Tag Archives: University of Johannesburg

End of UJ staff workshop

Standard

I always have a range of emotions as an intense workshop comes to an end.  For a week, we’ve been closeted together and before you know it, it seems like we’ve known each other for a long, long time.  Then the workshop ends and I’m left with the sharp realisation that I won’t be seeing anyone from this group tomorrow.

I feel extremely privileged to have spent the time with these participants.  I’ve enjoyed hearing about their experiences and their journeys.  We’ve laughed a lot – which I always enjoy.  And we have hashed and rehashed their research projects until I’m sure they are dreaming about them!

UJ staff group – all the best with research.  I have no doubt you will be successful.

Cecile

Advertisements

Becoming a productive writer workshop – UJ

Standard

Today I started the first of the workshops sponsored by the Carnegie African Diaspora Fellowship Program at the University of Johannesburg. The group was responsive and engaged and I could see that what I had to say resonated with them.  One of the topics covered was dealing with reviewer’s comments and how to cope with rejections from journals. In these discussions there is often the perception that the relationship is one way where the writer has little recourse or power.  Of course this is true.  But on my way home after the workshop I thought that perhaps if we saw the review process as one of dialogue, (rather than gate-keeping) then this might shift our perceptions and affect what we take from the review.

The dialogue is not only in what the reviewers say but in reading between the lines as well.  Why is the reviewer saying my research is too tightly focused?  What does he/she mean by this?  Where can I see that in my paper? What can I change? Staller (2013) argues that when two reviewers give different perhaps conflicting comments that this can be seen as a positive result because it leads the writer to reassess, to ask questions, to make meaning clearer and to ultimately write a better paper.

Staller (2013) suggests that in her field reviewers on the whole don’t like to reject papers.  They prefer to give the writer the opportunity to rework the paper and often ask for major revisions.  While editors would prefer a decision to reject because they want to get on with the job of publishing the journal.  She outlines a list of times a rejection is necessary:

  • When the paper is out side the scope of the journal
  • When it offers nothing new to existing conversations
  • When the underlying project is seriously flawed in its conceptualisation that it can’t be fixed
  • When it needs so many revisions that it will be an entirely new paper
  • When it is so muddled that even revisions won’t fix it.

While seeing these results as part of a dialogue may be difficult, it is helpful to focus on the dialogue rather than the rejection.

As I said several times today, publishing academic articles is like fishing.  You have to send off articles ( put your line in the water), get rejected (pull up an empty line), rewrite (put more bait on), and send it off again (drop the line in) – until you get published.  Paying attention to reviewer’s comments is one way to speed up this process.

There’s no doubt about it, it’s a painful process.  My way of dealing with negative reviewer comments is to rant and rave first, (there may even be some name-calling), I always reject everything they say, I often throw the comments in the bin, sometimes forcefully and I’m pretty grumpy for a while.  Then once the initial reaction is over, I take out the crumpled papers from the bin and see if I can make changes – this I do reluctantly.  Then when I start working through the changes, I start saying ‘Ok, maybe they have a point here’ and finally at the end, I’m thanking the reviewers for their wonderful insights.

I hope this provides you with something to think about the next time you recieve a negative reviewers letter…

Cecile

Satller, K. (2013). Writing and reading peer reviews. Qualitative Social Work, 12, 715-721.

On my way

Standard

The workshop materials are ready, the itinerary has been finalised, accommodation is booked and my bags are packed.  In a few short hours, I’ll be on my way to Johannesburg to spend the next three weeks working with academic staff and postgraduate students on their dissertations.  Thank goodness for Dropbox and other modern luxuries otherwise I’d be carrying all sorts of documents.  The past couple of weeks have been very busy with preparations.  While I’m not looking forward to two-day trip and the initial jet lag, I am looking forward to being back home where for a while I won’t be easily identified as a foreigner.  I’ll be able to blend in, I hope.  I’m also thrilled to be seeing family, friends and colleagues.  I’ve worked at the University of Johannesburg before over the years that I’ve lived in Canada and I’m going to enjoy reconnecting with colleagues.

I always enjoy workshops like the ones I’m about to engage in because they really seem to help writers find direction.  I’ve been thinking through possible activities and plans for each workshop session but it’s only once I meet everyone that I will be able to work out what everyone needs.  We have requested advance (home)work which most participants have done but it will only be as we get to know one another that the real feedback will happen. I’m looking forward to getting to know everyone.

We’ve set up three workshop sessions.  One day with academics at UJ on SOTL issues where I’ll be talking on ‘Becoming a productive academic writer’, one intense week with academic staff on completing their dissertations and one week with PhD and Master’s students on finishing their dissertations.

It seems strange to think that the next time I write on this blog, I will be all the way over there.  I’ll be going from mid-summer to mid-winter.  Although I know Johannesburg winters are lovely and sunny. Well, until then…