Dear Danielle,
thanks for sharing your experience and way of thinking. I like it a lot.
Speaking as a PHD student struggling with the process, trying to learn it
all by myself I only wish I was one of your lucky students!
Keep on the good work.
Em sáb, 18 de jul de 2020 às 05:08, Danielle Wilde <
[log in to unmask]> escreveu:
> In response to Ken’s five questions:
>
> >> 1) Should PhD programs require doctoral students to publish as a
> condition
> >> of graduation?
> My answer to this is unequivocal. No.
>
> >> 2) If they do not require publication, should PhD programs encourage
> >> doctoral students to publish?
> equally emphatically, yes.
>
> >> 3) Does — or did — your doctoral program provide a course in research
> >> writing?
> my doctoral program (Monash University, Australia, Faculty of Art, Design
> and Architecture, 2007-2011) provided a course in research writing for
> candidates run by the library. Additional support was provided by the
> librarians on request (librarians, like workshop technicians, are the
> backbone of what has been possible for me as a Designer and academic), the
> individual support was meant to be helpful, and in retrospect I understand
> its value, but at the time I lacked sufficient background in academic
> writing to leverage it properly. Like many of my peers in the extremely
> large doctoral cohort in the Faculty of Art, Design and Architecture at
> Monash (120 candidates at any time), I had little to no prior experience
> with academic writing. One might argue I should never have been accepted
> into a doctoral program without the academic background, but my outcomes
> suggest that might be a mistake. I gained many awards for my research
> including the university medal.
>
> >> 4) If your doctoral program provides a course in research writing, what
> >> does the course involve?
>
> at SDU (my current university), I am heavily involved in a research
> masters program: MSc in IT Product Design. Because of my own struggles with
> learning to write in an academic context, I developed a writing course, and
> built it into the research methods course, which I co-teach. It consists of
> several workshops, extremely practical in nature, spread over the 13 week
> methods course. I paste my notes from last year, below. These are abridged
> (written for me) and evolving all the time. Feedback from students each
> time I have run it is that it was the most useful set of lectures they have
> ever had in their education. It’s very practical and customised for
> learning alone together:
>
> Writing workshop 1 : 2hrs
> in preparation, students send in a page of writing. I respond with
> detailed mark-up, and hand out the annotated papers when we started this
> first class. They were then given time in pairs to reflect on and try to
> understand the feedback. My comments, as I handed the papers out: When I
> give you feedback, you don’t need to respond. It’s there for you to use,
> misuse, ignore or take on board. It’s not an invitation to a conversation,
> it’s a proposition, an invitation to reflect on a reader’s point of view.
>
> I use errors that I found in the writing to step through the things that
> people can do wrong, or might do better. In this way I speak directly to
> everyone, while making it a shared learning experience for all. I don’t say
> where the errors come from, I merely common them. The commoning process
> seems to assist the students to feel comfortable sharing.
>
> I also cover:
> Referencing for your thesis
> The purpose of the research plan (I cover research planning and management
> in a complementary workshop series)
> The literature review (why saying what the others do is not enough. You
> need to relate it to what you are doing. How will you use it? What is its
> relevance? How does this article enrich and strengthen your unfolding
> research? What do you and we learn by reading these things?)
> Outlining as a tool to help keep your writing on track
> try to get to and stick to one idea per sentence
> Expression (read it aloud) —> Zinsser
> thethesiswhisperer.com —> Write that journal article in 7 days
> Pomodoro technique (25mins + 5mins) —> put someone in charge to work out
> the timing and the breaks and be timekeeper next week
> Literature
> How do you find the right literature when there is so much out there?
> database keyword searches —> thousands of papers and articles.
> How do you read them to choose?
> Taking notes
> What about edited books and monographs
> Using referencing to narrow in
> Creating a table to sort the information (show examples)
> Writing workshop 2 : 3hrs (self-directed)
> Students run the Pomodoro Technique on their own / without supervision. I
> ask them to reflect on how the structure impacts their writing, and how it
> might be useful as they develop a writing practice.
>
> Writing workshop 3 : 3hrs
> Discussion of Pomodoro Technique
> evolving Gantt chart ~ make it a living document that serves you (give
> examples)
> dynamic research mapping - understanding the emerging relationships so you
> can organise them and write about them
> Referencing from Google Scholar and ACM database (always check!)
> Other databases and sources
> Using a referencing manager...
> EndNote is provided for free by SDU: Download from E-learn.sdu.dk under
> "My Page" and select "Software”, NB your access will end the minute you
> graduate
> Zotero (free and open source): https://www.zotero.org
> bookends (free for up to 50 references):
> http://www.sonnysoftware.com/bookends/bookends.html
> Reading for writing - anything by Helen Sword (see pics below)
> Chance for more feedback (draft deadline — Thursday one week later)
> Feedback sessions, 15mins each the following Monday)
> Pomodoro session
>
> Writing workshop 4 : 3hrs (self-directed)
> Students run the Pomodoro Technique on their own / without supervision.
> Here they are invited to customise the approach to their individual styles,
> but to still work in a group and work with a tight structure. (and to
> continue the reflection process fro the previous self-directed Pomodoro
> session)
> Writing workshop 5 : 3hrs
> Course Description
> Course Evaluation
> REFLECTIONS:
> 1. New knowledge: What have we learned about research?
> 2. New skills: What can you do now that you couldn’t before?
> 3. New practices: How can the course be improved for next time?
