Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Name that Fictional Female Scientist

It's time to wrap up the fictional female scientist challenge.  There are still four unidentified characters (see list to right).  I'm going to provide a few hints and give 24 hours to submit the final four.  The clues will lead you either to the title of the movie or to the character herself.

If you can identify three keywords (each taken from the description of a photo), they will lead you directly to the movie and then to the character.  Think of it as an electronic treasure hunt. 

Here are the clues listed by number:

4. This movie was released in 1982. 


















#6 This movie was released in 1989


















#8 This movie was released in 1992.


















#12 This movie was released in 2009.

Monday, December 28, 2009

Onslaught(er)

I included a video in the previous post called "Onslaught", I used the video to illustrate the massive pressure on females to conform to certain standards of "beauty".  But there's a bit more to the story.  Take a look at the video again:



It did not escape my attention that this video was produced by the "Dove Self Esteem Fund".  This is the same Dove that makes beauty products.  The idea behind this fund is to "help free the next generation from self-limiting beauty stereotypes".  This strategy should sound familiar.  Think cigarette manufacturers and their campaigns to stop youth smoking; chemical companies that pollute the environment and their environmental campaigns (the "human element" of Dow).

Greenpeace especially did not think much of the hypocritical concern about female self-esteem displayed in the Dove video.  Their disgust focused on the fact that beauty products such as Dove soap are made at the expense of the environment.  Greenpeace produced a counter-video called "Dove Onslaught(er)", which is a pretty good take-off on the Dove video.  Here it is:



The Greenpeace video apparently struck a nerve, mobilizing massive public support of their "Dove campaign", calling attention to the connection between Dove and the destruction of forests in South East Asia.  Unilever, maker of Dove products, has apparently knuckled under (according to Greenpeace) and agreed to help save the lowland forests of South East Asia. As the biggest single buyer of palm oil in the world, Unilever supposedly agreed to support the call by Greenpeace for an immediate moratorium on deforestation for palm oil plantations and to encourage other beauty product companies to do the same.

The Dove video has had 610,439 views and the Greenpeace video has had 1,047,847 views on YouTube.

I'm not sure what the message of this post is.  Beauty comes at a price--in more ways than one?  

Sunday, December 27, 2009

Are All Female Scientists White, Skinny, and "Hot"?

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 previously discussed the six main stereotypes of female scientists in the cinema: the old maid, the male woman, the naive expert, the evil plotter, the female assistant or daughter, and the lonely heroine.  None of these stereotypes could be characterized as being flattering, regardless of how "attractive" the actor happens to be.

Why should we care about how women scientists are portrayed in movies?  Mainly, the reason we should be concerned is that film is important in influencing the public's perception of scientists.  Most people never meet a scientist and so get their impressions about us from movies and TV.  Unfortunately, Hollywood has traditionally marginalized and sexualized women in science roles in the movies.  Although many of the fictional characters I selected were physically attractive, the roles they played sent negative messages about women who go into science.  These negative (and often conflicting) images are absorbed by adolescent girls and young women whose career choices are influenced by their perceptions of feminine roles.  How they will be perceived by society in the career they choose is very important to adolescents, especially girls.

In addition to identifying fictional female scientists, I also asked readers to identify a series of photographs depicting real female scientists.  I had a couple of objectives to these exercises.  One was to explore the fact that female scientists who have made major contributions are not well known.  A second objective was to relate the portrayal of female scientists in popular film to society's perceptions of women in science.

What set me off on this tangent was a comment by a student lamenting the fact that there are few female role models or mentors in science, which seems to be a common complaint among female science students.  Ironically, these same students often cannot name more than one or two famous female scientists, when in fact, there are dozens of notable women in science going back at least to the time of Aristotle.

When I was in undergraduate and graduate school, there were no female mentors for me.  So I searched out women in history who had accomplished remarkable things and read all I could about them.  A number of them wrote books or had biographies written about them, which provided a great deal of insight into how they overcame barriers and other useful information.  By reading books they wrote, I began to feel as if I knew them, even if they had died long before I was born.  Through their writing, I was privy to their innermost thoughts, dreams and aspirations. 

Of course, reading is not the same as having a live person to talk to or work with.  On the other hand, reading about how a variety of women navigated their way in different scientific fields provided a broader perspective for me than interacting with a single live person.  Not all of the heroines I studied were scientific researchers.  Some were naturalists, explorers, or inventors.  All, however, had something to teach me.  By reading about the enormous obstacles that some of them overcame, I was better prepared to deal with the more mundane problems I would eventually encounter during my career.  Some of my favorites were Mary Kingsley (Travels in West Africa), May Theilgaard Watts (Reading the Landscape of America), and Beryl Markham (West with the Night).

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 think that we could do a much better job of raising awareness of women's contributions to science and improving the public's perception of science as a viable career for women.  We can't depend on Hollywood or the news media to do it for us.  What we can do is tell our own stories.  The internet has opened up a door for us, making it easier to convey information about ourselves as scientists.  I think that female scientists through blogs, media interviews, and other means have an opportunity to convey more positive images of women in science and dispel some of the myths and stereotypes that have prevailed in the past.

As for what effect the media's portrayal of women has...see this video:

Monday, December 21, 2009

Fictional Female Scientists

Well, it took less than 24 hours to identify all twelve photos of notable women scientists and naturalists.  I was sure at least a couple of them would stump you a bit longer.  I'm guessing Google helped with those harder ones.  Although I was impressed with how many were quickly identified, I don't think that anyone recognized all twelve photos (I've moved the list identifying the photos to the very bottom of the page).

My selection was somewhat arbitrary, although I tried to have representatives from different countries and different scientific fields and types of accomplishments.  There are certainly many more notable women who could have been highlighted, as some of you noted.  However, the twelve I selected served to illustrate my point, which is that even those of use who are scientists and female don't know many of these women who have made substantial contributions.

The thought occurred to me, however, that perhaps female scientists in popular film were more identifiable than real scientists.  Just for fun, here are twelve more photos--this time of fictional female scientists.  Can you identify them?  What I'm looking for is the name of the character, their scientific specialty, and the movie in which they appeared. 

