Skip to content

Legitimising reading as a crucial component of academic writing

Like many of my fellow professors, I feel the pressure of having to continuously write scholarly papers, present them at academic conferences, submit them for peer review and publish in highly-ranked journals. I share the same responsibilities: I lead a 19 people research team in a multiple-institutions, collaborative, large-scale, multi-method research project on water conflict in Mexico. I have Masters’ and PhD students whose thesis I need to read, comment on, help refine and on top of that, I contribute service to my discipline(s), my campus, my institution and the global academic community. The other day, I found myself arriving to campus and walking to my office while talking on the phone, holding the phone on one hand while signing administrative forms with the other. A few months back, I reported on Twitter how I actually had so much stuff to do on campus that I literally did not have one second to eat lunch. I share the same pressures, even though I am single. I can’t even begin to grapple with the challenges facing academic parents/students and those who need to engage in care work, on top of everything else they have.

#AcWri setup

I’m busy. Super busy. Enjoyably ultra-busy. But one thing I can’t justify is NOT reading, because I have so much work to do. The two things I do Every Single Day is read (at least one journal article, book chapter) and write (however many words, sentences and paragraphs I can). I am tired of the trope that “the time we spend reading isn’t #AcWri“. I am, sometimes, guilty of spouting this fallacy myself.

To test this trope, last week (January 1st-5th, 2018) I experimented with literally writing out of thin air. I sat down and started typing words related to specific papers and books I’m writing. I was able to crank out 2545 NEW words in 5 days, which is what it is — as I’ve said before, I’m not obsessed with word count. I will leave the discussion on producing new words, edited words and revised words for another blog post. I wrote 2545 words without using a prompt to help me write. This process was PAINFUL. I did not allow myself any reading. I was simply supposed to WRITE.

AcWri process (15 minutes)This week (January 8th-12th, 2018) I wrote stuff that was associated with several of my projects, BUT AIDED BY PROMPTS, specifically articles I had already read, or that I was reading to prepare my lecture on intractable water conflict. This integration really facilitated my progress, which I’m measuring not by the number of words I’ve written so far, but by the fact that I have begun to really grapple with some rather challenging concepts in water conflict (such as the fact that cooperation isn’t necessarily the lack of conflict). It’s really important that we realize that reading IS legitimate, and engaged reading (such as highlighting, scribbling on the margins, writing handwritten or typed notes about a journal article, book chapter, book, report, or even data table) IS part of the writing process. Reading is INTEGRAL to the academic writing process.

To share another example: this morning (Friday, January 12th, 2018) I woke up, got my coffee and spent 2 hours reading Bar-Tal’s (2000) journal article on intractable conflict resolution and reconciliation. Reading this article, highlighting key passages, finding relevant quotations, and writing (by hand) important ideas. I normally do a combined AIC Content Extraction/Conceptual Synthesis Excel Dump entry, but I knew reading Bar-Tal would give me many key ideas so I chose to do deep engagement.

Doing this allowed me to find some key ideas that I think are relevant not only to the class I’m preparing and to the topic I’m lecturing on tomorrow, but also to my own research and that of my lab. Taking the time to really sit down and read, and engage deeply with the Bar-Tal article really allowed me to create new ideas that I am sure will further my project and help us move forward, both conceptually and methodologically.

In sum, the entire point of this blog post was to remind my fellow scholars (and myself) that reading is an integral part of writing, and that if we don’t read, and make time to read, we will probably not be able to situate our scholarship within the global scholarly literature. I know we are all busy, but if I may be so bold to suggest, I strongly believe we ought to make time to read at least one journal article or book chapter a day. I know this is tough. I spent 2 hours on this particular article and I am 3 pages in (I’m doing deep-engagement instead of a simple AIC Content Extraction)! But that’s because I’ve also spent time tweeting about it and mulling over the ideas I’ve been reading.

I’ve written about this topic extensively, so here I’ll just close by sharing this post on 8 strategies to carve time to read during the semester.

Posted in academia, writing.

Tagged with , .

