In the previous posts, I've covered a lot of ways to improve writing productivity and to avoid writing problems. Some of the suggested strategies are useful to get people started writing regularly (e.g.,
contingency management), to write unselfconsciously (e.g.,
spontaneous writing), and to deal with specific problems (e.g., perfectionism, procrastination). Eventually, however, writers must develop a strategy for the long-term.
The long-term strategy will incorporate some of the short-term techniques, such as writing when fresh (early morning) or having a conducive writing space. But what are the most important factors determining whether a writer becomes highly productive? Based on my own experience and discussions with colleagues, the most successful, highly productive writers have three characteristics:
1. They make writing
the priority in their daily work schedule.
2. They enjoy writing.
3. They continually work to improve their writing.
I certainly did not start out with these characteristics--far from it. Initially, I put other things before writing, which was delayed until I had a block of time to write. I found writing to be a chore, a struggle, and definitely not my idea of fun.
Writing is easy to put off when it's not a priority and is not enjoyable. We have labwork, fieldwork, meetings, administrative tasks and email that demand our immediate attention. We finish a research project and think, "Well, I guess I'd better start thinking about writing something up." There follows a long period of dithering around, staring at the data, hoping that the words will magically jump from our brains onto the page, and when that does not happen we begin wishing that we could just go on collecting more data and not have to worry about authoring a brilliant exposition. Time passes and no real writing progress occurs. Or if it does, the result is pedestrian, unimaginative, and disjointed.
Sound familiar?
If you've been reading the previous posts, you'll know that writing should be done on a regular, daily basis. Binge writing, particularly starting from scratch is the least efficient way of proceeding. Better to write in small increments and to start writing early--not at the end of the study. By developing the habit of daily writing--even for short periods, a scientist can become much more productive than one who only writes in jags.
As I progressed through my career, I went from avoiding writing to writing in binges--essentially waiting until I had all data in hand to begin writing. It was easy to procrastinate because there was always something else that needed my attention. Now, however, I put writing tasks at the top of my list. What this means is that every day I'm in the office, my goal is to write. Everything else is an interruption to the writing. If I have to stop and go over something with a staff member or deal with an administrative issue, it is only an interlude in the writing. As soon as I finish the other task, I go back immediately to the writing. Writing is my default position.
Of course, some days I only manage 30 minutes or an hour of writing. I always have several writing projects underway, and I try to keep them all moving forward. When I only have brief snatches of time, I try to get a few paragraphs or a page done on the newer writing projects. Days that I have longer blocks of time are devoted to the papers that are closer to completion. Once I have a rough draft of all main segments (Introduction through Discussion), I focus completely on that paper until it's finished and submitted. If a paper is accepted, I drop everything to do the revision (a bird in the hand...). That is what I did today--revised an accepted manuscript with minor revision.
The second factor--to enjoy, even love writing--is a bit more difficult to accomplish. For most people, this comes with time and experience, but only if writing problems are consciously avoided. I tend to think about writing experts as being similar to skillful musicians or dancers. The people who are at the top of their field are so good that they make it look easy. But the key to loving what you do--playing music, dancing, or writing--is to reach that stage where you can relax and have fun with it. Some estimates suggest that to become an expert at something, you have to spend about 20,000 hours practicing. That's about ten years--the same amount of time one spends in graduate and post-doctoral work. So if one focuses on writing skills early, beginning in graduate school (or earlier), it's possible to be an expert by the time that first job comes along.
The third factor is that excellent writers constantly work to improve their skills. They never rest on their laurels and think, "Now that I'm an expert, I have nothing else to learn." I read about writing, study other writers' work, try new writing approaches, and think a lot about writing. This may be too much of a good thing for some people, but people who love to write pay a lot of attention to improvement. And this effort pays off.
In coming posts, I'll try to talk about some specific techniques to improve technical (science) writing.
4. This movie was released in 1982. 
In the previous post, I presented photos of fictional female scientists for readers to identify. One commenter pointed out that all of the examples I used were women who were white, skinny, and "hot". Actually, female scientists depicted in popular film might appear to be attractive in a physical sense, but are typically portrayed in subordinate or other stereotypical roles that are less than flattering. In fact, I would argue that how female scientists are portrayed by the media perpetuates negative myths about women's roles. 
I also wanted to explore further the lack of public awareness of women (and men) in science, which I attribute in part to the general lack of information (and curiosity?) about the people behind major scientific accomplishments. I wondered if fictional female scientists were more recognizable based on their broader exposure in popular film. I conducted a very unscientific poll of my relatives to see if they could identify 12 real female scientists vs. 12 fictional female scientists. As you might guess, they knew many of the fictional examples, but only one (or none) of the real examples. The one they knew most about was Dian Fossey...based on the movie "Gorillas in the Mist".
I once was faced with a serious situation involving a mentally unbalanced lab worker. I was co-supervising (along with my husband who was the PI) a young lab technician (whom I'll call "Ted") who began displaying erratic behavior. Ted would fail to show up for work, later claiming to be sick. He misplaced lab supplies and equipment and started accusing others of hiding these items from him. However, he never did anything really alarming in our presence; he was very quiet and appeared to be quite harmless. We never recognized just how disturbed he was during this period. Just as we were contemplating not renewing his contract because of his unexplained absences, Ted suddenly quit. We later learned from graduate students about more bizarre behavior; they did not tell us about it at the time and were apparently trying to "protect" him from being fired.
When your advisor or a peer reviewer writes on your paper comments such as, “unclear” or “ambiguous” or “obtuse”, do you think that s/he:
This post continues the series on principles of scientific writing as described by Gopen and Swan (1990). We are now at the fifth principle, which deals with verbs (again). The following is an example given by Gopen and Swan.
The previous series of posts has focused on what features of scientific writing interfere with reader comprehension and how we can change our writing habits to better meet reader expectations. These ideas are taken from the paper, "The Science of Scientific Writing", by Gopen and Swan (199).
This post continues a series on principles of scientific writing, as proposed by Gopen and Swan (1990). We've already covered the first three principles (to understand the material in this post, you need to read the previous material starting here).
Active versus Passive Voice
Use of the passive voice is prevalent in scientific writing and is a big part of why technical writing can sound stilted (or even "tortured" as CPP puts it): "Data analysis was preceded by log transformation." There are many other examples, perfected by politicians, in which this is carried to the extreme: "Mistakes were made." As illustrated above, the active voice makes sentences come alive--and also tends to require fewer words. 
In the last post, we covered the first principle of scientific writing dealing with subject-verb separation. We are using an example of scientific writing (an abstract) selected randomly from the literature to examine principles of writing proposed by Gopen and Swan (1990). In this post, we'll consider the "stress position" and the "topic position" and how to use these concepts to improve our writing. 
We're talking about the principles of scientific writing introduced by Gopen and Swan (1990). In contrast to rules of grammar, these principles are meant to be guidelines that the author uses in accordance with the writing situation and goals. As we will see later, a choice sometimes must be made between two principles.
This post continues the series on writing, but focuses more specifically on scientific writing. Before your eyes glaze over, let me hasten to add that this will not be your routine discussion of grammar, punctuation, and style. I’m assuming that readers have a basic grasp of these skills.
....is a way to tap into your creative side and quell the self-consciousness that stifles fluent writing. If you have trouble writing smoothly, have trouble thinking of the right words, or cannot seem to write unless you "feel ready to write", then spontaneous writing exercises might help. Even if you are already writing, practicing such techniques can help you generate ideas, raise your consciousness about your writing habits, and lead you toward more fluid and rewarding writing experiences.
