Disorganized writer is unintentionally torturing their PhD advisor
January 24, 2019 3:21 PM Subscribe
I'm currently a PhD student in STEM, working on my first paper for publication, hooray! Generally, the research itself looks good, but my advisor and I are caught in a paper-revision cycle that I need help resolving, creatively!
(tl;dr version at bottom)
I have a diagnosis of moderate-severe ADHD, combined type and one of the places that it's affected my academic life the most is writing. It has gotten a bit easier over time, but is generally excruciating for me, even emails (and AskMe questions ;-). In-class essays were nearly impossible, even into my senior year of undergrad (where I didn't study STEM so writing was a larger component of my coursework).
I was seriously considering bailing with a Master's, but was invited to a wonderful group so decided to stay on for the PhD (thanks to AskMeFi for convincing me to go for it, it's been great so far!). I figured I could use this opportunity to finally slay my writing dragon, or at least tame it a bit.
My main problems are pretty classic ADHD, but the worst two are these:
1. I have a difficult time keeping a train of thought through a paragraph (or a conversation for that matter). Since I know this, I know I need to regularly back-track to make sure I stay on topic, which makes me forget what I had planned for the next step. It is maddening!
2. I have a tendency to unconsciously swap "binary" concepts, especially while writing. So, for example, I would want to write "A is true but B is not," but what ends up on paper is "B is true but A is not" or "A is not true but B is" and so on. It is usually a complete shock/surprise to me during proofreading.
The cycle we are in is this:
My advisor wants completed drafts (full journal article length, maybe ~7,000 words or so). Despite being on full draft #5 we haven't really progressed beyond the first draft. He says that the content is there, and the research is good, but it is very difficult to revise my work because it is presented so poorly. It's whack-a-mole writing - I try to address problems brought up in the previous version, but that process ends up introducing new levels of disorganization that are hard for him to address. He is patient and encouraging, and it is normal to struggle a lot with a first paper of course, but after 5 drafts is understandably somewhat frustrated, as am I.
I mentioned when I first joined the group that I have a history of writing/academic difficulties so it's not a surprise to him, though I didn't mention ADHD and I haven't registered my diagnosis with the university (though I could if necessary).
What I've tried:
In the past, as well as for this paper, I've just "brute-forced" it - spending huuuuugge amounts of time writing, which worked fine for low-stakes undergrad essays but its not really effective for very compact, scientific writing. I had several sessions with a neuropsychologist and worked out strategies for staying on-task generally, but haven't helped much with keeping a logical argument intact. I've gone through a lot of the normal writing advice and found it good... when I can remember to apply it! I've also been to the writing center on campus a few times and got the same general advice there as was in "how to write scientific papers" books. I'm not sure they know how to help someone with my issues.
Next:
It's clear to me that I need a new approach, probably with more supervision/feedback, but I'm feeling a bit stuck - any suggestions? My advisor is great, but I really hesitate to ask for extra help from him because I know he's super busy. I really liked this post, and will start applying some of what's mentioned... but the Asker there seems to be an accomplished writer already, just understandably struggling for other reasons.
tl;dr version:
My academic writing is disorganized due to ADHD-type problems like poor working memory, and it's driving my very nice, patient PhD advisor slightly crazy. What non-traditional strategies could I use to compensate for poor working memory while writing? If you were ever in my advisor's position, have you seen someone implement an effective strategy against disoriganized writing/thinking?
(tl;dr version at bottom)
I have a diagnosis of moderate-severe ADHD, combined type and one of the places that it's affected my academic life the most is writing. It has gotten a bit easier over time, but is generally excruciating for me, even emails (and AskMe questions ;-). In-class essays were nearly impossible, even into my senior year of undergrad (where I didn't study STEM so writing was a larger component of my coursework).
I was seriously considering bailing with a Master's, but was invited to a wonderful group so decided to stay on for the PhD (thanks to AskMeFi for convincing me to go for it, it's been great so far!). I figured I could use this opportunity to finally slay my writing dragon, or at least tame it a bit.
My main problems are pretty classic ADHD, but the worst two are these:
1. I have a difficult time keeping a train of thought through a paragraph (or a conversation for that matter). Since I know this, I know I need to regularly back-track to make sure I stay on topic, which makes me forget what I had planned for the next step. It is maddening!
2. I have a tendency to unconsciously swap "binary" concepts, especially while writing. So, for example, I would want to write "A is true but B is not," but what ends up on paper is "B is true but A is not" or "A is not true but B is" and so on. It is usually a complete shock/surprise to me during proofreading.
The cycle we are in is this:
My advisor wants completed drafts (full journal article length, maybe ~7,000 words or so). Despite being on full draft #5 we haven't really progressed beyond the first draft. He says that the content is there, and the research is good, but it is very difficult to revise my work because it is presented so poorly. It's whack-a-mole writing - I try to address problems brought up in the previous version, but that process ends up introducing new levels of disorganization that are hard for him to address. He is patient and encouraging, and it is normal to struggle a lot with a first paper of course, but after 5 drafts is understandably somewhat frustrated, as am I.
I mentioned when I first joined the group that I have a history of writing/academic difficulties so it's not a surprise to him, though I didn't mention ADHD and I haven't registered my diagnosis with the university (though I could if necessary).
What I've tried:
In the past, as well as for this paper, I've just "brute-forced" it - spending huuuuugge amounts of time writing, which worked fine for low-stakes undergrad essays but its not really effective for very compact, scientific writing. I had several sessions with a neuropsychologist and worked out strategies for staying on-task generally, but haven't helped much with keeping a logical argument intact. I've gone through a lot of the normal writing advice and found it good... when I can remember to apply it! I've also been to the writing center on campus a few times and got the same general advice there as was in "how to write scientific papers" books. I'm not sure they know how to help someone with my issues.
Next:
It's clear to me that I need a new approach, probably with more supervision/feedback, but I'm feeling a bit stuck - any suggestions? My advisor is great, but I really hesitate to ask for extra help from him because I know he's super busy. I really liked this post, and will start applying some of what's mentioned... but the Asker there seems to be an accomplished writer already, just understandably struggling for other reasons.
tl;dr version:
My academic writing is disorganized due to ADHD-type problems like poor working memory, and it's driving my very nice, patient PhD advisor slightly crazy. What non-traditional strategies could I use to compensate for poor working memory while writing? If you were ever in my advisor's position, have you seen someone implement an effective strategy against disoriganized writing/thinking?
I am a faculty member that advises PhD students. I empathize with your advisor. Giving students feedback is time consuming and I've been there in the whackamole situation you describe and it is incredibly frustrating.
I can tell you that, at least in my world, people would not be thrilled about working through accommodations at this level. Doing a PhD is a choice and writing is the major aspect of it. And it isn't going to go away. We, as advisors, need to put you into the world capable of writing well.
So work on writing!
Have you read They Say, I Say? It is a nice guide to the conventions of academic writing. I also love How to Build Social Science Theories.
When you read other work, pay a great deal of attention to how things are structured.
Reverse outline what you've written and set up outlines before you write. Never free write.
Multiple drafts is normal.
