![\"\"](\"https:\/\/world.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/Writing-for-publication-.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
This is a story, a my story, which leads to eight pointers about writing for publication.<\/p>\n
I\u2019m currently writing a paper. Well, yes, always writing something. But right now it\u2019s a paper. A paper designed to do some thinking work that will then inform a book. I\u2019m not writing this paper by myself, but I am doing most of the first draft with some crucial and well-timed help from my co-researcher Chris.<\/p>\n
The paper began with some nagging data. You know the kind of thing, the bit of data that just sticks with you and won\u2019t go away. The data was in the form of a set of themes from a sub-section of our research \u2013 Chris had produced these themes. This themed data just sat there \u2013 literally sat on my desktop, but also stuck in my thinking. And the data metaphorically waved to me whenever I started to think about the book. ( I\u2019m here, I\u2019m here, come play with me.) We had to do something with it, I thought, just not now.<\/p>\n
And then the obstinate data somehow met an idea. I\u2019m not quite sure how this happened, but it often does. I could have done this connection work systematically I reckon, by brainstorming how the data might be used. But the connection just emerged one day and interrupted what I was doing at the time. I told Chris about it and she agreed it would be good to pursue.<\/p>\n
So the idea. I knew from previous research and engagement with relevant literatures that there was a need for further work around a particular topic, let\u2019s call it X. The case for X needing more thinking was in black and white in an important report. X and our data met in my subconscious and then I started to think quite consciously about what we could do. Our data had been produced and analysed precisely in the way that the big report on X suggested was needed. I told myself it ought to be possible to bring our stuff and X together. It was worth spending a bit of time to see if it could be done. Down tools on everything that could be downed.<\/p>\n
I went back to the literatures. If I was going to write about X, then I needed to catch up on what had been published about X since I last looked.I also needed to work out which journal was particularly interested in all things X. Where was the conversation going on? As well, I needed to find out whether anyone else had put together data similar to ours with X (not the case, pleasure and relief combined). I also had to find out whether there was anything already in print that spoke to the potential combination of our data plus X. Well yes, there was, although not a huge amount of literature-as-a resource to call on. Some daily slots of reading, summarising, noting, Endnoting etc followed and the resulting writings went into a word doc where the summarised literatures were arranged in like-topic clumps. By this time I also knew the journal we could submit to.<\/p>\n
My speculative foray into the literatures certainly didn\u2019t suggest that I stop. I still hadn\u2019t started writing the paper; I was immersed in the creation stage, not yet drafting but writing of a generative kind. Writing to work out what was there and what might be said.<\/p>\n
I next went back to the data and did some finer grained analysis. I constructed three new categories from our existing themes and checked them against the literatures. They seemed to generally fit with the X conversation and there seemed to be something like a potential contribution. Worth keeping on then.<\/p>\n
Gah. Not all resolved. I still didn\u2019t have an argument. I couldn\u2019t just report data analysis and X. I had to say what X and our data together meant for how we thought differently about X. And so what! The paper had to take the reader somewhere. I had to find an angle that would be of interest to the journal readers, and would actually advance the conversation that had gone on.<\/p>\n
I wasn\u2019t at the point where I could write a succinct Tiny Text, so I had a first go at beginning the paper. I set up a problem in the introduction for which the paper would provide an answer, and then wrote the literatures and methods sections. This was about three thousand words and had quite a lot of references. It took me about three writing sessions to get this done \u2013 about four or so hours. This is not what I would ideally do, but I didn\u2019t have enough sorted for a Tiny Text and I needed structure for the text \u2013 so timed unstructured writing would be counter-productive. I just had to plunge in and have a go.<\/p>\n
I sent the three thousand or so words off to Chris to see what she thought. Chris of course knew the data and I had also already sent her a couple of key books to read so she would know what I had been reading. We booked a discussion.<\/p>\n
Chris could see what I was trying to do, without me having to explain it. She agreed there was a paper. But she thought I had the angle wrong \u2013 the way I had set up the problem didn\u2019t work. The new categories I had generated were however right, and the connection with the literatures was sound. But the thinking wasn\u2019t there yet. I thought so too. It was pretty clear I was writing my way into something, but what that something was wasn\u2019t yet sorted. However, through our conversation, the problem that paper could address was refined. Chris had a different perspective which was very helpful. (Talking things over at this point of paper development is often very helpful.) A possible angle and argument were just about visible. This paper could be something that added to X and that journal readers would be interested in. I could see a way forward.<\/p>\n
I then started a new document. Left the old one behind. Back to the beginning. I changed the title and rewrote the introduction which set out the problem we were addressing, suggested the contribution and laid out the argument moves as the reader would encounter them in the paper. I wasn\u2019t entirely sure about a minor bit of possible theory, but put it in to see how it would read and feel. This was an entirely new text \u2013 no cut and paste, a clean sheet. Once again I sent this (now about) five hundred words to Chris for comment, this time in the body of an email.<\/p>\n
Her feedback came straight back, and is now incorporated into the paper I\u2019m writing. I\u2019ve just written myself a Tiny Text and it\u2019s all go. Of course I expect there still to be bumps and many revisions. But we do have a direction and something new to say about X. And Chris will have more to contribute as the paper gets drafted and polished.<\/p>\n
So what are the key points about writing a paper that emerge from this story?<\/p>\n
1\u00a0Follow your nose<\/strong>. If it feels like there\u2019s something there, there may well be.<\/p>\n 2\u00a0Connect to a body of literature early<\/strong>\u00a0and find the space for development so you can see where the paper will fit and what kind of contribution you can make.<\/p>\n 3\u00a0Dig into the literatures\u00a0<\/strong>to find what\u2019s helpful to situate and shape the possible paper. What does your paper build on? What does it speak to?<\/p>\n