Dear Colleagues,

Following my post earlier this afternoon, I received a query asking
me if there are any good guides on writing for publication. There
are. I am going to offer a few reflections on the issue of how to
describe the stuff we write about, and then I will share a few books
that are useful to research writers - and to those who teach them.

Since writers have different and more pointed needs than teachers and
doctoral supervisors, I will describe the books and suggest the two
books that students need most of a slightly longer list.

Chris Rust already pointed to the key issues.

One element of this is to recognize the difference between research
reporting among researchers and reporting ABOUT research to others.

Both are forms of scientific communication. Reporting research
requires the full range of information that enables the reader to
understand and evaluate it. Report ABOUT research requires enough
information for the reader to learn ABOUT the research without
necessarily subjecting it to critical inquiry.

This gives rise to the issues that David Sless and Chris brought up.

To report research, an author must describe the subject or object of
inquiry, the research methods, and the research process so clearly
that the reader understands the project and process fully.

This requires articulate narrative description as well as any
necessary models, figures, diagrams, illustrations, drawings, or
images.

Only narration allows the metanarrative of research that places
research in context and permits us to inquire into the process and
research activity as well as into the subject or object of
investigation. Since the research process takes place in the mind of
the researcher, reporting research requires the narration of a mental
process in addition to a report of the findings.

Earlier today, David pointed to the work of Robert Horn. Horn notes
important new ways of communicating through what he calls visual
language. Horn's theories of visual language are important for many
kinds of communication. One of Horn's articles describes new ways of
communicating that he believes will and should supplant the older
style of normative, grammatical narrative. He labels this new kind of
writing "visual language." and this includes some of the kinds of
writing to which Peter Storkerson also refers.

Early in his presentation, Horn (2001: 1) discusses the challenges
involved in visual language. "(A) what to put in and what to leave
out (there are some kinds of writing where you leave out the most
important information!); (B) how thoughts stick together (and how to
organize this stickiness); (C) what writing should be linear and what
should not; (D) when to tightly integrate words and images into
visual language; and (E) what in the future may be called
metawriting." Then he goes on to discuss the new rules and the old,
considering when and how to apply each.

One of Horn's most interesting points is that visual language
requires the tightly coupled, appropriate use of BOTH words and
images. Neither words nor images alone constitute visual language.
The frequent wish seen in design presentations to find a way of
communicating research without words or alphanumeric symbols is
impossible. Only the tight and appropriate integrated use of words
and images will do for many kinds of research report. For some
discussions, narrative alone will do, particularly for describing
internal processes, thought processes, and the metanarrative of
research.

The need to narrate the research on a metanarrative level is why
neither artifacts nor symbolic presentations can serve as full
research reports. They are part of what the research is ABOUT and
they may constitute part of the research result, but the research
itself takes place in the human mind, and reporting the research must
therefore involve reporting thoughts and experiences.

MANY research reports require images and illustrations. ALL research
reports require narrative.

A good research report shows - and tells - enough for the reader to
understand the methods and value of the work. It is clear. It is as
simple as possible while being as full as it must be. It describes
the subject or object of inquiry, the research methods, and the
research process so clearly that the reader understands the project
and process fully. It demonstrates the qualities of process that help
each reader to judge the work properly AS RESEARCH.

This last quality is a particular distinction between research
reports and reporting about research. A research report is
transparent, and it permits us to know more than the fact THAT
something is supposedly so. It allows us to ask for ourselves WHETHER
something is so, it allows us to ask HOW and sometimes WHY, and it
permits us to work through the issues to reach our own conclusion.

The forms that background to the book that answers the query I
received. One of the best books on the subject of research writing
was written for oral presentations and poster presentations. Even
though it was not written for writers, the discussion of issues
allows the writer to understand what a good research report must
contain. It has the added advantage of helping a researcher learn to
prepare effective presentations for conferences and seminars. Robert
R. H. Anholt (1994) of Duke University Medical Center wrote it.

Goldsmith, Komlos, and Gold (2001) cover the topic of academic
publishing in The Chicago Guide to Your Academic Career: A Portable
Mentor for Scholars from Graduate School through Tenure. The
discussion here is more about the publishing process than it is a
discussion of how to write. It is valuable because it describes the
context of academic publishing, as does Silverman (1999). Silverman
also goes into the first level of the process, describing the general
issues involved in academic writing. He does not discuss the
mechanics of writing or presentation to any great degree.

Deeper discussion of how to write, how to interact with reviewers,
how to publish, and the many issues involved in these, see L. L.
Cummings and Peter Frost (1995).

Anne Sigismund Huff (1999) offers a direct, first person account of
writing for scholarly publication, and she supplements her book with
many useful exercises.

Both of these are written from a perspective in social science and
organizational science, but the general lessons are easily applied to
design research. Robert J. Sternberg (2000) edited a similar and
highly useful book in psychology.

For students and those with limited time, I would advise starting
with Anholt. It is a great book, and it is great fun to read. It will
repay the time invested many times over. Then go straight to
Sternberg. He and his authors cover the waterfront. If you are a
teacher, you will also want to study Cummings and Frost.

Those who are developing a seminar on research and writing will find
it helpful at least to browse the other books, and I would recommend
them for any library or seminar collection.

Those who wish a deeper philosophical perspective on the subject
should certainly read Monroe (2002) - not only for Hoffman's fine
piece, but also for the many challenging articles it presents.

I have prepared a compendium of articles from my own research
students, but this compendium is not commercially published. It
contains articles that I make available to my students under the fair
use provisions of copyright law. I will make some inquiries to
determine how I can share it. When I find out how to do so, I will
make it available for those who wish a copy.

Best regards,

Ken Friedman


References

Anholt, Robert R. H. 1994. Dazzle 'em with Style. The Art of Oral
Scientific Presentation. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.

Cummings, L. L., and Peter J. Frost, editors. 1995. Publishing in the
Organizational Sciences. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Goldsmith, John A., John Komlos, and Penny Schine Gold. 2001. The
Chicago Guide to Your Academic Career. A Portable Mentor for Scholars
from Graduate School through Tenure. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Horn, Robert E. 2001. What Kinds of Writing Have a Future? Speech
prepared in connection with receiving Lifetime Achievement Award by
the Association of Computing Machinery. SIGDOC, October 22, 2001.

Huff, Anne Sigismund. 1999. Writing for Scholarly Publication.
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Monroe, Jonathan. 2002. Writing and Revising the Disciplines. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press.

Silverman, Franklin H. 1999. Publishing for Tenure and Beyond.
Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.

Sternberg, Robert J. 2000. Guide to Publishing in Psychology
Journals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

--

Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Department of Leadership and Organization
Norwegian School of Management

Visiting Professor
Advanced Research Institute
School of Art and Design
Staffordshire University