Structurally, make sure every term is defined (from the lit) and every statement is supported. Hypotheses or RQs should logically follow from what was written.
Get thee to the writing center!
posted by k8t at 3:47 PM on January 24, 2019 [14 favorites]
I can tell you that, at least in my world, people would not be thrilled about working through accommodations at this level. Doing a PhD is a choice and writing is the major aspect of it. And it isn't going to go away. We, as advisors, need to put you into the world capable of writing well.
So work on writing!
Have you read They Say, I Say? It is a nice guide to the conventions of academic writing. I also love How to Build Social Science Theories.
When you read other work, pay a great deal of attention to how things are structured.
Reverse outline what you've written and set up outlines before you write. Never free write.
Multiple drafts is normal.
Structurally, make sure every term is defined (from the lit) and every statement is supported. Hypotheses or RQs should logically follow from what was written.
Get thee to the writing center!
posted by k8t at 3:47 PM on January 24, 2019 [14 favorites]
I’d definitely register your diagnosis with the university. Does your institution have a Disability Service center or similar? This seems beyond your advisor’s purview and they may have specific accommodations or recommendations.
posted by kapers at 4:00 PM on January 24, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by kapers at 4:00 PM on January 24, 2019 [1 favorite]
Outline outline outline. Did your advisor approve an outline (at least to paragraph level) before you started writing? This is a common step to make sure the paper is on the right track. Also, have you tried giving a draft of just one section (methods is usually easiest) at a time?
I also used the method where I had index cards with facts (including cite!) written on them that I wanted to include. Then I figure out what my audience needs to know for my results to make sense and be compelling, then work backwards. Having physical cards you can move around makes it easy to try different arrangements, and then you can more finely order things within each paragraph.
Like, if I want to talk about how pH influences biofilm formation in teapots, I need to talk about teapots and teapot materials, and I need to talk about biofilm formation, biofilm species, and other environmental factors that may be relevant, and then I can review in more detail any teapot-biofilm-pH information before I make my predictions at the end of my intro.
The swapping yes/no stuff seems to happen pretty easily for lots of people, that's what proofreading is for, I wouldn't worry too much about it.
posted by momus_window at 4:24 PM on January 24, 2019 [14 favorites]
I also used the method where I had index cards with facts (including cite!) written on them that I wanted to include. Then I figure out what my audience needs to know for my results to make sense and be compelling, then work backwards. Having physical cards you can move around makes it easy to try different arrangements, and then you can more finely order things within each paragraph.
Like, if I want to talk about how pH influences biofilm formation in teapots, I need to talk about teapots and teapot materials, and I need to talk about biofilm formation, biofilm species, and other environmental factors that may be relevant, and then I can review in more detail any teapot-biofilm-pH information before I make my predictions at the end of my intro.
The swapping yes/no stuff seems to happen pretty easily for lots of people, that's what proofreading is for, I wouldn't worry too much about it.
posted by momus_window at 4:24 PM on January 24, 2019 [14 favorites]
Type out the first sentence of each paragraph and read it. Does it make sense? Is it organized? If you're not sure why a sentence is there or what it means, look at the paragraph it started, is there a better topic sentence that it can be switched with?
I'm a legal writer not a stem writer but I'm assuming this process would work for you too. The topic sentences of each paragraph should tell the whole story of the paper, transitions and all.
Once you have the topic sentences organized in a way that makes your paper flow, and make sure your topic sentences make sense outside of the paper as a whole, then you can re-arrange your paragraphs to match your topic sentences and make sure all the supporting research is within the correct paragraph.
posted by katypickle at 4:31 PM on January 24, 2019 [2 favorites]
I'm a legal writer not a stem writer but I'm assuming this process would work for you too. The topic sentences of each paragraph should tell the whole story of the paper, transitions and all.
Once you have the topic sentences organized in a way that makes your paper flow, and make sure your topic sentences make sense outside of the paper as a whole, then you can re-arrange your paragraphs to match your topic sentences and make sure all the supporting research is within the correct paragraph.
posted by katypickle at 4:31 PM on January 24, 2019 [2 favorites]
The completely traditional things that you need to do are outlining, working on a 30 second ‘elevator pitch’, and learning about expected structure of scholarly discourse. There’s no ‘one weird trick!’ here, and frankly it doesn’t matter if you have ADHD, literally everyone struggles with this.
One slightly newer and less traditional exercise that may help you: the message box. The whole site is worth perusing, it’s all about concrete steps to increase clarity and effectiveness of scholarly communication.
posted by SaltySalticid at 5:07 PM on January 24, 2019 [2 favorites]
One slightly newer and less traditional exercise that may help you: the message box. The whole site is worth perusing, it’s all about concrete steps to increase clarity and effectiveness of scholarly communication.
posted by SaltySalticid at 5:07 PM on January 24, 2019 [2 favorites]
(Avoiding edit abuse) I’m Sorry. I didn’t mean to diminish your challenges with ADHD; what I wrote above sounded shitty. All I meant to convey was that most scholars I have known struggle with similar issues, especially at your stage. It doesn’t help that many advisers consider this type of instruction outside their domain (it is not) and I think that relatively standard prescriptions for helping people will probably help you to, independent of the difficulties arising through ADHD specifically.
posted by SaltySalticid at 5:16 PM on January 24, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by SaltySalticid at 5:16 PM on January 24, 2019 [2 favorites]
Yeah, the campus writing center is your friend here. But find out if they have someone who works more with faculty and grad students who are writing for publication. You don't want the standard English major undergrad.
Another approach, slightly unconventional: find a talented co-author in your field who knows the content enough but can also write better than you.
posted by bluedaisy at 5:19 PM on January 24, 2019 [3 favorites]
Another approach, slightly unconventional: find a talented co-author in your field who knows the content enough but can also write better than you.
posted by bluedaisy at 5:19 PM on January 24, 2019 [3 favorites]
I have, perhaps too many, feels for everyone involved in this situation... plus a third person who you haven't found yet, but should be down in the trenches with you shortly.
First, your PI is an angel of patience, remember that when you are delivering your thanks at the end of dissertation. That you've gotten to 5th draft without them throwing their hands up is a marvel.
Second, you can't fix your memory/inability to self edit on the fly/ cognitive lacuna with reading a book or other internal modifications. You need outside help. Such that:
Third: you need an intermediary editor, ideally someone in your lab, who you trust and with whom you have a good rapport. This should be the person, before your PI, who you submit your drafts to that not only understands your data and how your conclusions follow, but who also can edit it up to a standard (even more ideally someone who has written with the PI before) that the PI wants. Find that person, tell that person how much you need them, and reward them materially, emotionally, make them a co-author or whatever it takes but keep in mind:
Fourth: Being edited is brutal, and you may get defensive and angry, but for everyone's sake don't. Anyone who edits you is doing you a huge favor. Approach and appreciate it as such. You know what you want, but all the editor wants is for things to make sense for the appropriate audience and that the draft gets accepted by a journal, or even just your PI. Which is all you want in the end as well.
Writing centers may help with this, but if possible, you should try to find people in your field/lab who are willing and able to help.
