mass-market paperback, but I do try to write for as wide an audience as possible.
Shaomin Li: I find academics are particularly poorly prepared to write for a wider audience such as op-eds. If we want to disseminate our ideas beyond our peers, we need to learn to write for larger audiences.
What is your favorite kind of reading, when you are reading for pleasure? Do you think that influences how you write, even professionally for your scholarship?
Carolyn Rutledge: Fiction — I use a lot of stories in my writing. I give examples through story. I might tell a story about a patient in a rural area with diabetes and how their situation was before telehealth was introduced and then how it changed as a result of telehealth. (Telehealth uses digital information and telecommunications to support health care, public health and long-distance clinical care.)
Drew Lopenzina: I read novels, histories, poetry, etc. I always keep a book on my nightstand that I read for pleasure. Some of my favorite authors who come to mind are Louise Erdrich, Cormac McCarthy, Toni Morrison, Kurt Vonnegut. In some ways their material runs parallel to the things that I try to write about in my own scholarship. I am constantly influenced and amazed by the ability of great writers to create layered narratives, finding language to address aspects of the human condition that are not always available to be communicated in our face-to-face encounters.
Linda Vahala: I enjoy reading articles in other areas of physics.
What advice might you have for graduate students or tenure-track faculty who need to be productive writer-scholars?
Drew Lopenzina: Time management and discipline are two of the most important keys to success. But I also really advise cultivating a balanced life. There is no need to neglect one's social life or abandon other things we find meaningful .... Balance is so important to maintain sanity. I have mostly achieved that balance throughout my career, cultivating a reputation in my field as a productive and reliable scholar, while still managing to be present for my family and do the things I love.
Carolyn Rutledge: Find the best time to write. Remove all distracters, especially email. Read one's work out loud.
Mujde Erten-Unal: My advice is to work with other scholars and colleagues and collaborate. I noticed that people who have lots of publications do not do it alone; they collaborate. Also, since we are in academia and have graduate students, I highly recommend having one's graduate students submit articles about their theses or dissertations.
Shana Pribesh: It is not my advice, it is Howard Becker's (social scientist and author of Writing for Social Scientists: How to Start and Finish your Thesis, Book or Article). Becker says, "Write a page every day." We get caught up in the idea that we need big chunks of time and quiet to write scholarly work. But somehow we manage to write 30 pages of email drivel each day. Just write a page on a project each day. It does not have to be a good page ... just words on paper. At the end of the semester, progress will have been made.
In three words, what does writing in your discipline mean to you?
John McManus: Telling true stories.
Linda Vahala: Connecting with colleagues.
Mujde Erten-Unal: Data, Analysis, Results.
John Adam: Communication, Excitement, Joy.
SOME WRITING REFERENCES: Classics, Practical, Theoretical, Emotional
Alred, Gerald, Charles T. Brusaw and Walter E. Oliu. The Business Writer's Handbook. 10 ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2010.
Becker, Howard S. Writing for Social Scientists: How to Start and Finish Your Thesis, Book or Article. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007.
Elbow, Peter. Writing with Power; Techniques for Mastering the Writing Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Giles, Timothy D. Motives for Metaphor in Scientific and Technical Communication. Amityville, New York: Baywood, 2007.
Goldberg, Natalie. Writing Down the Bones: Freeing the Writer Within. Shambhala, New York: Radom House, 1986.
Goldbort, Robert. Writing for Science. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2006.
Goodson, Patricia. Becoming an Academic Writer: 50 Exercises for Paced, Productive and Powerful Writing. London: Sage, 2013.
Gottschall, Jonathan. The Storytelling Animal: How Stories Make Us Human. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2012.
Grant, Barbara and Sally Knowles. "Flights of Imagination: Academic Women Be(com)ing Writers." International Journal for Academic Development. 5, no. 1 (2000): 6-19.
Heidegger, Martin. Poetry, Language, Thought. Translated by Albert Hofstadter. New York: Harper Colophon Books, 1971.
Laplante, Phillip. Technical Writing: A Practical Guide for Engineers and Scientists. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2012.
Meredith, Dennis. Explaining Research: How to Reach Key Audiences to Advance Your Work. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Murray, Rowena. Writing for Academic Journals. 3rd ed. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press, 2013.
Nash, Robert J. Liberating Scholarly Writing: The Power of Personal Narrative. New York: Teachers College Press, 2004.
Strunk, William Jr., and E. B. White. The Elements of Style. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2000.
Sword, Helen. Air & Light & Time & Space: How Successful Academics Write. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2017.
Woolf, Virginia. A Room of One's Own. 1929. London: Penguin, 1993.