No comments

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – January 12, 2018

Writing Your Journal Article in 12 Weeks (A Guide to Academic Success) (my reading notes)

Despite the fact that I have interacted with Dr. Wendy Laura Belcher quite a lot, we discuss academic writing almost every day, I had never written my reading notes of her book (Writing Your Journal Article in 12 Weeks – A Guide to Academic Success, published by SAGE). Mind you, I’ve used her book on a regular basis (she calls it a workbook and I think it’s a blended mix of book that must be read and workbook that can be used to solve exercises). Anyways, I have decided to post my reading notes of her workbook.

Writing Your Journal Article in 12 Weeks - Wendy L Belcher

I must indicate from the start what I noted on Twitter: I don’t own a copy, because SAGE put its price tag really high ($94 USD plus shipping and handling). It’s a ridiculous price given that it is targeted to students and early career scholars, groups that actually don’t have that much money. Dr. Belcher and I have discussed how absurd this price is, at length. I read, and I regularly use my own institution’s copy. But I haven’t acquired one because it’s really expensive. Nevertheless, as I’ve noted on Twitter, it’s a really, really good investment. Dr. Lisa Munro has blogged about her experience writing an article using the workbook, her first post can be found here. There are plenty of testimonials on Twitter from people who have used Dr. Belcher’s book, so I don’t think she needs any more endorsement.

Nevertheless, I wanted to note what I learned from her book here. As I have noted, one can work out of a library copy and use the free workbook forms that Dr. Belcher offers. Below, you’ll find my tweets about the book, transformed into reading notes.

As I noted, this workbook is designed to help the reader revise a draft journal article for final submission to a journal, and therefore, one could use other approaches (like the one used by the author of How to Write A Lot, Paul Silvia – I call this approach “word vomit”). The Belcher approach works for me because I am very regimented, disciplined and systematic. he The workbook is VERY structured, and it demands from the reader very specific tasks. It also forces the reader and workbook user to self-reflect on a daily basis, something the fast-paced academic environment often doesn’t allow you to do.

Week 11 on wrapping up and Week 12 on sending your article may also be conflated in 1-2 days (so it’d be 9 weeks to a journal article). Why do I like the Belcher book? Because I find the 12 weeks approach (similar to a quarter system when I teach) manageable and doable. If I were to teach academic writing Belcher’s #12WeeksJournalArticle I probably would teach it as a 9 week model for my colleagues. Or a 12 week model for my students. The workbook can even be used just for fun reading to diagnose your own writing. Overall, as I said, like the workbook and not the price. It is what it is, the author has no say. If you were to read the Spanish translation, FLACSO sells it for MUCH CHEAPER than the English one.

Posted in academia, writing.

Tagged with , , .

No comments

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – January 7, 2018

Shattering the bottled water market: Offering tap water through drinking water fountains

Water fountains at airportsOne of the reasons why the bottled water market remains as is (in a position of domination whereby it’s one of the top 5 most profitable businesses out there, together with scholarly publishing, and yes I recognize the irony in all of this), is the fact that there are institutional and structural factors that drive increases in bottled water consumption. One that I find particularly galling is the fact that there aren’t enough drinking water fountains within cities’ territory. Water provision is a public service that is usually the responsibility of cities. It’s one of the many public services that local governments are entrusted with, alongside garbage collection, treatment and disposal, parks and public gardens, and street road lighting. One of the many ways in which cities can reduce bottled water consumption is through the provision of public water fountains.

While drinking water fountains provide still water, and even if there’s a taste for a different type of water (like sparkling water), there are cities where you can find fountains that offer this type of offering, like Rome and Paris.

The Rome case:

Rome has unveiled a kiosk that dispenses free water, both still and sparkling, on Via dei Fori Imperiali outside the Colosseum metro station.

The Paris case:

That’s right: a public fountain that serves up sparkling water. France might be known for its bottled water — take Evian from the Alps, or a bottle of bubbly Perrier. But in Paris, the mayor is pushing people to give up the bottles in favor of tap water from the city supply. One way the city is trying to do so is to make its water more appealing.

Dr. Andrew Biro has written about how individuals may develop a taste for specific types of water (sparkling or “gourmet”) and Dr. Rachel Black has developed the notion that Acqua Minerale di Sangemini (mineral water of Sangemini) gained a place at the table. If this is the type of water that needs to be supplied to entice individuals to switch back from bottled to tap water, then so be it.