Answers can be found at the very bottom of the main page.

Sunday, December 20, 2009

Famous Female Scientists

One of my favorite exam questions for female students is to name five well-known scientists who are female.  I ask for the name, the field of study, and specifically what she discovered or became famous for doing.  I'm looking for names of women whose accomplishments are recognized beyond their own field.  I have yet to find a student who can name more than two or three women.  Most often named is Marie Curie, but students usually cannot explain precisely what she did.  Second is Jane Goodall, and students do a better job of explaining her work.  Then the students typically become stumped and ask if naming me counts (it doesn't).

Some students seem to think that there aren't very many notable women scientists and that it's not possible to name more than two or three.  I name several for them and suggest that there are quite a few more, but that their stories are just not well known.  I do find that female students are more curious about this question than about other questions asked of them during exams.  Most students become interested enough to seek out books describing famous female scientists and inventors--they often contact me later to say that they really enjoyed reading about such women.


A recent survey (Women, Science and Success: The New Face of Innovation) showed that 65% of Americans could not name a single female scientist.  Take a look at the photos above and see how many of these notable female scientists and naturalists you can name.  Their correct identification and accomplishments can be found at the very bottom of the page (scroll all the way down).

Saturday, December 19, 2009

More Bizarre Behavior

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.

Ted was ultimately committed to a psychiatric institution with a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia.  He escaped from the institution and went to Washington, DC where he spent about a year trying to get in to see various members of Congress.  We later learned that he was telling people my husband was an international spy who was controlling his mind (Ted at first thought it was the graduate students in our lab, but later decided that it had to be the PI).

After having no luck in DC, he came back to our city and began stalking my husband.  Ted managed to talk to several professors and administrators at our university regarding his suspicions about my husband.  I was by this time uneasy, because Ted was quite smart and had been a chemistry major (think bombs, poison).  I knew it was just a matter of time before he decided that if he eliminated the person controlling his mind (my husband), his problems would be solved.

His parents in the meantime were frantically trying to have him picked up and re-institutionalized.  We would let them know when he showed up, but by the time anyone arrived, he had slipped away.  He continued to elude the local deputy sheriffs who were searching for him.  After a while, he went back to DC.

Unfortunately, the story has an unhappy ending.  Ted was living on the street in DC, where someone stabbed and killed him.

My husband and I were both quite young, just out of graduate school when this happened.  We had never been faced with a mentally unbalanced associate before.  Now, if someone in my lab showed a sudden change in personality or exhibited behavior that frightened other employees, I would be more proactive in getting help.

Here are some recommendations from the experts for PIs in such a situation:

1.  Conduct a discreet interview with the employee and treat the discussion as confidential.  The purpose of the interview is for you to determine if there is a problem and if the employee is still capable of carrying out their job duties.  If other employees have complained about specific behavior, bring this up in the context of concern about the work environment and meeting project deadlines (I would avoid saying that co-workers have complained and instead say something like, "I've noticed that you seem to be upset about something...are late turning in work....have come in late on several occasions....etc.").

2.  Have questions written out beforehand and keep notes during the interview.

3.  Refrain from any diagnosis or discussion of "mental health"; if the employee expresses problems of that nature, encourage them to seek help (perhaps refer them to an employee assistance program, if available).  Explain that your purpose is to help them get help if they want it (don't try to force it on them though).

4.  If the situation warrants, turn it over to HR (perhaps coordinate your actions with them).  I've found that it's always safer to talk with someone in HR to let them know that there is a potential problem and what your plan of action is going to be.  Note that discussing the situation with HR does not constitute defamation, which involves false statements.  It is your responsibility to ensure a safe working environment for all your employees, and you must take action if the workplace is disrupted by an employee's actions.

5. If the complaining employees are female, you might be dealing with a sexual harassment charge. As the PI and supervisor, it is your responsibility to take action in such cases.  Failure to do so could be costly for you and your institution.  Also keep in mind that it is the perception of harassment on the part of the victim that is the key issue, not your viewpoint.  It does not matter if you are certain there is no harassment.  If the victim(s) perceive any actions as being sexual harassment, then you must take steps to investigate. 

6.  In most situations, it is illegal to take action against an employee based solely on their mental or emotional condition (real or perceived).  However, if their behavior affects the employer's operation, then you have reason to take action.

7.  If the employee makes overt threats of harm to him/herself or to others, contact local law enforcement immediately.

The above recommendations are based in part on comments by G. Frederick Compton, Jr., JD, Partner, Roetzel & Andress Law Firm--originally published at www.principalinvestigators.org.







Friday, December 18, 2009

CPR for Bad Scientific Writing

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:

a)    is just picking on you
b)    doesn’t understand your unique “style”
c)    is making a subjective judgment
d)    might be right

If you picked d, you have taken the first step toward becoming a good writer. 

It’s true that some professors are a bit obsessed with grammar and punctuation, but the real obstacle to good scientific writing is poor style.  In fact, a paragraph with proper punctuation and grammar might be utterly incomprehensible, whereas one that has not followed grammatical rules is perfectly clear in its message.  Consider the following grammatically correct sentence:

Increasing foreign competition and technological change, in a variety of forms, are now, as they always have been, disrupting various well-established patterns in terms of industrial organization.

Difficult to understand, right?  That’s because the style is poor. 

Next, consider an ungrammatical, but quite understandable sentence:

The material applied to the blades of wind turbines age rapidly in tests.

It should be obvious that the first example would be much more difficult for an editor to fix than the second example.  I’m not saying that you should neglect grammar and punctuation.  My point is that style is crucial.

What you should strive for, above all else, is clarity in your writing style.  Clarity is an aspect of style that is particularly relevant to scientific writing, but is one of the most difficult for some scientists to achieve. So how do you develop clarity and other stylistic goals? 

If you are having extreme difficulty, there are a few things you can do immediately.  By attending to three aspects of writing: concision, precision, and revision (CPR), you can quickly improve your technical writing.

Concision

Begin by eliminating all unnecessary or meaningless words:  “it is noted”, “as we have seen”, “in terms of”.  By dropping extraneous words, we not only reduce the wordiness, but can better see what other revisions are necessary.

