Writing pedagogically, clearly, in great detail, communicating to your peers what you do, explicitly, yet at times, concisely, makes for good scientific writing. You piece this together as you begin your life as a graduate student. You figure out what others have done, in great detail, then find crucial pieces of (sometimes missing!) information and then start writing about it, pedagogically, in clear detail, communicating to your peers what you do, and so on...
Then you grow and start to learn about how to burnish your writing. You write not because you've chased the metaphorical rabbit down the hole and found a whole new world there but because you (or think that you) want to run down the rabbit hole and need financial assistance for that. Oh no, of course you still write for your peers and fellows, but just learn to write a "good" story. The data is important, indeed, yes. But, it needs to easily describe what you do. You learn to write to the audience - more and more about what you think you will do, than you (can) do, more about what you think your audience would like to hear, than what you think may (not), indeed, happen. The details are there surely - in your papers (which by now are looking a shade different? No, not really - that's just noise and shadows in your neuronal circuits...)
And then you move up the figurative food chain and you teach and you grade and show and tell. Some like it, while others don't, but you don't care about others and you work like hell. Slowly you grow, larger than the pursuit, larger than the discipline, till you are the science. You must also stop to teach, to focus only on the research. You contemplate the larger details, of course! And you write, still you write, around your students data and you still write to make sure the funding goes on. Some details go missing, but the pace is always ticking. You now write about what your students are doing and what your post-docs are working, you can tell a great story! You weave and knit, just a little bit, and then just a little more, till it flashes. Now it matches! Also it fits, then rhymes, and then it chimes and you find yourself featured in the NY times!
-----------------------
I thought I'd leave it there, but I had to google sciensationlism - apparently there's been more on this theme in the larger community of (biomedical) research recently --
"To avoid sciensationalism (sensationalism in science), three things must happen: a) editors must keep room for correspondence to promote controversies; b) the whistleblower must be protected; and c) research must not be exempted from accreditation programs as those for care. From all points of view, clinical research and care must be integrated. The end of the Human Research partnership between the Joint Commission and the National Committee for Quality Assurance in 2006 was a major setback. Accreditation programs that protect participants in clinical trials in public and private hospitals are needed. Lastly, we must acknowledge that IRBs, as hospital-based committees, generate too many conflicts of interest." [1]
1. Am J Med. Braillon A. Sciensationalism. 2011 Jan;124(1):e13.
Then you grow and start to learn about how to burnish your writing. You write not because you've chased the metaphorical rabbit down the hole and found a whole new world there but because you (or think that you) want to run down the rabbit hole and need financial assistance for that. Oh no, of course you still write for your peers and fellows, but just learn to write a "good" story. The data is important, indeed, yes. But, it needs to easily describe what you do. You learn to write to the audience - more and more about what you think you will do, than you (can) do, more about what you think your audience would like to hear, than what you think may (not), indeed, happen. The details are there surely - in your papers (which by now are looking a shade different? No, not really - that's just noise and shadows in your neuronal circuits...)
And then you move up the figurative food chain and you teach and you grade and show and tell. Some like it, while others don't, but you don't care about others and you work like hell. Slowly you grow, larger than the pursuit, larger than the discipline, till you are the science. You must also stop to teach, to focus only on the research. You contemplate the larger details, of course! And you write, still you write, around your students data and you still write to make sure the funding goes on. Some details go missing, but the pace is always ticking. You now write about what your students are doing and what your post-docs are working, you can tell a great story! You weave and knit, just a little bit, and then just a little more, till it flashes. Now it matches! Also it fits, then rhymes, and then it chimes and you find yourself featured in the NY times!
-----------------------
I thought I'd leave it there, but I had to google sciensationlism - apparently there's been more on this theme in the larger community of (biomedical) research recently --
"To avoid sciensationalism (sensationalism in science), three things must happen: a) editors must keep room for correspondence to promote controversies; b) the whistleblower must be protected; and c) research must not be exempted from accreditation programs as those for care. From all points of view, clinical research and care must be integrated. The end of the Human Research partnership between the Joint Commission and the National Committee for Quality Assurance in 2006 was a major setback. Accreditation programs that protect participants in clinical trials in public and private hospitals are needed. Lastly, we must acknowledge that IRBs, as hospital-based committees, generate too many conflicts of interest." [1]
1. Am J Med. Braillon A. Sciensationalism. 2011 Jan;124(1):e13.
Comments
Post a Comment