This is how you can stop torturing your PI:
Admit to them how closely you need to be edited.
Tell them how you've found an editor that is not them.
keep writing and editing yourself, because you do get better.
get that f'ing paper out.
I used to do editing like this for many of my colleagues in grad school, and if'n i had any expertise in your field I would offer it, but I'm pretty darn sure I don't.
posted by Cold Lurkey at 5:44 PM on January 24, 2019 [3 favorites]
First, your PI is an angel of patience, remember that when you are delivering your thanks at the end of dissertation. That you've gotten to 5th draft without them throwing their hands up is a marvel.
Second, you can't fix your memory/inability to self edit on the fly/ cognitive lacuna with reading a book or other internal modifications. You need outside help. Such that:
Third: you need an intermediary editor, ideally someone in your lab, who you trust and with whom you have a good rapport. This should be the person, before your PI, who you submit your drafts to that not only understands your data and how your conclusions follow, but who also can edit it up to a standard (even more ideally someone who has written with the PI before) that the PI wants. Find that person, tell that person how much you need them, and reward them materially, emotionally, make them a co-author or whatever it takes but keep in mind:
Fourth: Being edited is brutal, and you may get defensive and angry, but for everyone's sake don't. Anyone who edits you is doing you a huge favor. Approach and appreciate it as such. You know what you want, but all the editor wants is for things to make sense for the appropriate audience and that the draft gets accepted by a journal, or even just your PI. Which is all you want in the end as well.
Writing centers may help with this, but if possible, you should try to find people in your field/lab who are willing and able to help.
This is how you can stop torturing your PI:
Admit to them how closely you need to be edited.
Tell them how you've found an editor that is not them.
keep writing and editing yourself, because you do get better.
get that f'ing paper out.
I used to do editing like this for many of my colleagues in grad school, and if'n i had any expertise in your field I would offer it, but I'm pretty darn sure I don't.
posted by Cold Lurkey at 5:44 PM on January 24, 2019 [3 favorites]
Nthing seek out writing center or other school resources. Only bring it back to your advisor after you're pretty sure it has really improved.
I have a lot of these issues too; and one thing that helps me is to break advice into actionable bite size chunks, and then check them off one at a time. "This is a mess" is too vague to be useful. The other thing that helps me make progress is consciously taking it less seriously: "this section's language isn't perfect, but it's good enough. What's next?"
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 5:44 PM on January 24, 2019 [1 favorite]
I have a lot of these issues too; and one thing that helps me is to break advice into actionable bite size chunks, and then check them off one at a time. "This is a mess" is too vague to be useful. The other thing that helps me make progress is consciously taking it less seriously: "this section's language isn't perfect, but it's good enough. What's next?"
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 5:44 PM on January 24, 2019 [1 favorite]
Your prof wanting completed papers is doing you no favors. Did you start with an outline? If not, can you make one now? You can bring the outline to the campus writing center or a labmate to look it over. The outline should be pretty detailed but it can be somewhat informal in language; mine always start with what I want to talk about and then I fill in more connections between the things I want to talk about so that other people can follow along.
If you can’t see how to organize the things you want to talk about, read papers you like, or papers written in your lab, and see how they organize some of those same basic bits of info.
Once you’ve got an outline, pick a section. Materials and Methods (assuming you’re in the sciences) is usually a good one since the order of operations is right there in your lab notebook. Bring it to the academic writing center or a labmate (you owe the labmate some coffee or help feeding their cells or turning off an oven at a 12 hour time point.) Then keep picking sections and showing them to someone. Then bring it to the PI. I bet it will go better.
posted by tchemgrrl at 6:04 PM on January 24, 2019 [2 favorites]
If you can’t see how to organize the things you want to talk about, read papers you like, or papers written in your lab, and see how they organize some of those same basic bits of info.
Once you’ve got an outline, pick a section. Materials and Methods (assuming you’re in the sciences) is usually a good one since the order of operations is right there in your lab notebook. Bring it to the academic writing center or a labmate (you owe the labmate some coffee or help feeding their cells or turning off an oven at a 12 hour time point.) Then keep picking sections and showing them to someone. Then bring it to the PI. I bet it will go better.
posted by tchemgrrl at 6:04 PM on January 24, 2019 [2 favorites]
This will not solve your entire problem, but I suggest writing your first draft(s since apparently your fifth is still kind of a first) in Scrivener. It will make it a lot easier to re-organize as you're figuring out what to do, and it makes it much easier for you to just write the next thing you were going to do and *then* go back and make sure you haven't lost your train of thought in the previous paragraph. It really looks like linear writing isn't working for you. In scrivener you can literally write the first half of every paragraph in the paper first and then go back and write the second half of every paragraph. ANd you can write the halves in whatever order you like and be confident you're not going to miss a half-paragraph somewhere. i mean I don't recommend you do it as first/half second half, but the point is if you're thinking is all over the place (the places being different parts of the paper) you can get it down that way first, and then very easily shift things around until they work and then edit.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 6:09 PM on January 24, 2019
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 6:09 PM on January 24, 2019
One thing I strongly advise is printing out 5-10 model articles in your specific area of study, preferably from the journal(s) you plan to target with this article. Read them one paragraph at a time and summarize each paragraph in one sentence or sentence fragment. You are creating a "reverse outline" when you do this (also a useful technique for revision of your own work). Do this for 5-10 articles and compare and contrast the resulting outlines. This will help you to bring the structure of these papers to the surface, which will be useful for you as you create an outline of your own argument.
The book Writing Your Journal Article in 12 Weeks includes this and many more really fantastic tips for writing academic articles in any discipline. I'd also encourage you to pick up a copy. Some of the exercises may feel hoky, but do them anyway. I use most of her techniques whenever I write journal articles (I'm a research professor) and her techniques definitely bring results.
posted by sockermom at 6:26 PM on January 24, 2019 [5 favorites]
The book Writing Your Journal Article in 12 Weeks includes this and many more really fantastic tips for writing academic articles in any discipline. I'd also encourage you to pick up a copy. Some of the exercises may feel hoky, but do them anyway. I use most of her techniques whenever I write journal articles (I'm a research professor) and her techniques definitely bring results.
posted by sockermom at 6:26 PM on January 24, 2019 [5 favorites]
I'm an overthinker of an ADD person who tortures herself. I'm a great editor, a very good writer, and I'm about to start teaching a graduate-level class in professional writing.
Outline outline outline first! Make your case in bullet points. Sometimes it's satisfying to draw swoopy arrows to remind yourself in yet another visual way how the parts are going to flow. Make little side arrows to remind you of the supporting citations you're going to insert. Have a scratch list of things that aren't quite fitting but you REALLY want to say, and when you've pretty much nailed the structure of your argument, see if you can figure out a way to shoehorn them in logically, or whether you need to let them go (and save them for some other assignment.)
But how do you figure out how to organize your ideas in the first place? For me, I kind of need to talk it out. I can do it with myself now by talking to the duck, but for years I would lasso a good friend willing to let me verbalize at them.