Precision

Precision can be improved by selecting those phrases that are not exact in their meaning and rewriting them.  Pay particular attention to those noun clusters that scientists are so fond of: “nutrient use efficiency respiratory rates” or “plant trait plasticity variation” The best way to improve a paragraph’s meaning is to choose clear, meaningful nouns and follow them with verbs that explain the noun’s meaning in the sentence: “Plasticity of plant traits varies among species.”

Revision

After cleansing our writing of excess verbiage and improving the meaning of the remaining words, we can now revise and improve the style of the writing.  The preceding posts provide guidance as to how to make transitions from one sentence to the next and to meet reader expectations in sentence structure.  However, some very simple approaches such as using connecting words (this, also, as well as, recently) will go a long way toward improving the reader’s understanding.

To take the next steps in improving your technical writing skills, you must delve into writing guides, particularly ones that focus on style and clarity.  The best known of these is The Elements of Style by Strunk and White.  There are many others readily found on the internet.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

How To Handle Bizarre Behavior

Let's take a break from discussing scientific writing to consider some other concerns that PIs occasionally encounter and must respond to.

Today, I came across the following question in an e-zine for Principal Investigators:


One of my lab technicians has begun talking to himself and has become very argumentative. Several of my staff have confided they are worried he is developing a mental disorder--and thus we could be heading for some episode of "workplace violence". As PI and his supervisor, may I legally interview him about these personality changes? Should I? If I refer the matter to our institute's Human Resources department, could the technician accuse me of "defamation of character"? Do I have any duty to do something or anything?


If you are a PI, how would you handle this?  If you are a technician, post-doc, or student working in a lab with such a person, what would you do, if anything?  What would you want the PI and/or HR do?

Monday, December 14, 2009

Closing the Gap



"It may seem obvious that a scientific document is incomplete without the interpretation of the writer; it may not be so obvious that the document cannot "exist"without the interpretation of each reader."~Gopen and Swan (1990)


This is the final post in the series on the "Science of Scientific Writing" by the authors cited above.  The objective of their paper was to introduce some principles of writing that will help to close the gap between writer interpretation and reader comprehension. 

In the previous posts, we've worked through five principles designed to improve comprehension of scientific writing.  There are two more principles that provide further guidance in writing to meet reader expectations.  Here's number six:

In general, provide context for your reader before asking that reader to consider anything new.

When the writer fails to provide context, the reader is left floundering.  Writers often neglect to provide context because the information seems obvious to them and they fail to recognize that the reader may not be similarly acquainted.

The earthquake example we considered in previous posts did not provide context for the abstract, but instead jumped right into the technical information:

Large earthquakes along a given fault segment do not occur at random intervals because it takes time to accumulate the strain energy for the rupture. The rates at which tectonic plates move and accumulate strain at their boundaries are approximately uniform....rest of abstract.

Isabella's version added the necessary context by explaining in the first sentence that this discourse was about how strain buildup causes earthquakes:

Earthquakes occur when a certain amount of strain caused by the movement of tectonic plates has been accumulated. 

The reader is now prepared mentally to consider more technical aspects of earthquake frequency.  As the writer proceeds through the technical information, she should provide context for each new bit of information introduced in the piece.  This approach requires that the writer ask herself if the reader will understand what is being introduced in each succeeding sentence or if some explanation or backward linkage to "old information" is required.


We've now come to the final principle, which is:

In general, try to ensure that the relative emphases of the substance coincide with the relative expectations for emphasis raised by the structure.

The foregoing principles relate to sentence structure and how it sets up reader expectations.  For example, the reader expects to see the person or thing that the discourse is about in the "topic position" near the beginning of the sentence.

Squirrels hide acorns. The topic is squirrels.
Acorns are hidden by squirrels.  The topic is acorns (or oak trees, seed dispersal).

The writer must choose the appropriate sentence structure that is consistent with both the material being presented and with reader expectations.  If the reader has been told that the discourse is about acorns and seed dispersal, then the second sentence provides the substance to be emphasized in the expected position in the sentence.

We've now covered all seven principles of scientific writing:

 1.  Follow a grammatical subject as soon as possible with its verb.
 2.  Place in the stress position the "new information" you want the reader to emphasize.
 3.  Place the person or thing whose "story" a sentence is telling at the beginning of the sentence, in the topic position.
 4.  Place appropriate "old information" (material already stated in the discourse) in the topic position for linkage backward and contextualization forward.
 5.  Articulate the action of every clause or sentence in its verb.
 6.  In general, provide context for your reader before asking that reader to consider anything new.
 7.  In general, try to ensure that the relative emphases of the substance coincide with the relative expectations for emphasis raised by the structure. 




Keep in mind that these are principles, not rules.  You will not necessarily be able to apply all seven in every sentence or even in every paragraph.  In some cases, you may have to make a choice between two structures. Also, some highly skilled writers can violate reader expectations quite effectively, for example to make a memorable point.  

The key is to recognize when you consistently violate reader expectations in one or more of these principles.  A writer who continually fails to put new information in the stress position during early writing attempts typically continues that structural pattern in subsequent writing.  It becomes a habit that is difficult to break, particularly if the writer is unaware of how it affects reader comprehension.  If you get reviewer comments that your writing is "unclear" or "ambiguous" on a frequent basis, you may be violating one of these principles.

As a further exercise, I suggest you select a couple of papers in your field--one that you think is particularly good (clear, understandable, compelling) and another that is difficult to follow, that requires frequent rereading of sentences to understand.  From those papers select a paragraph or two and dissect them based on what we've covered in this series.  I think you'll find that the better paper adheres to the seven principles, and the difficult paper violates one or more of them.  By doing this exercise with someone else's writing, you develop an "eye" for discourse that needs revision to improve reader comprehension.  Once you've become proficient at spotting problematic structure in other writings, then you are prepared to tackle your own writing.

