Although I enjoy writing, I still find it a challenge and
I’m often curious about how other writers work as
they’re producing scholarship. My own technique is something that I developed in graduate school and continue tweaking even now as I’m a professor.
The Six Steps I’ve listed below are the steps I go through in order to produce a draft of an article or paper—I
realize that others do things differently and the key principle is to figure
out and go with what works for you. You’re not doing it wrong if you’re doing
it.
It feels a bit vulnerable to reveal the unfinished product, but because
graduate school can be so grueling, I thought it’d be worth it to
put my process out there. All the disclaimers apply: I'm an anthropologist and this is me writing ethnography, disciplinary conventions from humanities, STEM, and even other social sciences are very different. There are other sites (
here and
here and
here and
here and
here) that also give great advice on the doing of graduate school and the work we're to produce.
You’ll notice two things from the start:
1) I do a lot of pre-writing.
(I call this
“writing.”)
2) I do a lot of it by hand.
(Writing by hand does
something different for my brain as I’m trying to work through ideas or pushing
through a moment of “writer’s block.” Also, typing on the computer makes it
oh-so-tempting to start reading my email or fret about
the
WHO news on the coronavirus.)
The goal here is to produce a draft (not a perfect final
version) and this takes time. Interspersed with all these steps are coffee,
eating, sleeping, grading, lecturing, commuting, bathing, jogging, interacting
with human beings who are not my students. These steps won’t work very well the
night before something is due.
STEP ONE: Initial Brainstorming [by hand!]
Main Question: What’s interesting?
To come up with an idea for a paper (or article), start with
the question “What’s interesting?” What’s the data puzzle that caught you eye?
What’s the question or confusion that you find intriguing?
2 examples from my own writing:
- Why didn’t yerba mate catch on during European colonialism
in the same way that coffee and tea did, since they’re all non-European
products and all have a bitter taste? (This led to an article I placed with
Comparative Studies in Society and History here.)
- Something I noticed in my ethnographic field work was that
there are different versions of the “origin stories” for the massive Itaipú dam
construction debt (and whether it was being repaid) and these versions seem to
coincide with the political and social position of the individual. Note: images
I’ve included in this post are the real notes for this paper.
I actually write down questions like this in a notebook or
on a pad of paper. And then I try to figure out the “why” and the “so what.”
STEP TWO: The Basics [by hand!]
Main Question: What’s going on? Why does it matter?
On a piece of paper (usually legal paper turned sideways),
I’ll label four sections entitled:
- The Issue
- The Data
- Theory
- So What?
And then I’ll jot down bullet points (sometimes entire
sentences) underneath each and answer the following questions:
- The Issue: What is the issue, the main idea of this paper?
- The Data: What data, what evidence do I have that connects
to the issue? (specific documents, interviews, participant-observation)
- Theory: What theories help explain what I’m seeing in my
data?
- So What?: Why does this matter? What can we learn from this?
In this and the next step, I’ll read new articles and books
that connect with the issue and the data. I annotate as I read (and even jot
down imaginary conversations with the authors): How does W account for what she
has uncovered? How is X challenging the accepted way of thinking about this?
What would Y ask about my findings? What would Z point out is missing from my
assertions?
STEP THREE: The Set Pieces [by hand!]
Main Question: What are the major set pieces, the major components
of this article?
 |
| I began in pencil, with the boxes around what I thought might be the "major set pieces" of the article, then I drew connecting arrows and annotations to my various bullet points. On another day, I used the blue pen and then, at the end, went back to pencil to try to figure out the logical flow of various sections. |
On another piece of paper (see the accompanying images), write
out five sections that will help you figure out what the main set pieces of the
article will be. You can see that I mark up this document repeatedly… I don’t
start out with Roman numerals or any kind of order. You’ll see marginalia,
arrows, and different colored ink. This is me iterating through ideas and
connections. I’m very opposed to starting out with a pre-determined order or
hierarchy of information. In fact, that’s one of the very questions that this
step is supposed to help me work out. I certainly don’t know it from the start.
Under each of the section headings I’ll write out bullet
points and even entire sentences and sometimes I’ll realize that one section actually
has three main components. I usually draw boxes around the section headings
(you can see it on the yellow paper):
- What background does the reader
need to know to be able to understand what’s interesting about the data?
The Data:
- In this case, since these are notes about Itaipú
dam and the construction debt, my data seemed to fall into two areas: a) How the
debt grew in the first place; b) How different groups interpret that story.
Theory/Literature:
- Writers and key bodies of literature and
approaches that connect to the data.
- For the paper I was sketching out, the two
main debates were: a) literature on hydroelectric dams; b) literature on
credit/debt. I ended up focusing on the latter.
Effects/Findings/Outcomes:
- What has happened as a result of
the data?
- What are my major conclusions, major interpretations of the data and
the theory?
- What is my argument for why we’re seeing the data we’re seeing?
- Why
does this matter?
You can see that this step is several pages long and not
everything that I write here ends up in the final article. Some of it ends up
as fodder for other papers, because one of the main goals of this step is to
really focus on the heart of this article. The question is “What is this
article about? What is the story that I’m telling? What are the main components
necessary to tell that story?”
Stare and stare at these set pieces and create a logical
flow through them (notice the labeling of I, Ib, II, III, IIIb, IV, V). I do this only after writing down and
detailing all the components. For me, the order arises from my ideas and the
data. It’s not some formula that I begin with and then fill out.
STEP FOUR: Outline [typed!]
Type up the work you’ve done, using the logical flow order
and using bullet points (and complete sentences… anecdotes, formulations of the
argument) for the various subsections of each. I aim for complete sentences
(just because it helps me start linking ideas), but this isn’t absolutely
necessary.
STEP FIVE: Iterating the Outline [by hand and typed!]
 |
| This is the back of one of these pages, where I wanted more space and was trying to think through the way different constituencies were gathering data and making their claims about the debt from Itaipú dam. |
Format the narrative outline with wide margins for notes and,
by hand, comment and annotate on what you’ve written. Ask:
“So what?”
“What else needs to go here?”
“What are the steps?”
“How does theory connect?”
“What’s significant?”
“Why?”
“What’s missing here? What are the gaps?”
You might retype the outline with the added commentary,
print it out, and do this process again. The aim is to get to a place where
you’ve commented as much as you possibly can and gotten to the point where
there’s little more brainstorming that you can do to help focus the article and
interpret the data.
This isn’t the moment for exciting rabbit trails into other
areas of research or articles.
STEP SIX: Drafting [typed!]
After a few days of iterating through the outline, it’s time
to write. I’d suggest starting at the beginning of your outline and just write
the information into paragraphs. My writing goal is a minimum of 300 words a
day, but when I’ve commented and iterated through the outline, I can do triple
that in a few hours.
When you feel stuck or tired with writing, print it out and
write additional paragraphs by hand on the back sides of the pages. Part of the
reason for printing it out is sheer paranoia—in case the computer dies, I have
a hard copy.
Do only minimal editing on what’s already been written
because the goal is to finish an entire draft, not to perfectly polish the
first three paragraphs over and over.
Once the full draft is done, you can go and ask, again
“What’s missing?” “What’s out of order?” “What’s too thin?”
That's my process. Your suggestions? How to write tips Ph.D. advice academic journal article publishing publication journal peer-reviewed academic writing anthropology ethnography academia author tenure "publish or perish" peer-review doctoral program edit revise faculty
"writing culture" "How I write"