Since you've already written a bunch of verbiage for this paper, uh, still go make an outline. Then place the sentences you've written into your outline as bullet points. And figure out what makes sense to support your argument, what's repetitive, and what gets put in the refrigerator. When I'm editing someone else's work (a faculty member's grant proposal, for example), the most commonplace thing I do is keep most of their writing, but completely rearrange large hunks into a different order that is more logical to follow.
posted by desuetude at 7:40 PM on January 24, 2019
Outline outline outline first! Make your case in bullet points. Sometimes it's satisfying to draw swoopy arrows to remind yourself in yet another visual way how the parts are going to flow. Make little side arrows to remind you of the supporting citations you're going to insert. Have a scratch list of things that aren't quite fitting but you REALLY want to say, and when you've pretty much nailed the structure of your argument, see if you can figure out a way to shoehorn them in logically, or whether you need to let them go (and save them for some other assignment.)
But how do you figure out how to organize your ideas in the first place? For me, I kind of need to talk it out. I can do it with myself now by talking to the duck, but for years I would lasso a good friend willing to let me verbalize at them.
Since you've already written a bunch of verbiage for this paper, uh, still go make an outline. Then place the sentences you've written into your outline as bullet points. And figure out what makes sense to support your argument, what's repetitive, and what gets put in the refrigerator. When I'm editing someone else's work (a faculty member's grant proposal, for example), the most commonplace thing I do is keep most of their writing, but completely rearrange large hunks into a different order that is more logical to follow.
posted by desuetude at 7:40 PM on January 24, 2019
First, I've 100% been in your shoes with my ADHD and academic writing, and want to say: it can and will get better, and you can do it! I believe in you and more importantly, you believe in yourself. I admit my writing is still torturous but it gets the job done, and that's what matters.
Second, there are some wonderful suggestions here, some I'm going to try because I haven't before, but without repeating the whole comment the ones I've tried that have really worked for me is outlining and getting a trusted friend to be my "editor". (She is still my editor today, and frankly I think she has "rewritten" every single one of my grant applications.) It's asking a lot, and maybe that's where a writing center comes in to share the load, but if you can find one or two people to review even individual paragraphs before you sit down with your advisor can really help. As for outlining, outline outline outline! I will admit I have outlined to the point that even individual sentences have been outlined if that's what needed.
Third, my own techniques that haven't been mentioned: sockermom's technique of the "reverse outline" is a great idea that you can take even further. If you have a paper you really admire or mimics how you would like to write, sit down and just copy it out word for word. You don't have to do the whole thing but maybe just the first and last paragraphs of each section and the abstract. Pay attention to the sentence structure, the word flow, verb use, etc. Do this on a few pubs to get a better idea of different styles. Then take some sentences and change them to fit your own research. Example:
A sentence from another paper, from which I'll use this recent pub in Nature: Changes in local bulk composition caused by reactive melt flow, rather than large increases in temperature, produce the rapid increase in melt fraction that remobilizes these cool- or cold-stored crystals.
Your sentence, modified for your research could be: Changes in oceanic chemistry caused by rapid temperature swings, rather than large shifts in available nutrients, produce the radical turnover in algae populations that characterize the middle Eocene.
Of course you can't use that sentence, because that would be dishonest and a form of plagiarism, but it helps you practice the kind of structure and style you need to access. And it doesn't take a lot to go from a sentence like that to your own sentence. I could rewrite that easily enough to form a more "original" sentence, which maybe isn't the best writing ever but gets me closer to getting the job done: Rapid temperature swings caused oceanic chemistry changes, which in turn produced the radical turnover in algae populations that characterize the middle Eocene - not shifting nutrient availability. Then I might do it again, going for more originality. You can do that with whole paragraphs or to create an outline if you want to! It's great practice and it's probable you can get some sentences out of it that work within your own paper.
I also use the Pomodoro method, which I find helpful to get small bursts of writing done rather than trying to tackle everything at once.
One of my big problems is that I can just outright leap over whole words or merge words together in my rush to get it all out, so reading my work aloud will help me to catch those problems and others. Reading aloud your own work as a form of revision before you show it anyone is great! A sentence at a time, a paragraph, the whole thing all at once, whatever floats your boat.
If I know the ideas are there but the order isn't, I will print up and cut up my draft into paragraphs and/or sentences and then rearrange them, trying out different combos within sections or even saying, wow, that'd be a great sentence in my introduction and moving it (for example). (This helps me cut out extraneous writing too!) You can do that in Scrivener, as suggested above, but I find the tactile nature of moving the paper helps keep me more focused than rearranging things on a screen. YMMV. (on preview, like what desuetude said)
Give yourself some time between writing and revision if you can, the longer the better. The more distant you are the easier it will be to see mistakes and recognize structural problems, as well as be objective about it.
This is kind of out there, but If I'm having a really hard time organizing, I might storyboard it. Or I make little cartoons that make the point. (I'm an awful artist but who cares?) For some reason, I find making a little cartoon/storyboarding helps me drill down and distill the action in a narrative way, and a narrative is just as important in a STEM paper as it is in most writing - our narratives just happen to occur in the format of problem, methods, data, figures, conclusions, etc.
Fourth, and I hate to say this, but accept and plan accordingly that writing tasks will take 3-4 times longer than you think they will until it gets easier will go a long way. I mean. . . well, as you probably know, a lot of times part of the frustration with ADHD management can be just how long seemingly simple tasks can take, and it's worse because you know you're working hard! You might start beating yourself up for it or feeling bad, or any of those other negative spirals we're capable of doing, like playing the "should" game. Just reframe it: I think it will take an hour to write this paragraph, so I will plan on 3 hours spread out over the day. Or maybe that's not you, so do whatever else you need to do to take care of you in how your ADHD presents itself. (I'm just saying this because our ADHD management techniques can sometimes suffer as we adjust to new situations, and it's good to be reminded of them/revisit them occasionally: of course you know what you need and how well you're doing it :) ) And it sucks, but if you can take as much time now as you can to practice practice practice, it will help down the road. And read, read, read. The more you read, the better your writing will become, and will also introduce vocabulary and concepts that you can bring to your own writing.
Fifth, enjoy the creative leaps or "intuitive" grasping or seeing other details/big picture or however you get the positive, fun benefits of your ADHD - believe me, they are there if you haven't already discovered them! Have gratitude for your advisor, for those that help out, and for yourself. You're here! In your program, writing an article for publication! Isn't that cool? Isn't that neat! Way to go!
If you get frustrated or need an ear, feel free to hit me up. Everybody goes through some struggles, but this is different and can be an extra load on top of the "typical" struggles. Academic writing was my biggest struggle (also had to learn not to let "perfection" get in the way of "getting it done") so I've got a lot of little tricks up my sleeve for specific situations too.
Congratulations!
posted by barchan at 8:17 PM on January 24, 2019 [2 favorites]
Second, there are some wonderful suggestions here, some I'm going to try because I haven't before, but without repeating the whole comment the ones I've tried that have really worked for me is outlining and getting a trusted friend to be my "editor". (She is still my editor today, and frankly I think she has "rewritten" every single one of my grant applications.) It's asking a lot, and maybe that's where a writing center comes in to share the load, but if you can find one or two people to review even individual paragraphs before you sit down with your advisor can really help. As for outlining, outline outline outline! I will admit I have outlined to the point that even individual sentences have been outlined if that's what needed.