Editing your own writing is not as easy as it sounds.  It's easy to become enamored of your own words and sentence structures and are loathe to change them.  I find this infatuation with one's own words quite insidious and difficult to overcome.  Students are particularly prone to this condition.  They think that every sentence is a pearl of wisdom that needs no revision.  So they are quite shocked to get their work returned, and it is covered with "red ink".  Some are so obstinate that they refuse to make the suggested changes (which is why I always keep a copy of my marked-up version to compare with their revision). Such students never improve and continue to have increasingly difficult problems.  Other students learn quickly because they take the time to consider what their mistakes were and why they need revision. 

Even seasoned writers have this problem of falling in love with their writing (maybe even more so than others).  However, that sentence, which you worked so hard to produce and that are now so proud of, may be confusing to the reader.  If it is, it needs to be revised.  You must learn to be ruthless with your own writing.  If you find yourself balking at changing a sentence you know to be flawed, tell yourself that the new sentence will also be your creation and an even better one than the original.  I also agree with the common advice of putting your writing away for awhile to get some distance from it.  By distancing yourself, you not only can take a fresh look at your writing at a later date, but you minimize your feeling of ownership.  With a less possessive attitude, you can more easily rearrange and discard words.

I hope readers have learned something in this series.  I know I have.  It's made me take an even closer look at my writing tendencies and in particular my favorite sentence structures that need improvement.  I still find myself falling back into bad habits on occasion, but now I can more easily spot those indiscretions.  By becoming aware of how poor constructions affect reader comprehension, we can resist and consciously change such habits.

Sunday, December 13, 2009

Reader Eggspectations


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.

See if you can figure out the problem.

Transcription of the 5S RNA genes in the egg extract is TFIIIA-dependent. This is surprising, because the concentration of TFIIIA is the same as in the oocyte nuclear extract. The other transcription factors and RNA polymerase III are presumed to be in excess over available TFIIIA, because tRNA genes are transcribed in the egg extract. The addition of egg extract to the oocyte nuclear extract has two effects on transcription efficiency. First, there is a general inhibition of transcription that can be alleviated in part by supplementation with high concentrations of RNA polymerase III.  Second, egg extract destabilizes transcription complexes formed with oocyte but not somatic 5S RNA genes.

If you've been following along, you should be able to identify some of the problems with this passage.  However, one of the main problems here is that the topics are apparent, but not what they are supposed to be doing.  Readers expect the action of a sentence to be articulated by the verb.  This passage violates that expectation.

Here are the verbs from that paragraph:

     is
     is...is
     are presumed to be
     are transcribed
     has
     is...can be alleviated
     destabilizes

Just looking at this list, we recognize that the passage tells us very little about what actions are actually taking place.

Here is the revision with the new verbs highlighted:

In the egg extract, the availability of TFIIIA limits transcription of the 5S RNA genes. This is surprising because the same concentration of TFIIIA does not limit transcription in the oocyte nuclear extract. In the egg extract, transcription is not limited by RNA polymerase or other factors because transcription of tRNA genes indicates that these factors are in excess over available TFIIIA. When added to the nuclear extract, the egg extract affected the efficiency of transcription in two ways. First, it inhibited transcription generally; this inhibition could be alleviated in part by supplementing the mixture with high concentrations of RNA polymerase III. Second, the egg extract destabilized transcription complexes formed by oocyte but not by somatic 5S genes.

This revision does not fix all the problems, but goes a long way toward improving comprehension.  The verbs are now telling us something about what actions were taken in this study.  Without knowing more about the topic and what the authors were really trying to get across, it's difficult to do more with it.  However, it serves to illustrate the fifth principle:

Articulate the action of every clause or sentence in its verb.

Friday, December 11, 2009

How to Improve Comprehension of Scientific Writing


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).

In this post, I will show how Gopen and Swan revised the previous writing example to improve comprehension.  The writing principle we are considering requires that for each sentence, a backward linkage is made to "old information" and new information is positioned for contextualization forward.  The first step is to identify the new material in each sentence that should be emphasized.  I've highlighted these phrases in yellow:

Large earthquakes along a given fault segment do not occur at random intervals because it takes time to accumulate the strain energy for the rupture. The rates at which tectonic plates move and accumulate strain at their boundaries are approximately uniform. Therefore, in first approximation, one may expect that large ruptures of the same fault segment will occur at approximately constant time intervals. If subsequent main shocks have different amounts of slip across the fault, then the recurrence time may vary, and the basic idea of periodic mainshocks must be modified. For great plate boundary ruptures the length and slip often vary by a factor of 2. Along the southern segment of the San Andreas fault the recurrence interval is 145 years with variations of several decades. The smaller the standard deviation of the average recurrence interval, the more specific could be the long term prediction of a future mainshock

What needs to be done for each sentence is listed below:

   1. The backward-linking old information appears in the topic position.
   2. The person, thing or concept whose story it is appears in the topic position.
   3. The new, emphasis-worthy information appears in the stress position. 




Here is the revision suggested by Gopen and Swan based on the above guidelines, with the new information (in the stress position) highlighted in yellow and the old information (backward linkage) highlighted in pink:

Large earthquakes along a given fault segment do not occur at random intervals because it takes time to accumulate the strain energy for the rupture. The rates at which tectonic plates move and accumulate strain at their boundaries are roughly uniform. Therefore, nearly constant time intervals (at first approximation) would be expected between large ruptures of the same fault segment. [However?], the recurrence time may vary; the basic idea of periodic mainshocks may need to be modified if subsequent mainshocks have different amounts of slip across the fault. [Indeed?], the length and slip of great plate boundary ruptures often vary by a factor of 2. [For example?], the recurrence intervals along the southern segment of the San Andreas fault is 145 years with variations of several decades. The smaller the standard deviation of the average recurrence interval, the more specific could be the long term prediction of a future mainshock

So, how did you do?  Check out Isabella's version of this paragraph--I find hers easier to understand than Gopen and Swan's revision.  Her revision is written in simple, straightforward language and only needs a bit of polishing.  Here is my modification to her version:

Earthquakes occur when a certain amount of strain caused by the movement of tectonic plates has been accumulated. The rates of these movements at the boundaries of tectonic plates are roughly uniform, leading to the expectation that large earthquakes along a given fault segment occur at nearly constant and nonrandom time intervals (at first approximation), because it takes time to accumulate the strain energy for the rupture. However, if subsequent main shocks have different amounts of slip across the fault, then the recurrence time may vary, and the basic idea of periodic mainshocks must be modified.  For great plate boundary ruptures, the length and slip often vary by a factor of 2, resulting in a large standard deviation of the average recurrence interval, which leads to a less specific long-term prediction of a future mainshock. For example, along the southern segment of the San Andreas fault the recurrence interval is 145 years with variations of several decades.