> General feedback on drafts:
> Abstract: 200words. (Use your four questions, reduce your responses down
> to 50 words, put it all together to arrive at your abstract)
> STRUCTURE: Elements —> Outline (in pairs. Reverse engineer your drafts to
> work back to your outline, and the elements it needs to include)
> Clarify concepts. Be specific. ABSTRACT ≈ CONCRETE
> The Nordes template.
> (a) using a template.
> (b) why and how themes can be useful as you think about publishing your
> research
> NB, a fine example of how to integrate quotes from interview participants
> into your writing:
> Andersen, K., & Grote, F. (2015, April). GiantSteps: Semi-structured
> conversations with musicians. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM
> Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp.
> 2295-2300). ACM.
> Grammarly (pros, cons, readability, and why I use it as a senior English
> mother-tongue academic)
> Reading for writing (+ extras)
> William Zinsser. On writing well. Harper Collins Publishers, 1991
> William Strunk and E. B. White. The Elements of Style, 4th Edition.
> Pearson. 1999
> Anne Janzer. The Writer's Process: Getting your brain in gear. Cuesta Park
> Consulting, 2016.
> anything by Helen Sword. f.x. Air & Light & Time & Space; Stylish Academic
> Writing; The Writer's Diet.
> Ann Lamott. Bird by bird: Some instructions on writing and life. Anchor.
> 2007
> Stephen King. On writing. Simon and Schuster. 2002
> Umberto Eco. How to write a thesis. MIT Press, 2015.
> —
>
> >> 5) Do you have thoughts on these issues other than answers to these
> >> questions?
>
> In my case, I learned to write by writing in public. I published 15
> conference papers in proceedings and 3 journal articles while I was
> undertaking my PhD. The publications were of increasing impact and the
> writing itself vastly improved as I gained confidence. I had two
> supervisors for my doctorate, a fine art theorist (from Monash) and a
> material scientist (from CSIRO). The theorist encouraged me though never
> pushed me—the writing was always my idea. The scientist was astonished – he
> noted that I was learning to write in public, something he would never
> encourage. At a certain point he did ask to have his name added to one of
> my papers. Something I did, which in retrospect was not really appropriate,
> but that is a different story.
>
> My desire to publish did not come from my university environment (Monash),
> it emerged from conversations with peers and generous senior academics in
> other institutions. My ability to publish at that stage in my career
> reflects the generosity of reviewers and these senior academic allies who
> were always ready with advice and support to help me on my way.
>
> Most reviews of my writing, in the early stages in particular, read
> something like— the structure is almost incomprehensible but the idea is so
> interesting I recommend publication with the following changes [and there
> followed a detailed list of changes]. These reviews enabled me to publish
> and grow. The three journal articles written during my doctorate were
> written on invitation / following (building on) conference contributions,
> so were far more sophisticated at the time of submission than my early
> conference contributions. In terms of the conferences I chose, I was
> relatively modest in my ambitions, as I recognised my limitations, but also
> wanted to grow so worked hard to feel confident to move to the next level.
>
> Publishing while undertaking my doctorate helped me enormously. Indeed,
> doing so scaffolded the writing of my thesis. I did it with help from my
> peers, and remain indebted to the reviewers who provided support that was
> simply not forthcoming at my university.
>
> Today, I encourage my students to publish if they come to me saying they
> would like to. I never suggest it, rather I respond positively if they come
> to me. They see that previous students of mine have published, and most of
> my MSc thesis students go on to do PhDs (unusual in my institution), and it
> stokes a desire, so more and more students approach me. I am realistic with
> them about the effort it will take and explain that the writing is
> extra-curricular and will not be taken into account for grading or anything
> else.
>
> At the masters level it usually takes quite a lot of shepherding to arrive
> at submissable papers, so I co-author. In some cases I am first author,
> because the research idea was mine and the bulk of the authoring is mine.
> In others, where the research idea was mine but the bulk of the authoring
> is the students, I am listed last. In other cases, where we write up the
> students thesis work, for example, they are always first author unless, on
> rare occasions, I significantly advance the theoretical component, and use
> the student’s work as the exemplar, in which case, we negotiate the author
> order. In any and all cases, I give them a choice - they can write on their
> own, or with me, and if they write with me I will earn my co-authorship
> moniker (and earn it I do). For this reason, I only take on work that is
> aligned with my own research interests, and am fortunate with my research
> students, with their topics and areas of enthusiasm.
>
> To conclude, I do all of this for several reasons.
>
> 1. I want to give students the best shot at doing well: I was sick of
> students landing in my office for thesis supervision without the
> rudimentaires of academic writing. It really compromised what was possible
> for and with them.
>
> 2. having excellent ideas is one thing, doing good research is another,
> being able to express the ideas and the research is yet another, and is
> necessary to contribute in research terms to the field. We don’t only need
> good researchers and writers, we need radical thinkers who can do the
> research and write as well.
>
> 3. I know what it’s like to have to learn how to write later in your
> career, rather than earlier, and I felt that insights from my personal
> experience might help. It seems to be helping, so I keep doing it, evolving
> each year as I learn more.
>
> 4. If students want to become researchers, writing needs to part of their
> thinking, for writing to be part of thinking, it needs to be part of the
> research process. The only way for that to happen, I believe, is to write.
>
> 5. I do for them what so many did for me, as well as what was not done for
> me, but what I would have benefitted from. The allies who helped me were
> almost exclusively from outside of my institution. I want to give my
> students that support from within their institution.
>
> best, Danielle
> —
> www.daniellewilde.com
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
--
*Aurileide Alves*
http://lattes.cnpq.br/1136607316077439
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4769-8584
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