Posted in academia, bottled water.

Tagged with .

No comments

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – December 28, 2017

Writing a book review

Writing book reviews, to me, feels as the service we all ought to provide other scholars. I don’t post actual reviews on my website (instead, I post my reading notes because I don’t know if my notes are detailed enough to be an actual review, and whether I’ll do justice to the author), but I do have extensive experience writing reviews. Producing a book (or even editing a volume) is a tremendously challenging and taxing endeavour, so I believe book reviews should be done thoroughly, kindly and honestly.

Workflow

For many of my colleagues, assigning a book review (or a book review essay) is part of their teaching process. I don’t do this in my classes, and never have, even in graduate school courses. But I have written and published book reviews myself in various journals (my most recent one of Plastic Water, by Hawkins, Potter and Race in the Canadian Journal of Water Resources). While different people (and evaluation committees) will value book reviews differently, for many folks publishing a book review will be a nice entry into the world of academic publishing.

For me, a good review should include at the very least the following elements:

  • Full citation and price of the book.
  • A summary of the book’s major insight(s), usually worded in the nicest way possible.
  • A detailed account, chapter by chapter, of the best elements learned in the book.
  • A summary of everything good and bad about the book, again, usually worded in a nice but rigorous way.

There are a few book reviews that are a bit more picturesque (like this one, which starts with a lovely memory that brings the author of the review home with regards to what they want to say about the book) or more systematic and direct, like this one that summarizes the book concisely and swiftly.

For me, the actual physical process of writing a book review goes like this (bear in mind I’ve already written about how to read entire volumes, both single-or-multi-authored and edited):

  1. I start by skimming the entire book really quickly.
  2. I read the introduction and conclusion.
  3. I make a plan to read the entire book, if I can’t in one sitting, which chapters I’ll be reading over however long I decide to take to finish the review, unless I’m under deadline.
  4. I follow the plan, usually reading and taking handwritten notes about the book chapter(s) in my Everything Notebook (or typing detailed notes in a memorandum).
  5. I write up the review as noted above, but reserve criticisms to the very last paragraph of the review.
  6. I send it out to people whom I trust and ask them to see if my review was too harsh.
  7. I edit the review according to feedback I receive.

You can read my review of Emily Boyd and Carl Folke’s edited volume “Adapting Institutions: Governance, Complexity and Social-Ecological Resilience” as published in Global Environmental Politics here.

My hope is that this post will help those who are writing book reviews. As always, be honest and direct, but also kind and generous. You can always write a detailed review that is tough, but that can be palatable and find the good elements of a book. Someone on my Twitter timeline recommended these 3 rules about book reviewing post, also worth considering.

Another solid example of a book review as published in Canadian Food Studies can be found here (thanks Dr. Sarah Martin for this piece!)

Dr. Michael Leo Owens also offered one of his own book reviews for you to check out (thanks!)

Posted in academia, writing.

Tagged with , .

1 comment

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – December 26, 2017

Dealing with rejected papers and revise-and-resubmits (R&Rs) with purpose

One of the things I’ve been learning this 2017 has been dealing with rejection in a more constructive manner. Toward the beginning of the year 20017 I got a paper rejected from the top journal in my field and I literally shut the door of my campus office and burst into tears. This manuscript was, in my opinion, my very best in a very long time. It had received much praise across different avenues when I presented it, and I thought it was fantastic. Well, I got a rejection. We all do. In academia, it’s the norm, not the exception.

But this year, I’ve gotten a lot better at dealing with the rejected paper, but probably not in a very timely manner. A good friend of mine, Dr. Adam Wellstead says that one should literally turn around a paper within two weeks. I don’t think everyone can do this, so when I thought about what I plan to do with my papers in 2018, I figured the word was “PURPOSE”. I think it’s fundamental to plan to deal with rejected papers and revise-and-resubmits (R&Rs) quite swiftly. So this is the process I plan to follow (I already do, but this will be a more systematic approach).

#AcWri at the SFO airport

FOR REJECTED PAPERS AND FOR R&Rs

1. I take 1 week without seeing the paper itself nor the reviews. THEN I generate the Drafts Review Matrix for this paper.