Gopen and Swan state that in their experience, "the misplacement of old and new information turns out to be the No. 1 problem in American professional writing today."

The fourth principle can be stated as:

Place appropriate "old information" (material already stated in the discourse) in the topic position for linkage backward and contextualization forward. 

I find this principle the most difficult one to apply routinely to my writing because as a writer I am anxious to get my idea (the new stuff) down before I forget my brilliant thought.  Consequently, the temptation is to rush the new information and forget to provide backward linking and context for it.  However, by doing this we only address our needs, not the needs of the reader.

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Scientific Writing Principles Cont'd

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).
  
Readers expect a unit of discourse (a sentence) to be a story about whoever or whatever is mentioned first, i.e., in the topic position.  The example I've been using is "squirrels hide acorns" versus "acorns are hidden by squirrels".  The first version suggests the focus is on squirrels, whereas the second one indicates the focus is on oak trees and/or seed dispersal.  These examples also illustrate active versus passive voice.

The importance of the topic position forms the third principle of scientific writing:

Place the person or thing whose "story" a sentence is telling at the beginning of the sentence,  in the topic position. 

Another expectation for material in the topic position is that it provides a linkage backward (to previous information).   Previously introduced material is called "old information", and its placement in the topic position helps readers follow the author's logic.  Now we consider the fourth principle, which can be stated this way:

Place appropriate "old information" (material already stated in the discourse) in the topic position for linkage backward and put in the stress position the information you want the reader to emphasize (for contextualization forward).

Have we done this with our example?  In the abstract below, I've highlighted in pink the "old information" that should be in the topic position.  New information (yellow) should be in the "stress position" for contextualization forward.

The discrete-dipole approximation (DDA) is [often] used in scattering calculations, but its accuracy is unclear in relation to that of other computational methods such as complex-conjugate gradient algorithms and fast-Fourier-transform methods.  The accuracy of the DDA was tested in computations of scattering and absorption by different targets: isolated, homogeneous spheres and two contiguous spheres. For dielectric materials (¦m¦ ≲ 2), the DDA permitted calculations that were accurate to within a few percent.

 We've done a pretty good job of placing the old information in the topic position for linkage backward and new information in the stress position.  The only quibble might be with the phrase "For dielectric materials".  This term is suddenly introduced without explanation, but presumably would be understandable to experts in this field. 

To illustrate this principle further, I will use the example given in Gopen and Swan:

Large earthquakes along a given fault segment do not occur at random intervals because it takes time to accumulate the strain energy for the rupture. The rates at which tectonic plates move and accumulate strain at their boundaries are approximately uniform. Therefore, in first approximation, one may expect that large ruptures of the same fault segment will occur at approximately constant time intervals. If subsequent main shocks have different amounts of slip across the fault, then the recurrence time may vary, and the basic idea of periodic mainshocks must be modified. For great plate boundary ruptures the length and slip often vary by a factor of 2. Along the southern segment of the San Andreas fault the recurrence interval is 145 years with variations of several decades. The smaller the standard deviation of the average recurrence interval, the more specific could be the long term prediction of a future mainshock.

At first read, one has the impression that this is a fairly straightforward description of earthquakes and tectonic plates and is written well.  However, by the time we reach the end of the passage we are feeling somewhat befuddled and would be hard-pressed to say exactly what the point of this paragraph was.  Gopen and Swan analyze this example and conclude that the main problem is that virtually every piece of new information makes its first appearance in the spot we expect to find the old, familiar information.

If your writing continually begins sentences with new information and ends with the old information, you will definitely disorient your readers and reduce comprehension, as the above example does.  So how would one go about fixing the above paragraph?  Take a second look at the fourth principle stated above and see if you can rewrite the paragraph.

I'll provide the revision suggested by Gopen and Swan in the next post along with some additional explanations.

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

A Slight Detour

Active versus Passive Voice

We are discussing some principles of scientific writing as proposed by Gopen and Swan (1990).  But let's make a brief detour at this point to consider active versus passive voice.  In our previous examples, we did some shifting from passive to active voice and vice-versa.  Some people misunderstand what is meant by active voice, thinking that it only involves first-person subjects:  "we discuss this...I review that..." or involves a form of the verb to be: "I am a scientist."

In actuality, a sentence written in passive voice has the subject acted upon by the verb.  For example:

"Accurate calculations are permitted by DDA."  "The method is reviewed." "John is loved by Mary."

In active voice, the subject is doing the action.  The same sentences written in active voice:

"DDA permits accurate calculations." "We review the method." "Mary loves John."

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.


However, there are instances in which the passive voice is the proper choice.

--When it makes sense to emphasize the receiver of the action.  The example I gave in the previous post was "Squirrels hide acorns." (active) versus "Acorns are hidden by squirrels." (passive). If your topic is oak trees (and acorns), you want to select the passive voice version because this tells the reader that you are going to be talking mainly about acorns, not squirrels.

--For variety or when the flow of the paragraph would be improved: "One aspect of the nitrogen cycle can be understood through an examination of microbial processes. These processes . . ."

--In the Methods or Experimental section of a paper where repeated use of first person or people's names would be awkward: "Initially, the experimental plots were clipped to remove standing vegetation and then amended with a slow-release NPK fertilizer."

--In an abstract: "Feeding trials were conducted to assess the role of phenolic compounds in plant palatability."

So to summarize active vs. passive voice, you can use active voice to liven up your writing and be less wordy at the same time.  These considerations must be balanced, however, against what subject you wish to emphasize and if passive construction is more appropriate.  The key is to make your selection coincide with the reader's needs and expectations.

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

More Principles of Scientific Writing

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.

