 |
 |
Dear Lawrie, I guess that the "no editing"-sign in the writing centres often does not have anything to do with the members' attitudes towards editing students' papers, but it is rather a question of a lack of time for doing this. At my university, we can offer 40 hours of writing support for more than 10.000 students, thus editing papers is simply impossible. All the best, Esther Breuer Zitat von Lawrie Hunter <[log in to unmask]>: > Ian and Linda, > > Thanks so much for this affirming exchange. For quite some time I've > been a proponent of what I call the 'taught writing center', where > the services to the clients (engineering PhD students and faculty) > are built on the assumption that the clients have completed my > course work, which includes readability, structures of information > and the skills required for working with a mentor/editor. > > I have visited many writing centers and have often been surprised to > see "We don't edit papers" notices and caveats in quite a few of > those centers. I work with individual clients for up to two years, > aiming at their becoming semi-autonomous academic writers and often > also at their gaining the skills/knowledge to work with their own > graduate students in the future, and the "don't edit" position seems > to me a case of teaching skills but not giving feedback. > > Thanks, thanks so much. I'll be quoting you two, if you have no objection. > > All the best > Lawrie Hunter > http://www.core.kochi-tech.ac.jp/hunter/ > > > On 13/8/14 11:22 PM, Iain Kennedy Patten wrote: >> Your last point really strikes a chord for me, Linda. In my >> experience, the interaction with other stakeholders in the writing >> process is critically important in the development of young >> authors. I spend a lot of time helping PhD students, postdoctoral >> researchers and even senior academics develop strategies to manage >> these interactions more effectively, and in many cases this >> includes understanding how to work with language professionals. >> Most people I work with at PhD level and beyond want their own >> voice to be heard. It is not an issue of letting someone else do >> the work for them but rather of using resources to help them >> communicate their own thinking as clearly and effectively as >> possible. >> >> Best wishes >> >> Iain Patten >> >> Iain Patten, PhD >> Scientific Writing Consultant >> www.iainpatten.com <http://www.iainpatten.com> >> >> On 14 Aug 2013, at 11:06, Linda McPhee <[log in to unmask] >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: >> >>> I absolutely agree with Elizabeth Harding. I work with PhD >>> students and faculty in various countries (mainly also The >>> Netherlands), giving writing courses to demonstrate the basics of >>> structure and readability, followed by a line-edit of their >>> about-to-be-submitted article or chapter. This is both to help >>> prepare the article for submission, to go over elements of the >>> course that the person has (or has not) absorbed, and to remind >>> them that the journal will also want to suggest things. These >>> articles are not for a grade, but are early professional writings. >>> >>> However, many will of course also appear as parts of PhDs. For >>> students who are writing a dissertation composed around a set of >>> articles, each of those articles will have been touched by >>> authors, supervisors, co-authors, language editors, journal >>> referees, desk editors, and so on, often by up to a dozen people. >>> I cannot see how a no editing policy could possibly square with >>> professional development in science, unless the expectations are >>> considerably lower. >>> >>> Linda McPhee >>> www.lindamcpheeconsulting.com <http://www.lindamcpheeconsulting.com> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 14 Aug 2013, at 08:55, Elizabeth Harding >>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> >>> I must say that I am quite surprised at the reaction my message >>> caused yesterday and I think I must make one thing very clear. By >>> ‘editing’ I do not mean wholesale root-and-branch re-writing. >>> >>> Before retiring from teaching, I used to give, under the auspices >>> of the Taalcentrum at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam, >>> Scientific Writing courses at a great many research institutes in >>> the Netherlands. Before the post-grad students even considered >>> enrolling in the course, they had to prove that the quality of >>> their English was very high indeed. Their Bachelor’s and Master’s >>> courses had been mainly in English and by the time they came to me >>> they had already been producing a fair body of work in that >>> (foreign) language. >>> >>> Let’s get one thing straight, shall we? These students are >>> researchers. The work they do is what is important and it is this >>> that has to be conveyed through the writing of articles. A fair >>> number of students would rather stick their arms into a fire than >>> write, but writing an article is a concomitant purgatory to the >>> research they are involved in and totally inseparable from it. >>> It’s a hurdle, very often a psychological one, and one that I >>> tried through the years to help them climb over. And I do think >>> that to a large extent I succeeded. >>> >>> Another point I have to make is that all authors need an extra >>> pair of eyes in the form of an editor who will eliminate >>> repetitions, suggest the rewording of a clumsy phrase or the >>> joining up of a series of short staccato sentences. She will >>> certainly point out ambiguities and other fallacies in a text that >>> to the author herself seems perfectly clear. Let’s face it - an >>> ambiguity or any other fallacy could affect the legitimacy of the >>> results and cast doubt on years of work. >>> >>> The editor might also suggest weeding an unnecessary purple patch, >>> culling excessive adjectives and so on. This editing is done with >>> the cooperation of the author(s) and is negotiable. What an editor >>> does in fact is tart up an article or book, making it spruce >>> enough to be accepted for publication and to stand up to critical >>> peer-reviewing. An editor will help the author present in clear, >>> unambiguous text the outward proof of solid research. The >>> important thing is that the voice of the author remains resonant >>> and identifiable. >>> >>> And when I say all writers need an extra pair of keen eyes I mean >>> just that. I’m referring here not only to academic researchers but >>> also Mann-Booker prize winners and renowned authors of essays etc. >>> There are very few publishers who would allow a novel for example >>> to be published ‘raw’, as it were. So if we accept that the work >>> of an author with a fair fist should undergo the scrutiny of a >>> professional editor, why on earth should we deny that service to a >>> researcher who is not a professional writer but is simply using >>> the medium of the written word to get her work known and who is >>> possibly a non-native speaker to boot? That would just be plain >>> silly, as well as being mean-spirited. >>> >>> Elizabeth Harding >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Linda McPhee >>> [log in to unmask] >>> www.lindamcpheeconsulting.com >> > >