Reading rejection letters is painful, and even though I’m a journal editor and I have often had to write these, I’ve decided to avoid the pain for a little bit. Since I do have research assistants, I ask them to help me create my Drafts Review Matrix while I avoid the paper for a while.

2. I take the recommendations of the reviewer as noted in the rejection letter to improve the paper.

There are cases (countless, for me) where the rejection letter is absolutely useless: “your paper sucks”. Well, thank you very much, I already knew this. When I receive one of those, I simply refuse to write for that journal ever again, and to peer review for this journal too. But when the rejection letter is nicely worded and offers good feedback, I take those recommendations to improve the paper. I received three of these this year and yes, the comments WILL improve the paper, for sure.

3. I take 3 days to a week to focus on improving ONE particular paper. Unless more research/data is required.

I have realized that I can’t MEPFED with Revise-And-Resubmits (R&Rs) so I focus on ONE paper throughout a week. I make the changes that the reviewers suggested, and draft a potential R&R memorandum (obviously, when the paper is rejected, this memorandum will serve no-one, but in case a reviewer says “I think I already reviewed this piece” I can tell the editor “possibly, but HERE, I can demonstrated I made X, Y, and Z changes based on this reviewer’s feedback – and by the way, please send the revised version to a DIFFERENT reviewer because obviously this one already saw the previous version and I’m pretty sure he/she won’t want to see this new one”.

4. I reformat the paper for a different journal, and then take a morning to submit it.

This is where I ask my RAs for help. My RAs help me reformat the paper for a different journal, but since one must do the entire submission process (including writing the cumbersome cover letter), I usually save a morning to do the submission.

BUT WHAT IF I DON’T HAVE THE TIME RIGHT NOW TO DEAL WITH MY REJECTED PIECES OR R&Rs?

Like everybody else, I am often quite busy and booked, so I apply the steps above spread out over a month or two. This is the only way I can continue doing work while not getting bogged down by these rejections and R&Rs. What I suggest is to avoid what I once did: leave a paper dormant for TEN MONTHS. Not healthy, not for you, not for the journal.

I think more than anything, we need to be purposeful with how we use our time to deal with rejections and R&Rs. I find that rejections are often a matter of fit “this paper wasn’t good for this journal”. And R&Rs are opportunities to improve our papers. So, get up, dust off, and #GetYourManuscriptOut!

NOTE: If I need more data analysis, data collection or fieldwork, I prioritize this data collection, analysis or field season so that I can get the R&R out faster.

Posted in academia, writing.

Tagged with , .

No comments

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – December 25, 2017

Writing Without Bullshit: Boost Your Career by Saying What You Mean (my reading notes)

Writing without Bullshit (Josh Bernoff)This year, I’ve been reading a lot about writing (in general), and academic writing (in particular), because more and more people come to my website for advice on how to write, and I’ve created a nice (small-but-growing) network of scholars on whose advice I rely on to make my own prose. I recently received a physical copy of Glen Wright (of Academia Obscura’s fame)’s book, which he kindly gifted me. Receiving this book prompted me to buy THE BOOK Glen recommended that helped improve his writing: Josh Bernoff’s Writing Without Bullshit: Boost Your Career by Saying What You Mean. I had read another endorsement of Bernoff’s book on my Twitter account when Reneé Stephen tweeted at me about this book being required reading for anyone who writes. Two people whose opinion I trust decided Bernoff’s book was worth it (and the price was quite accessible, $16 USD) so I decided to buy it.

As you can see from my photograph, I read Bernoff’s book while sitting in my pyjamas (or pajamas or PJs, I’m not going to fight over word choice). I speed-read, admittedly, but regardless, I found Bernoff’s Writing Without Bullshit quite easy to read, and I did so in 45 minutes (live-tweeting included) comfortably sitting on my couch and having a cup of coffee. Following Bernoff’s advice, I won’t post a lengthy set of reading notes and I’ll just copy-and-paste my tweets associated with the book (I also threaded them in case you want to read directly on Twitter).

Overall, I found Josh Bernoff’s “Writing Without Bullshit” as good as Renee and Glen suggested. It’s a quick read, particularly useful if you tend to be verbose and write clunky, “big-words” kind of prose, and will definitely make for a good book to refer back to.