Third, my own techniques that haven't been mentioned: sockermom's technique of the "reverse outline" is a great idea that you can take even further. If you have a paper you really admire or mimics how you would like to write, sit down and just copy it out word for word. You don't have to do the whole thing but maybe just the first and last paragraphs of each section and the abstract. Pay attention to the sentence structure, the word flow, verb use, etc. Do this on a few pubs to get a better idea of different styles. Then take some sentences and change them to fit your own research. Example:
A sentence from another paper, from which I'll use this recent pub in Nature: Changes in local bulk composition caused by reactive melt flow, rather than large increases in temperature, produce the rapid increase in melt fraction that remobilizes these cool- or cold-stored crystals.
Your sentence, modified for your research could be: Changes in oceanic chemistry caused by rapid temperature swings, rather than large shifts in available nutrients, produce the radical turnover in algae populations that characterize the middle Eocene.
Of course you can't use that sentence, because that would be dishonest and a form of plagiarism, but it helps you practice the kind of structure and style you need to access. And it doesn't take a lot to go from a sentence like that to your own sentence. I could rewrite that easily enough to form a more "original" sentence, which maybe isn't the best writing ever but gets me closer to getting the job done: Rapid temperature swings caused oceanic chemistry changes, which in turn produced the radical turnover in algae populations that characterize the middle Eocene - not shifting nutrient availability. Then I might do it again, going for more originality. You can do that with whole paragraphs or to create an outline if you want to! It's great practice and it's probable you can get some sentences out of it that work within your own paper.
I also use the Pomodoro method, which I find helpful to get small bursts of writing done rather than trying to tackle everything at once.
One of my big problems is that I can just outright leap over whole words or merge words together in my rush to get it all out, so reading my work aloud will help me to catch those problems and others. Reading aloud your own work as a form of revision before you show it anyone is great! A sentence at a time, a paragraph, the whole thing all at once, whatever floats your boat.
If I know the ideas are there but the order isn't, I will print up and cut up my draft into paragraphs and/or sentences and then rearrange them, trying out different combos within sections or even saying, wow, that'd be a great sentence in my introduction and moving it (for example). (This helps me cut out extraneous writing too!) You can do that in Scrivener, as suggested above, but I find the tactile nature of moving the paper helps keep me more focused than rearranging things on a screen. YMMV. (on preview, like what desuetude said)
Give yourself some time between writing and revision if you can, the longer the better. The more distant you are the easier it will be to see mistakes and recognize structural problems, as well as be objective about it.
This is kind of out there, but If I'm having a really hard time organizing, I might storyboard it. Or I make little cartoons that make the point. (I'm an awful artist but who cares?) For some reason, I find making a little cartoon/storyboarding helps me drill down and distill the action in a narrative way, and a narrative is just as important in a STEM paper as it is in most writing - our narratives just happen to occur in the format of problem, methods, data, figures, conclusions, etc.
Fourth, and I hate to say this, but accept and plan accordingly that writing tasks will take 3-4 times longer than you think they will until it gets easier will go a long way. I mean. . . well, as you probably know, a lot of times part of the frustration with ADHD management can be just how long seemingly simple tasks can take, and it's worse because you know you're working hard! You might start beating yourself up for it or feeling bad, or any of those other negative spirals we're capable of doing, like playing the "should" game. Just reframe it: I think it will take an hour to write this paragraph, so I will plan on 3 hours spread out over the day. Or maybe that's not you, so do whatever else you need to do to take care of you in how your ADHD presents itself. (I'm just saying this because our ADHD management techniques can sometimes suffer as we adjust to new situations, and it's good to be reminded of them/revisit them occasionally: of course you know what you need and how well you're doing it :) ) And it sucks, but if you can take as much time now as you can to practice practice practice, it will help down the road. And read, read, read. The more you read, the better your writing will become, and will also introduce vocabulary and concepts that you can bring to your own writing.
Fifth, enjoy the creative leaps or "intuitive" grasping or seeing other details/big picture or however you get the positive, fun benefits of your ADHD - believe me, they are there if you haven't already discovered them! Have gratitude for your advisor, for those that help out, and for yourself. You're here! In your program, writing an article for publication! Isn't that cool? Isn't that neat! Way to go!
If you get frustrated or need an ear, feel free to hit me up. Everybody goes through some struggles, but this is different and can be an extra load on top of the "typical" struggles. Academic writing was my biggest struggle (also had to learn not to let "perfection" get in the way of "getting it done") so I've got a lot of little tricks up my sleeve for specific situations too.
Congratulations!
posted by barchan at 8:17 PM on January 24, 2019 [2 favorites]
Have you picked out a target journal yet? 7000 words seems crazy long, most journals (in science/medicine at least) have word limits around 3000. You had good advice above. I also find it helpful to write for a specific journal (follow author guidelines ftom their website) rather that having to reformat everything later.
posted by emd3737 at 8:51 PM on January 24, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by emd3737 at 8:51 PM on January 24, 2019 [1 favorite]
I have ADHD and I'm a writer. OUTLINES, MAN! When you said you would backtrack to male sure you were on topic and then forgot where you were going, I was like "but how is that possible, unless... oh no is he writing this without an outline??
I would suggest that you open up a blank document and just write, in just a few sentences, what it is that you're trying to communicate in this article. Then keep thinking, not systematically but just musing, about what needs to go into the article - what are some important points you need to cover? What concepts will you need to establish early on to make the rest of it make sense? What do you need to convince the reader of, vs. what they already agree with? Etc. Write down everything you think of, in the absolute briefest terms possible. Then put all of those snippets in the approximate order you think they should appear in the final product, separated out by sections (and, if a section gets too long, subsections). Read the whole thing straight through and add more stuff as it occurs to you. Now you have an outline. Go away for a while, then come back and read the whole thing. From there, you can start writing to flesh it out. You can grab pieces from the old draft if they fit, but don't try to salvage every paragraph. A lot of it is going to be expendable - probably even parts you think are totally necessary.
I think this method actually works well for me BECAUSE I have ADHD. It lets my mind wander all over the place freely, and then it rewards me with a structure to follow. It keeps me from fixating endlessly on a tiny chunk of prose that doesn't really matter while failing to establish a crucial point elsewhere. My brain NEEDS outlines to write effectively. Maybe yours does too!
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:07 PM on January 24, 2019 [3 favorites]
I would suggest that you open up a blank document and just write, in just a few sentences, what it is that you're trying to communicate in this article. Then keep thinking, not systematically but just musing, about what needs to go into the article - what are some important points you need to cover? What concepts will you need to establish early on to make the rest of it make sense? What do you need to convince the reader of, vs. what they already agree with? Etc. Write down everything you think of, in the absolute briefest terms possible. Then put all of those snippets in the approximate order you think they should appear in the final product, separated out by sections (and, if a section gets too long, subsections). Read the whole thing straight through and add more stuff as it occurs to you. Now you have an outline. Go away for a while, then come back and read the whole thing. From there, you can start writing to flesh it out. You can grab pieces from the old draft if they fit, but don't try to salvage every paragraph. A lot of it is going to be expendable - probably even parts you think are totally necessary.
