- Contemporary teaching for improving writing is often focused on the unimportant parts of communication and narration.
- Preoccupation with good grammar and punctuation hides more effective ways to improve writing and enforces inequality.
- First person can be useful in scientific writing but is often imprecise ("We" didn't all hold hands and perform PCR) and can sound ridiculous.
- Passive voice is perfectly fine when used in the appropriate context.
- Just because something "sounds" good doesn't mean readers will be able to appropriately interpret your meaning (I'm especially bad about this; I read things aloud to determine clarity).
As per Gopen's recommendations at the end of the course, I selected an old blog post and checked the writing sample for several of his identified "reader expectations" (explained in the article mentioned above). My biggest problem is misplacement of old and new information, which is a very common problem among science writers.
Knowing one or more errors may be lurking in my writing has danced on the periphery of my perception for weeks, stifling my urges to put pen to paper and making me acutely aware of my failings as a professional. While this assessment may seem a bit melodramatic, I am in the midst of sending off applications for jobs, and the requisite cover letters, research statements, and teaching philosophies I've been including now appear to be suboptimal. I've begun the tedious process of revising these documents. While perfect application of my newly learned skills is impossible, I'm hoping for marked improvement...or at least the ability to write without hearing Gopen's voice chastising me.
No comments:
Post a Comment