Posted in academia, writing.

Tagged with , , , .

1 comment

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – December 23, 2017

Carving time to read: The AIC and Conceptual Synthesis Excel Dump combination method

This semester has been a bit more hectic than I expected, and keeping everything under control hasn’t been an easy task. But despite whatever challenges I face, I am determined to stay on top of the literature. I’ve written before about having a repertoire of reading strategies (quick skim to determine what a paper is about and whether it’s an important one or not, mid-range for when we’re doing literature reviews, annotated bibliographies or in-depth for when we’re preparing for comprehensives or writing a paper).

Reading

I do carve time to read every single day, because otherwise I’m not able to be on top of the literature (which I need to be). Last night, I live-tweeted my reading of a paper and that process made me consider writing a blog post on my strategy for when I’m pressed for time, which you can see in my tweets (click on the hyperlink on the time stamp of my first tweet to reveal the entire thread, or on this link).

I received this paper via Twitter from the WIEGO (Women in Informal Employment: Globalizing and Organizing) Twitter account. This group frequently publishes research in a field I work in: informal waste pickers. I know Sally Roever in person, I’ve read and love her work and we’ve met as well (we met and went for a coffee and a walk this year at ISA 2017 in Baltimore and we had a wonderful time).

When I know an author in person, and I know their work is relevant to my own research, I usually try to read whatever research they just published as soon as possible. So that’s what I did last night. In total, I spent 30 minutes because I paired my AIC Content Extraction Method with my Conceptual Synthesis Excel Dump. I knew I was pressed for time (I go to bed at around 9:30pm every day so I can wake up at 4:00am and write), so I figured I couldn’t spend more than 1 hour in this paper. This is the process I followed:

My rule is to never leave anything “unprocessed” (see my protocol for the process that I use to go from downloading an article or a book chapter’s PDF to writing a full memorandum here).

My goal for this paper, despite the fact that it’s really important to my work, was to simply read the Abstract, Introduction and Conclusion (AIC), highlight and scribble and find the main ideas, write an entry (a row) in my Conceptual Synthesis Excel Dump for informal waste picking, and file in my “To Process” tray. This way, once I get everything that I need to finish this week out of the way, I’ll get back to reading this article in detail.

To do an AIC, I usually read the Abstract first, then the Introduction, then the Conclusion. Because I knew that I didn’t have the time to write a full memorandum, to read the paper in detail, and even to write a synthetic note, I decided to write an entry in my informal waste pickers’ Conceptual Synthesis Excel Dump. This is the very least I can do, and this allows me to know which articles are important to read and get back to.

Even though I was reading, I also took the time to post my process on Twitter, and answer questions as I went along.

As I read the paper, I uploaded it on to Mendeley, cleaned up the reference, and typed the content of my scribbles on to a Conceptual Synthesis Excel Dump row, as you can see below.

It’s important to note that all I did was read Abstract, Introduction, Conclusion, scribble notes on the margin that help me understand and process the information in this paper, and highlight relevant passages in those three sections of the paper (which give me a good overview of the entire journal article), and then type these notes into a row in my Conceptual Synthesis Excel Dump. Because I know I’m going to have to come back to this paper, I don’t simply file it, but I locate it in my “Processing” tray (see my Four Trays Method for Filing and Organizing).

Once I’m done with a paper, I usually file it using a magazine holder (as I’ve outlined in this blog post).

For me, using this method ensures that

  • (a) I stay on top of whatever newest research is being published
  • (b) I carve time every day to read
  • (c) I have notes for the paper and
  • (d) I will come back to read this paper in more depth.

Overall, this entire process took me 30 minutes. I could notice the gaps in learning once I finished the AIC process: I could tell that I hadn’t read about the 4 cities, neither the introduction nor the conclusion had details about the case studies and specific insights but were more general. So I know for a fact I need to come back to this paper, but I’ll do that when I know I have more time, or when I have to write something on informal waste pickers. But at least I already have read some basic information off the paper, and I have an Excel dump entry to check and review.