I think this method actually works well for me BECAUSE I have ADHD. It lets my mind wander all over the place freely, and then it rewards me with a structure to follow. It keeps me from fixating endlessly on a tiny chunk of prose that doesn't really matter while failing to establish a crucial point elsewhere. My brain NEEDS outlines to write effectively. Maybe yours does too!
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:07 PM on January 24, 2019 [3 favorites]
Rearranging content so that it makes sense, and making the author fill in logical gaps, is one thing a good editor does.
You could try getting a friend or coworker to do this, but honestly if you can afford it I'd consider just paying for one. It probably doesn't even needed to be someone in your specific field; what you want is someone who can follow an argument and who can tell when your argument is out of order or full of gaps.
The switching A and B thing is annoying, but if you're catching it during proofreading all it really means is that you need to tack on some extra time to make those corrections. (If it's your professor catching this but not you, then that's a place to either have someone in your field proofread, or to go through it yourself claim by claim, evaluating each strictly on the question of "am I talking about the correct thing here?")
With respect to keeping your paragraphs on track as you actually write them, I agree with the advice to outline first and then check against your outline.
But whatever you do get an extra set of eyes on it other than (and before) your professor, and try to add on as much time as possible to polish your drafts before you submit them. (Not always simple, I know.)
posted by trig at 11:57 PM on January 24, 2019 [2 favorites]
You could try getting a friend or coworker to do this, but honestly if you can afford it I'd consider just paying for one. It probably doesn't even needed to be someone in your specific field; what you want is someone who can follow an argument and who can tell when your argument is out of order or full of gaps.
The switching A and B thing is annoying, but if you're catching it during proofreading all it really means is that you need to tack on some extra time to make those corrections. (If it's your professor catching this but not you, then that's a place to either have someone in your field proofread, or to go through it yourself claim by claim, evaluating each strictly on the question of "am I talking about the correct thing here?")
With respect to keeping your paragraphs on track as you actually write them, I agree with the advice to outline first and then check against your outline.
But whatever you do get an extra set of eyes on it other than (and before) your professor, and try to add on as much time as possible to polish your drafts before you submit them. (Not always simple, I know.)
posted by trig at 11:57 PM on January 24, 2019 [2 favorites]
Nthing going to your university's writing centre, OUTLINING (omg OUTLINING), and Pomodoro'ing. I also found it helpful to set word limits for my day's work - as in, I would write, say, 500 words a day and no more, to stop me from binge-writing.
One thing that I did when I was doing my PhD was I would always start each draft with a brand new document. So, let's say that my supervisor had fed back on a WIP chapter. I'd print out the chapter with feedback, sit down and summarise the next actions in my notebook, then start rewriting the chapter in a brand new blank document (in Word, solely because Word worked with Endnote and I rapidly developed an Endnote muscle memory that meant I never had to do a manual bibliography once in grad school). I'd typically start by re-outlining the chapter or paper, tweaking structural issues, then I would manually rewrite the parts I wanted to keep. I picked up a staggering amount of kludgy prose and muddy thinking this way. This was labour intensive, but not as labour intensive as you'd think.
Now that I'm working as an ad creative I still do the same thing. When I get feedback on a copy deck or script I rewrite the whole danged thing in a new document - then I usually read it out loud to myself. This catches a lot of issues with flow and rhythm that I otherwise wouldn't notice.
posted by nerdfish at 1:32 AM on January 25, 2019
One thing that I did when I was doing my PhD was I would always start each draft with a brand new document. So, let's say that my supervisor had fed back on a WIP chapter. I'd print out the chapter with feedback, sit down and summarise the next actions in my notebook, then start rewriting the chapter in a brand new blank document (in Word, solely because Word worked with Endnote and I rapidly developed an Endnote muscle memory that meant I never had to do a manual bibliography once in grad school). I'd typically start by re-outlining the chapter or paper, tweaking structural issues, then I would manually rewrite the parts I wanted to keep. I picked up a staggering amount of kludgy prose and muddy thinking this way. This was labour intensive, but not as labour intensive as you'd think.
Now that I'm working as an ad creative I still do the same thing. When I get feedback on a copy deck or script I rewrite the whole danged thing in a new document - then I usually read it out loud to myself. This catches a lot of issues with flow and rhythm that I otherwise wouldn't notice.
posted by nerdfish at 1:32 AM on January 25, 2019
It may help you to find a PhD friend (possibly in the English faculty) who would be willing to sit down with you and work actively with you on your drafts, so that you have a sense of the editorial process that unfolds. All drafts are messy, and it is hard to edit your own work, but once someone demonstrates in front of you the changes they make, you are much more likely to pick up on the habitual patterns that you fall into and be able to identify them more effectively. I find it less helpful to hand back an edited draft, because the writer usually ends up making the same errors in another piece, because they've not participated in the correction process. Higher order academic writing is very difficult, even for scholars who are already very accomplished and do not have to contend with ADHD as you do.
From my own experience in academic writing development, I would recommend a book by Helen Sword: Air and Light and Time and Space: How Successful Academics Write. This is now a "how to write book", rather it provides good insights into the writing practice of academics across disciplines, and looks at the strategies that have worked for them. It may help you to pick and choose some techniques to make writing life more comprehensible.
posted by radiantsquirrel at 4:07 AM on January 25, 2019
From my own experience in academic writing development, I would recommend a book by Helen Sword: Air and Light and Time and Space: How Successful Academics Write. This is now a "how to write book", rather it provides good insights into the writing practice of academics across disciplines, and looks at the strategies that have worked for them. It may help you to pick and choose some techniques to make writing life more comprehensible.
posted by radiantsquirrel at 4:07 AM on January 25, 2019
Hi! Not in STEM but hello from an academic with basically no executive function!
The writing advice that I love the most is that you CANNOT write and edit at the same time. I don't think you need a third party editor, but you DO need to wear two different hats. One of you is the content generator, whose job is to get the ideas from your brain to the paper. The other you, the most important you who is not yet showing up to the party, is an editor. This you is firm but kind and makes sure every paragraph has a single idea, that transitions are solid, cuts BS filler where the writer (you) was stalling for time, etc. When you sit to work, be sure you are clear who is at the computer: the writer or the editor. This is a job that requires both :D
posted by athirstforsalt at 5:33 AM on January 25, 2019 [5 favorites]
The writing advice that I love the most is that you CANNOT write and edit at the same time. I don't think you need a third party editor, but you DO need to wear two different hats. One of you is the content generator, whose job is to get the ideas from your brain to the paper. The other you, the most important you who is not yet showing up to the party, is an editor. This you is firm but kind and makes sure every paragraph has a single idea, that transitions are solid, cuts BS filler where the writer (you) was stalling for time, etc. When you sit to work, be sure you are clear who is at the computer: the writer or the editor. This is a job that requires both :D
posted by athirstforsalt at 5:33 AM on January 25, 2019 [5 favorites]
One of my big problems is that I can just outright leap over whole words or merge words together in my rush to get it all out, so reading my work aloud will help me to catch those problems and others.