The Stress Position

Readers expect to see the point of a sentence appear in what is known as the "stress position", i.e., the place of emphasis in the sentence.  The idea here is that readers naturally look for the “pay-off” at the end of a sentence.  We begin reading a sentence with a sense of expectation that builds as we approach the reward at the end of the sentence.  Our original example does not do this:

The discrete-dipole approximation (DDA) for scattering calculations, including the relationship between the DDA and other methods, is reviewed. Computational considerations, i.e., the use of complex-conjugate gradient algorithms and fast-Fourier-transform methods, are discussed. 

Instead, the first two sentences in the original example end limply with “is reviewed” and “are discussed”.  These sentences leave the reader feeling annoyed by promising, but not delivering information. On top of this, the sentences are more difficult to follow (because of undue separation of subject and verb) and are not very interesting (being written in passive voice).

To revise, I moved the verbs closer to their subjects and tried to place the material to be emphasized at the end of the sentence:

We review the discrete-dipole approximation (DDA) used in scattering calculations and its relationship to other methods.  Other computational considerations include the complex-conjugate gradient algorithms and fast-Fourier-transform methods.


The stress position is where the reader needs and expects closure and the information that is being emphasized ("...complex-conjugate gradient algorithms and fast-Fourier-transform methods."). 
We can summarize the first aspect of the stress position as:  "Save the best for last."  However, we also have to worry about the beginning of the sentence:  the topic position.

The Topic Position

The topic position provides the reader with perspective.  Whatever begins a sentence is what the reader interprets as being what the story is about: "Squirrels hide acorns" vs. "Acorns are hidden by squirrels".  Both sentences are correct, but the first indicates to the reader that the discourse is focused on squirrels, whereas the second emphasizes acorns.  If you use the first version, but your topic is actually oak trees (or seed dispersal), then you will confuse your readers.

This concept of topic position gets tricky when we use first person in technical writing.  With sentences such as: "We review several methods for computing light scattering." or "We studied the role of salinity in determining distribution of coastal plant species.", the emphasis is placed on us, the investigators, rather than on the topic under investigation.  So let's reconsider my revision above.  The second sentence seems fine with respect to subject-verb separation, the stress position, and the topic position:

Other computational considerations include the complex-conjugate gradient algorithms and fast-Fourier-transform methods. 

The topic ("computational considerations") is introduced to the reader at the beginning of the sentence.  The information that is to be emphasized ("complex-conjugate gradient algorithms and fast-Fourier-transform methods") is placed at the end of the sentence, where the reader expects it.  And the subject and verb are in close proximity ("considerations include").

The first sentence, however, has the problem of emphasizing the authors ("We review...") instead of the science topic.  This first-person style is certainly acceptable and not a major problem, in my opinion, if it is used sparingly.  But if we wanted to revise this sentence to adhere to the third principle, how would we do it?  Here is one possibility (I'm making some assumptions here, being unfamiliar with the topic, but it illustrates the point):


The discrete-dipole approximation (DDA) is [often] used in scattering calculations, but its accuracy is unclear in relation to that of other methods.

This sentence now tells the reader what the topic is (DDA), places the point of the sentence (its questionable accuracy) in the stress position toward the end of the sentence, and also explains the "problem" that the paper will address. All the subjects are in close proximity to their verbs.  Although the sentence is now written in passive voice, this is the choice one must make to ensure the reader knows what the actual topic is (acorns vs. squirrels).

The first-person version "We review..." is perfectly fine, as is "This study provides...".  However, the new version puts the actual topic (DDA) in the topic position and also tells us more explicitly why the study needed to be done.  Another option would be to combine the first two sentences:

The discrete-dipole approximation (DDA) is [often] used in scattering calculations, but its accuracy is unclear in relation to that of other computational methods such as complex-conjugate gradient algorithms and fast-Fourier-transform methods 

This sentence is quite long, but flows well and is easy to understand.  It also prepares the reader for the next sentences that explain what was done and what the results were:


The accuracy of the DDA was tested in computations of scattering and absorption by different targets: isolated, homogeneous spheres and two contiguous spheres. For dielectric materials ((¦m¦ ≲ 2), the DDA permitted calculations that were accurate to within a few percent.

We now have covered the first three principles proposed by Gopen and Swan:


1.    Follow a grammatical subject as soon as possible with its verb.

2.    Place in the stress position the "new information" you want the reader to emphasize. 


3.    Place the person or thing whose "story" a sentence is telling at the beginning of the sentence,  in the topic position.  



Monday, December 7, 2009

First Principle of Scientific 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.

The previous post introduced the idea of subject-verb separation and gave an example (an abstract) that contained sentences in which the subject and verb were separated by a long string of words.  Here is the original example:

The discrete-dipole approximation (DDA) for scattering calculations, including the relationship between the DDA and other methods, is reviewed. Computational considerations, i.e., the use of complex-conjugate gradient algorithms and fast-Fourier-transform methods, are discussed. We test the accuracy of the DDA by using the DDA to compute scattering and absorption by isolated, homogeneous spheres as well as by targets consisting of two contiguous spheres. It is shown that, for dielectric materials (¦m¦ ≲ 2), the DDA permits calculations of scattering and absorption that are accurate to within a few percent.

I asked readers to think about how they would revise the writing to improve comprehension based on this first writing principle: minimize the distance between subject and verb.  I was hoping someone would take a stab at rewriting this abstract using the first principle.  So far, only Comrade PhysioProf has submitted a revision, which I reproduce here:

We review several aspects of the discrete-dipole approximation (DDA) for scattering calculations, including the relationship between the DDA and other methods. We discuss the computational considerations relating to DDA of complex-conjugate gradient algorithms and fast-Fourier-transform methods. We test the accuracy of the DDA by using the DDA to compute scattering and absorption by isolated, homogeneous spheres as well as by targets consisting of two contiguous spheres. Using these approaches, we demonstrate that for dielectric materials (¦m¦ ≲ 2), the DDA permits calculations of scattering and absorption that are accurate to within a few percent.