Obviously, there are papers that are harder to read, therefore taking much more time. Walsh 2015 on mineral springs and primitive accumulation in Mexico, and Kaplan 2011 on drinking water fountains and water coolers both took me an entire week at about 20 minutes a day to finish reading them. These articles were DENSE and full with information. I had to take a few days to process them. But I read a little bit of each one every single day.

Hopefully this process will help my readers keep up with the literature! I know how hard it is with heavy teaching loads to stay on top of the literature (I am well aware that my previous 2-1-2 was not the worst – there are scholars who have 4-4 or even 5-5).

Posted in academia, reading strategies.

Tagged with , , , , .

5 comments

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – December 5, 2017

A different metric of #AcWri success: Completing sentences and paragraphs

When I read what other writers who write about academic writing, I’m often left with the feeling that there is no room for manoeuvering in their advice. “Write 1,000 words a day, no matter what“. “Write for two hours every day” (and yes, I’m well aware that I am well known for advocating this approach – with the proviso that I do recommend that people do whatever suits them best, as long as they are able to create their own academic writing practice). I have been pondering for a while advocating for the value of a different metric of success in #AcWri – success in completing sentences and paragraphs.

Let me share an example: I was working recently on a paper on evidence-based policy making, science-policy interfaces and coproduction of science and policy. These aren’t fields I usually work on, this was a commissioned paper. As a result, it’s been quite painful to finish the damn manuscript. A few days ago, I decided that it was good time to finish writing this piece, because I have to move on to other, more pressing manuscripts. I was literally about 1,200 words away from completing the draft.

As I’ve suggested above, I take the “complete sentences and paragraphs approach” because I do get tired quite easily. While I love writing, it’s hard for me to stay writing for a relatively long period of time. So, I focus on completing a sentence, stringing a few sentences, or finishing an entire paragraph. This is the idea behind the “anchor sentences” approach.

The trick for me is to focus on completing sentences, and on finishing paragraphs. So, instead of being overwhelmed by the fact that I still have 1,200 words to finish, I focus on completing a sentence that I left incomplete.

While I recognise that this approach may not work for everyone, I agree that we ought to give ourselves permission not to finish all the sentences or complete paragraphs so we can pick up the next day where we left off.

Outlining a paper and adding text allows you to form more coherent thoughts as you write.

Because I do get tired of writing after a while, I calculate “how much more work do I need to do” – so, for example, here I know that I need to write 3 paragraphs (one per bullet item). So, that’s about 300 words. That feels doable and I can do that within an hour that I may have here or there. Or while waiting at the airport for my flight.

Leaving text for the following day is a well tried strategy as you can see here.

Knowing that you can start the next day from an outline of half-completed sentences and paragraphs can actually be helpful. But more importantly, as I’ve said, instead of dreading a blank page, and wondering if 2 hours will be enough to complete 1,500 words, I prefer to focus on completing sentences and paragraphs. Perhaps this approach may be helpful to my readers. It’s definitely useful for me!

Posted in academia.

Tagged with , .

No comments

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – December 3, 2017

Dealing with Shiny New Project Syndrome: How to remain focused on the task at hand

While I’m pretty organised and systematic in the way I do things, I always run the risk of thinking “wow, that’s a neat project and one I should pursue” without much regard for whether I have the bandwidth to actually work on something and function normally. This has been happening to me this semester (Fall 2017) when despite my previously very organised semester, which I already had planned with my Everything Notebook since last December, I thought to myself “oh look, SHINY NEW PROJECTS! But I don’t have the energy to pursue them. Although… well, I have a large lab, and my research assistants can help me get through and organise this, or write that, or generate that. Ok, sure, I’ll say yes“.

RISC 2017

Myrna Santiago keynote and ISTOR Special Issue Presentation

Seminario Enfoques de Politica Publica CIDE FLACSO

FAMOUS LAST WORDS.

Right now, I’m sick at home, after a rather trying week where I flew into Vancouver, did fieldwork, conducted interviews, met up with UBC professors, colleagues, and coauthors, gave two talks, participated in one panel. All the while, flying back on the Thursday so I could teach my undergraduate and graduate classes on Friday and Saturday. Obviously, I’m completely wiped out, even though it’s a Monday now. The reality is that, despite my best efforts to always plan my life to the very last minute, there are always contingencies, one of the most important ones being – there’s always a Shiny New Project that appears in the horizons that you say “sure why not, this looks doable and like something I want to do“.