One often hears this advice, but for a whole paper it's un-doable. Only a computer could do that. So seriously, that's what I do. I do my final proofread using text-to-speach. The computer reads (at 2x-ish speed) and I follow along in the text of the paper. This will not solve the OPs problem of getting the paper down in the first place, but it is a great way to catch those little errors that your eyes will easily glide over.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 10:02 AM on January 25, 2019
One often hears this advice, but for a whole paper it's un-doable. Only a computer could do that. So seriously, that's what I do. I do my final proofread using text-to-speach. The computer reads (at 2x-ish speed) and I follow along in the text of the paper. This will not solve the OPs problem of getting the paper down in the first place, but it is a great way to catch those little errors that your eyes will easily glide over.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 10:02 AM on January 25, 2019
https://www.google.com/search?q=the+science+of+scientific+writing
posted by at at 1:58 PM on January 25, 2019
posted by at at 1:58 PM on January 25, 2019
Everyone here has given really good advice, but I haven't seen this approach mentioned: try creating a presentation on your research first! It's a bit like using index cards, but can feel less intimidating, and also serves to focus your efforts and create that "elevator pitch" that you will need to effectively communicate your research to others during conferences and advisor meetings, etc.
I use this approach when I get stuck, when my thinking is unclear, when I have very complicated content to get across, and when I need quick/easy feedback from people who don't have time read a shit ton of words. As a bonus, if you want to give the paper at a conference--you'll have a slide deck all ready to go!
1. First, look at the structure of papers that were accepted to the journals that you plan to submit to. Some journals will even have a preferred set of headings: Abstract, Introduction, Literature Review, Methods, Results, Discussion, Future Research. Etc. Use those headings as your presentation sections.
2. Next, allow yourself no more than 3 slides per section--this forces you to be succinct. Using short phrases, bullet points, tables, equations, and charts only, tell the story of your research study, moving from section to section.
3. When finished, run through your presentation yourself, with colleagues, your advisor, etc. and jot notes in the presenter notes section of your slide deck. Use this feedback to improve the content on each slide and take notes for inclusion in your final paper.
4. Once you have all elements of your presentation finalized, and all your feedback is incorporated into the slides or stored in the slide notes, you're ready to write your draft.
5. Using your presentation sections as a guide, go section-by-section, slide-by-slide, and convert your bullet point phrases to actual sentences. Then, write the transitions between slides and between sections.
6. Now, you're finished with your first draft, and ready for your next review-revise cycle. If you get confused, stuck, demoralized, just refer back to your slides for guidance. You've already rendered your research in a logical, coherent way in your presentation - you're just doing the same thing with more words. You can also revisit the presentation section with your advisor to make sure you captured all the feedback they had on that section/slide.
This approach can free you up from worrying about premature word-smithing, will make any logic errors/gaps in your thinking obvious, and will ensure that one section builds logically upon the next section. In addition, this means that you DO NOT have to write the paper sections in order. So, if you get struck on writing the introduction, just move to the results section, etc. You will have all the information that you need for each section already. Also, you will have the chance to smooth out the writing at the end.
Hope this helps!
posted by skye.dancer at 9:17 AM on January 26, 2019 [1 favorite]
I use this approach when I get stuck, when my thinking is unclear, when I have very complicated content to get across, and when I need quick/easy feedback from people who don't have time read a shit ton of words. As a bonus, if you want to give the paper at a conference--you'll have a slide deck all ready to go!
1. First, look at the structure of papers that were accepted to the journals that you plan to submit to. Some journals will even have a preferred set of headings: Abstract, Introduction, Literature Review, Methods, Results, Discussion, Future Research. Etc. Use those headings as your presentation sections.
2. Next, allow yourself no more than 3 slides per section--this forces you to be succinct. Using short phrases, bullet points, tables, equations, and charts only, tell the story of your research study, moving from section to section.
3. When finished, run through your presentation yourself, with colleagues, your advisor, etc. and jot notes in the presenter notes section of your slide deck. Use this feedback to improve the content on each slide and take notes for inclusion in your final paper.
4. Once you have all elements of your presentation finalized, and all your feedback is incorporated into the slides or stored in the slide notes, you're ready to write your draft.
5. Using your presentation sections as a guide, go section-by-section, slide-by-slide, and convert your bullet point phrases to actual sentences. Then, write the transitions between slides and between sections.
6. Now, you're finished with your first draft, and ready for your next review-revise cycle. If you get confused, stuck, demoralized, just refer back to your slides for guidance. You've already rendered your research in a logical, coherent way in your presentation - you're just doing the same thing with more words. You can also revisit the presentation section with your advisor to make sure you captured all the feedback they had on that section/slide.
This approach can free you up from worrying about premature word-smithing, will make any logic errors/gaps in your thinking obvious, and will ensure that one section builds logically upon the next section. In addition, this means that you DO NOT have to write the paper sections in order. So, if you get struck on writing the introduction, just move to the results section, etc. You will have all the information that you need for each section already. Also, you will have the chance to smooth out the writing at the end.
Hope this helps!
posted by skye.dancer at 9:17 AM on January 26, 2019 [1 favorite]
There’s so much great advice here. But I wanted to give you some concrete ideas about outlining that have worked especially well for me over the decades for writing tricky concepts or complicated documents like research articles/reports. +Infinity to separating writing and editing tasks, and preferably leaving a day in between rounds. The added perspective and emotional distance that a little time gives you is so valuable. Quality writing is mostly about quality editing. Giving your brain that separation from the text and time to edit is the key to this.
At some point in grad school I came up with a very specific thought process towards reverse outlining, and it has changed my writing process for the better ever since. The crux of it is to literally ask each section, and then each paragraph (and sometimes to the sentence level) within each section: “What is your job?”. Job examples from a research angle might include: Convince reader this research question is important from a practical standpoint. Convince reader this question hasn’t been fully addressed by previous work. Help the reader understand the methodological trade-offs in X vs Y approach and why I did Y. Etc etc. I think of this as "reader goal-directed" or "job-directed" writing, and it helps me get and stay out of the swirl my own head and into the mind of the reader.
I will then use these jobs as the first-level foundation for a new outline, and list them out as such: "JOB: Blah blah blah". Then I review this list/outline of jobs and answer the following question: IF all of the sections and paragraphs do these respective jobs, will the purpose of this paper/article/report be fulfilled? Will it convey the ideas/knowledge/understanding that it needs to? Will the reader think, feel, and/or act how I'm hoping they will? If not, what other "jobs" will need to be done in the writing to have that result? (add those to the outline!) Are there jobs being done that aren't actually needed?
Elegant and well-organized technical/scientific/business writing comes from getting all of the needed jobs done, and only those jobs done, in an order that makes the work of the reader feel as easy as it can be.
From there I will rearrange the "jobs" outline, as needed, according to what will make the reading experience seem the most obvious to the reader -- i.e., are they set up to understand and care about this thing? Or does another job need to happen first before they can do that?