For comparison, here is my revision:

We review the discrete-dipole approximation (DDA) used in scattering calculations and its relationship to other methods.  Other computational considerations include the complex-conjugate gradient algorithms and fast-Fourier-transform methods.  The accuracy of the DDA is tested in computations of scattering and absorption by different targets: isolated, homogeneous spheres and two contiguous spheres.  For dielectric materials ((¦m¦ ≲ 2), the DDA permits calculations that are accurate to within a few percent.

Both CPP and I changed the first two sentences to place subject and verb closer together.  We also maintained the present tense throughout (which seems to be the style of this particular journal).  So now the reader knows by the second word in the first sentence that this paper is (in part) a review.  So even if we don’t know anything about light-scattering calculations, we understand that the authors reviewed and compared several methods, the primary focus being DDA.  Also, by putting “we review” at the beginning of the sentence we’ve changed the voice from passive to active, a move that makes writing come alive (more about this later).

CPP maintained the same sentence style throughout ("We review...we discuss...we test....we demonstrate"), which makes for a consistent, balanced description of what was done in the study.  I chose to take a different approach and reduced the use of first person while still keeping active voice (considerations include.... DDA permits).  Either way works and is an improvement over the original.  My version is shorter (68 words) than CPP's (94 words); if there is a word limit, then the shorter version might be preferable.  In addition, there are several other principles to consider that will be covered in the coming posts, some of which may lead us to further revisions.

So to summarize, we can state the first principle of scientific writing thus:

Follow a grammatical subject as soon as possible with its verb.

The next expectation is that the point being made is expected to appear in what is known as the “stress position”, i.e., the place of emphasis in the sentence.  The next post takes a closer look at this concept.

Saturday, December 5, 2009

Scientific Writing Secrets Revealed!

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.

Instead, I’ll be reviewing guidelines given in a paper by Gopen and Swan (1990) called “The Science of Scientific Writing”.  In this paper, they analyze what it is about scientific writing that makes it so difficult to read (and enjoy).  The authors don't stop there, but go on to develop clear rules for avoiding incomprehensible writing.  The underlying message of the paper can be summarized thus:

“If the reader is to grasp what the writer means, the writer must understand what the reader needs.”

Gopen and Swan go on to state that the rhetorical principles they outline produce “clarity in communication without oversimplifying scientific issues.”  They argue that the results [of applying these principles] are not cosmetic, but that “improving the quality of writing actually improves the quality of thought.” 

Amen.

If you are interested in reading their paper, the reference is given at the end of this post.  However, if you’d rather not read it, I’ll be giving the CliffsNotes version.  What I will do is take the same approach they did and use an example from a technical paper to illustrate their principles.  It’s something of an exercise for me, but you can follow along and see how well we both do in figuring out how to improve the writing in the selected excerpt. 

I selected an example at random from the internet.  I could have picked anything, but this was the first to pop up.  It is an abstract from a journal focused on optics, a topic I know absolutely nothing about but that appears to be fraught with convoluted, jargon-ridden language.  By the way, my example is not nearly as dense and full of jargon as the one Gopen and Swan use.  Here it is:

The discrete-dipole approximation (DDA) for scattering calculations, including the relationship between the DDA and other methods, is reviewed. Computational considerations, i.e., the use of complex-conjugate gradient algorithms and fast-Fourier-transform methods, are discussed. We test the accuracy of the DDA by using the DDA to compute scattering and absorption by isolated, homogeneous spheres as well as by targets consisting of two contiguous spheres. It is shown that, for dielectric materials (¦m¦ ≲ 2), the DDA permits calculations of scattering and absorption that are accurate to within a few percent.

Here is my translation of the abstract:  The authors reviewed the use of a computational method (DDA), tested its accuracy in computing light scattering and absorption by different types of spheres, and found the method to be highly accurate.

Most people would find this paragraph moderately difficult to understand, but not for the obvious reasons of technical jargon or lack of background in the field of study.  So what is the problem?
 
The first problem is subject-verb separation.  The first sentence places a string of words between the subject (“DDA”) and verb (“reviewed”).  Any words placed between the subject and its verb are viewed by the reader as interruptions and of lesser importance.  The reader must wait a long time to get to the verb and understand what the whole sentence is about.  In the meantime, the reader may be mentally skipping over key information in an attempt to close the gap between subject and verb.  Also, one wonders if DDA is used to calculate something or if its purpose is instead to scatter calculations around the room.  The second sentence similarly interjects a string of words between subject and verb.  These two sentences also state that something “is reviewed” and “is discussed”, a no-no in an abstract.

How would you go about fixing this subject-verb separation problem and write something that is more consistent with reader expectations?  We're just focusing for now on the first two sentences of the example.  Think about it, and I’ll provide my revision in the next post.

“Information is interpreted more easily and more uniformly if it is placed where most readers expect to find it.”

Gopen, G.D. and J.A. Swan. 1990. The science of scientific writing. American Scientist 78: 550-558.

Friday, December 4, 2009

The Fruits of Our Labors


Is it worthwhile for scientists to expend the effort to hone their writing skills? One might argue that if the scientific findings are good, then it's not necessary to be the best writer in the world.  One might also think that the writing will get polished during editing, so that it's not really essential to spend a lot of time revising and improving the writing before submission.  Unfortunately, the competition for space in journals is so keen that such an attitude is not wise.  Anything you can do to give yourself an edge is worthwhile. 

I was reminded this week of how important it is to submit a highly polished paper when I received an acceptance email.  I was pleasantly surprised not only that the paper was accepted, but that the editor and reviewers were so complimentary.  The editor even went out of his way to quote the personal comments of one of the reviewers: "Oh, if they were all this easy.  This paper was a pleasure to review." The editor went on to congratulate me for this and say that, "If all the papers submitted to [this journal] were so good, it would be marvelous." 

I don't often get such compliments, so you'll have to forgive me for savoring the moment.  We get so beaten and bruised by most reviews that when one of our manuscripts sails through and even garners some praise, it's reason for celebration.