DON’T.

Learn your lesson through me. Although, in all fairness, we ALL sometimes face Shiny New Project Syndrome.

I took to Twitter to ask them how to deal with SNPS, and here are a few of the excellent responses I got.

I love Liz Gloyn’s concept of academic otters 🙂

One thing I liked about all the responses is how human we all are regarding new projects. We all try to be very systematic and stay with the main ones we’re working on and then… WHOA. Something new comes our way.

Overall, when it comes to Shiny New Project Syndrome, I try to just stick to my yearly, monthly and weekly plan, but I also have a folder of “Projects to Undertake“. I’ll write more about it in a different post.

Posted in academia.

Tagged with , , , .

No comments

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – November 14, 2017

Deciding on which writing projects to tackle and in what sequence

One of the challenges we (professors, and I believe, graduate students, contingent faculty, and a broad range of other academics and adjacent-to-academia folks) face is that we increasingly feel that we don’t have enough time and that we are too busy, and sometimes we feel too overwhelmed by everything we have to do: supervise theses, write papers, travel for fieldwork and conferences, do service to the university, the department and the community. I’ve been feeling this way the past few weeks, despite my relatively decent organizational and time management skills.

#AcWri on a plane

A couple of weeks ago, I literally did not even have lunch, I worked all day, having started at 4 am. I participated in a workshop on public policy theories, met with graduate students at CIDE, met with undergraduate students from IBERO, had FaceTime meetings with coauthors, etc. This past week, I was the local host for an international conference and worked 17 hour days (though I did eat). So, when I finally have had some time to think over what projects I wanted to tackle, I KNEW had to go back to using some sort of Hierarchy of Priorities method.

If you’ve read the literature on decision analysis, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a method designed to help make complex decisions. It’s used in a very broad range of scholarship. I am not nearly as systematic as to use AHP to decide which writing I need to do next, so my hierarchy of priorities is much less sophisticated. This is, more or less, the hierarchy I follow when tackling a writing project:

1. Coauthored papers that are at a Revise-&-Resubmit (R&R) stage.

These papers are usually at the highest rung of my priority ladder. The logic underneath this decision is quite straightforward: R&Rs usually mean that there’s a likelihood that we’ll get the paper published. A fast R&R turnaround can help us get the paper out and published faster. Plus, having a coauthor means that we both need to consider tenure clocks, etc. So when I am coauthoring a paper, I usually focus my efforts on these one.

Travel AcWri

2. Coauthored papers that have an impending deadline.

These papers are usually either second, or tied-to-the-top of the priority hierarchy. Since we have to get revisions in, I usually focus my time on getting these out relatively fast. For example, a coauthor of mine and I have to resubmit an R&R in the next couple of weeks to avoid having our paper considered as a new submission rather than a revise-and-resubmit. Therefore, this paper takes precedence over others.

#AcWri at the SFO airport

3. Single-authored papers that are currently under R&R.

These manuscripts need to get worked on relatively fast as well, because they’re important for my tenure clock. So I currently have 5 R&Rs and they’re occupying A LOT of my time. That’s why I never feel like I don’t have anything to write. I have 5 R&Rs, one per day of the week if I decide to work WOPED model (my post on WOPED vs MEPFED is here).

#AcWri on the plane

4. Memorandums, synthetic notes, Conceptual Synthesis Excel dump row entries.

Since manuscripts are made out of words and data, I usually focus on spending at least some time (1 hour if possible, if not more) writing “input material” (i.e. drafts of memorandums, handwritten notes on a specific project, transcriptions of interviews, composite versions of datasets, etc.)

Obviously, emails related to scholarly activities, and other types of writing are also important and should be valued, particularly when it comes to moving your research forward. But those are usually positioned in the lower rung of my writing priorities. Still need to be considered, but they are not at the top of my priority hierarchy. I’m also quite open to other suggestions on how to prioritize writing projects.

Posted in academia.

Tagged with , , .

No comments

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – November 5, 2017