I also wanted to share the news because it illustrates dramatically why writing skills are important (in addition to good science).  We should make it easy for reviewers and editors to enjoy reviewing our manuscripts and to check that accept (with minor revision) box.  Reviewers and editors don't get the opportunity very often to handle a really top-notch paper.  I know I rarely do.  Having reviewed hundreds of papers and served as associate editor, I know what it's like to struggle through inumerable obtuse, boring, poorly organized, and typo-ridden manuscripts.  About 90% of the papers I handle are substandard--in the science, the presentation, or both.  The well-written, compelling, novel papers are as rare as jewels--at least in my field.

I tell students that the top journals in our field accept only 15 to 20 percent (sometimes less) of submitted papers.  This means that to get their paper accepted, it must be better than 80 to 85 percent of all papers submitted to that journal.  The percentages vary among journals, but generally, the competition is stiff.  Those statistics should be sobering to anyone preparing a paper for publication.  Many good papers get rejected by journals, not because there is anything wrong with them, but because there were other papers that were better.  Often, the authors of those better papers were able to state their message in a more compelling, interesting, and erudite manner.

The previous posts provide some ideas for developing excellent writing skills and habits.  More to come....

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Writing Strategies for the Long-Run


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.

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Spontaneous Writing

....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.

The method is to rise early and before you do anything else such as having coffee or reading the paper, you write about anything that comes to mind.  You write as fast as you can without concern about grammar, punctuation, or if your writing is interesting.  Don't reread what you've written; don't think about what you should write next; just put down whatever thought comes to you.  If you can't think of a word, just leave a blank or series of letters and move on.  This is done daily for 10-15 minutes for about 2 weeks.  Below is an example:

My mind is blank.  I find it difficult to think when faced with getting something down on paper.  It's the blankness of the paper that haunts me.  The paper is almost mocking me by being so empty--like my mind is at the moment.  I try to think of a topic, but nothing occurs to me except writing and why I have such a difficult time of it.  I want to be able to write, but can't seem to get past this problem of initial dread at the thought of filling up an entire sheet of blank paper.  I'm surprised now at how many words I've already written, and I've done this pretty quickly, maybe a minute?  It's hard to judge how much time has passed, but it seems pretty quick.  I've written almost a paragraph, which is beginning to feel somewhat amazing to me.  I've never been able to write so much in such a short period.  It's beginning to feel natural now to write without thinking about what to write next.  It just seems to come, to flow out of my fingers and onto the page.  I don't know if what I've written makes sense or not, but it definitely feels good.

I wrote the above example by pretending to be a person who has primary writer's block (unable to write at all) and writing what I imagined that person might write on their first try at spontaneous writing.  I did it as one would actually do spontaneous writing--quickly, without thinking, and without editing. The words are exactly as they came and without any thinking or planning beforehand.  I was not sure what would happen, but was curious to see how it would turn out.    

Spontaneous writing can help people with writing anxiety or who are perfectionists.  Self-consciousness is the culprit here.  If you worry about potential imperfections or what others might think of your writing, your brain gets jammed up and puts the brakes on.  If you let your internal critic restrict you, then spontaneity and fluidity are repressed.  The objective of spontaneous writing is to learn to write unselfconsciously.

Practicing spontaneous writing is particularly good for jump-starting someone who is paralyzed by the thought of writing. I once had a member of my staff who had extreme difficulty writing.  His problem was that he thought he had to write each sentence perfectly, and this thought prevented him from making any progress.  I suggested that he try writing a section of a paper without worrying about grammar--just to get the ideas down on paper.  He resisted at first, but I showed him an example of a draft of a paper I was writing.  It had sections missing, and there were incomplete sentences and thoughts.  He was quite amazed because he thought my papers, which he had read, just came out of my head in a form very close to the final version.  After trying my suggestion, he came back very excited at how he was able to get an entire section drafted without his usual difficulty.  


Spontaneous writing has its origins in what was known as automatic writing, popular during the 1800s.  Spiritualists used it as a way to tap into the spirit world.  Automatic writing was done in a meditative or trance-like state, but sometimes produced some surprisingly creative writing.  Instead of communicating with the spirits, practitioners were actually connecting with their sub-conscious and by-passing the self-critic.

There is a downside to spontaneous writing, however, if it's taken too far.  The problem is that people get hooked on it and cannot move on to more mature, productive forms of writing. They become addicted to the spontaneity.  Also, it can tap into disturbing or traumatic memories and possibly lead to emotional distress.  So take care with this method.

For the aspiring author, continuing too long in the spontaneous writing phase is unproductive because it prevents the next step, which is to incorporate planning and direction into the spontaneity.  This more mature type of writing is called generative writing.  The method is similar to that for spontaneous writing in that you write quickly and without editing.  The difference is that you write about a specific topic and have a direction in mind.  The easiest way to do this is to pick a memorable event and write it as though telling a story.  Once your ideas are on paper, you can go back and edit, correcting grammar and punctuation or rearranging sentences into a more logical sequence.

Sharing your attempts at either spontaneous or generative writing with others is beneficial to the process.  Writing groups composed of peers who are supportive and uncritical can share their writing by reading aloud.  I find that students and novice writers are very reluctant to share their initial attempts with someone whose writing they admire or are perceived as excellent writers.  However, when everyone is similarly inexperienced, the fear of looking bad is somewhat diminished.

I can imagine such a writing group starting out with descriptions of past experiences and then moving on to assignments in which the group spontaneously writes a paragraph or a page related to their topic of study, e.g., explaining why their work is important and how it will contribute to the field.  Such practice often leads to some creative and interesting insights.  It ultimately teaches a writer to trust that lack of control (by the internal editor) is not to be feared and that the act of writing actually generates insights and creative thoughts that don't occur while just thinking about writing projects.

An advanced writer can write spontaneously and edit simultaneously without inhibiting spontaneity.  But it's a fine balancing act.  The trick is not to get stumped when you can't think of a word--just leave a blank and go on.  The idea is to let your imagination go free and get your ideas down on paper.  This ability does not mean never having to edit or rewrite.  You will always have to carefully review and revise a rough draft.  Even if you are able to write fairly polished sentences in a rough draft, you might need to go through several versions before settling on the best way to express your ideas.

The next posts will deal with long-term writing strategies and some specific recommendations for improving technical writing.