Then I will literally go sentence by sentence through my draft and ask: Is this supporting the job of this paragraph or section? Or a different one elsewhere? Or some other “job” that I haven’t made explicit yet? I then cut and paste sentences into the right outline section/subsection depending on the answer. Sentences that I’m unclear about what they're doing go under a “scratch” outline heading to revisit later.
After that’s done, then I review the collection of sentences (now bullet points) under each job heading and ask: Do these sentences Get the Job Done? I rework the order as needed, or add other content (or often a placeholder: "@TODO Sentence that accomplishes ABC...") This is also where it's easiest to find sentences that are looping and redundant, because I can look at them collectively and see that the job is already done by one of them, or could be if I just shored up the argument a little more crisply.
Finally, I can give another pass, review the "scratch" section to make sure I haven't changed my mind, and confirm that YES all the jobs are done. Then I convert the outline format back into paragraphs, add any missing transition phrases that help the flow, and do a final pass for grammar, wordiness, and punctuation.
If this seems like this a fairly radical and time-consuming approach to writing/editing, because it's essentially deconstructing and reconstructing the document (insert Bionic Man "better stronger faster" trailer here) then...well, you're not wrong! But: (1) It gets easier and faster with practice; (2) having this kind of high-quality structural review process can mean less pressure to have your structure and writing "correct" in your first draft, and for me at least the blank page is the greater enemy; and (3) boy howdy does it pay off in tight, crisp prose that people enjoy reading!
One additional, unrelated (but 100% compatible) technique that can be especially helpful for an ADHD brain is to employ a color-coded edits system for finer-grained review. That is, rather than just jump into editing your text (and sometimes mangling what you have in the process, because you're just reacting to each sentence as you get to it), come up with a scheme for types of review/rewriting decisions, and just electronically highlight the document as you go in those colors. For example, I've used blue highlighting to call out "need something more here", purple for "think about rewording this", orange for "not sure this belongs or adds anything", etc. You might benefit from a color code for "check contrast accuracy" where you want to make sure that you've got your A's and B's straight.
The key thing there, as other MeFites have mentioned above, is to help you separate out the work of deciding what to do from the work of doing it, and to chunk out that work of doing it in manageable ways. So if you color coded your "check contrast" statements, you could then block out time when you only went back through the document to review each of those and confirm that you had them written correctly. As you confirmed each one, you could remove the highlighting. This kind of chunking and visual cueing can help you work with your ADHD brain and not against it, and make everything feel less stressful. Spreading out these structural and fine-grained editing tasks over sessions that aren't more than an hour or so each, with breaks in between, keeps your brain fresh and engaged.
I hope some of the above makes sense and is helpful because I did not apply my own advice in drafting this response :-). Good luck!
posted by shelbaroo at 3:16 PM on January 27, 2019 [2 favorites]
At some point in grad school I came up with a very specific thought process towards reverse outlining, and it has changed my writing process for the better ever since. The crux of it is to literally ask each section, and then each paragraph (and sometimes to the sentence level) within each section: “What is your job?”. Job examples from a research angle might include: Convince reader this research question is important from a practical standpoint. Convince reader this question hasn’t been fully addressed by previous work. Help the reader understand the methodological trade-offs in X vs Y approach and why I did Y. Etc etc. I think of this as "reader goal-directed" or "job-directed" writing, and it helps me get and stay out of the swirl my own head and into the mind of the reader.
I will then use these jobs as the first-level foundation for a new outline, and list them out as such: "JOB: Blah blah blah". Then I review this list/outline of jobs and answer the following question: IF all of the sections and paragraphs do these respective jobs, will the purpose of this paper/article/report be fulfilled? Will it convey the ideas/knowledge/understanding that it needs to? Will the reader think, feel, and/or act how I'm hoping they will? If not, what other "jobs" will need to be done in the writing to have that result? (add those to the outline!) Are there jobs being done that aren't actually needed?
Elegant and well-organized technical/scientific/business writing comes from getting all of the needed jobs done, and only those jobs done, in an order that makes the work of the reader feel as easy as it can be.
From there I will rearrange the "jobs" outline, as needed, according to what will make the reading experience seem the most obvious to the reader -- i.e., are they set up to understand and care about this thing? Or does another job need to happen first before they can do that?
Then I will literally go sentence by sentence through my draft and ask: Is this supporting the job of this paragraph or section? Or a different one elsewhere? Or some other “job” that I haven’t made explicit yet? I then cut and paste sentences into the right outline section/subsection depending on the answer. Sentences that I’m unclear about what they're doing go under a “scratch” outline heading to revisit later.
After that’s done, then I review the collection of sentences (now bullet points) under each job heading and ask: Do these sentences Get the Job Done? I rework the order as needed, or add other content (or often a placeholder: "@TODO Sentence that accomplishes ABC...") This is also where it's easiest to find sentences that are looping and redundant, because I can look at them collectively and see that the job is already done by one of them, or could be if I just shored up the argument a little more crisply.
Finally, I can give another pass, review the "scratch" section to make sure I haven't changed my mind, and confirm that YES all the jobs are done. Then I convert the outline format back into paragraphs, add any missing transition phrases that help the flow, and do a final pass for grammar, wordiness, and punctuation.
If this seems like this a fairly radical and time-consuming approach to writing/editing, because it's essentially deconstructing and reconstructing the document (insert Bionic Man "better stronger faster" trailer here) then...well, you're not wrong! But: (1) It gets easier and faster with practice; (2) having this kind of high-quality structural review process can mean less pressure to have your structure and writing "correct" in your first draft, and for me at least the blank page is the greater enemy; and (3) boy howdy does it pay off in tight, crisp prose that people enjoy reading!
One additional, unrelated (but 100% compatible) technique that can be especially helpful for an ADHD brain is to employ a color-coded edits system for finer-grained review. That is, rather than just jump into editing your text (and sometimes mangling what you have in the process, because you're just reacting to each sentence as you get to it), come up with a scheme for types of review/rewriting decisions, and just electronically highlight the document as you go in those colors. For example, I've used blue highlighting to call out "need something more here", purple for "think about rewording this", orange for "not sure this belongs or adds anything", etc. You might benefit from a color code for "check contrast accuracy" where you want to make sure that you've got your A's and B's straight.
The key thing there, as other MeFites have mentioned above, is to help you separate out the work of deciding what to do from the work of doing it, and to chunk out that work of doing it in manageable ways. So if you color coded your "check contrast" statements, you could then block out time when you only went back through the document to review each of those and confirm that you had them written correctly. As you confirmed each one, you could remove the highlighting. This kind of chunking and visual cueing can help you work with your ADHD brain and not against it, and make everything feel less stressful. Spreading out these structural and fine-grained editing tasks over sessions that aren't more than an hour or so each, with breaks in between, keeps your brain fresh and engaged.
I hope some of the above makes sense and is helpful because I did not apply my own advice in drafting this response :-). Good luck!
posted by shelbaroo at 3:16 PM on January 27, 2019 [2 favorites]
« Older Logistics of dealing with a terminally ill dog | How to search for a Chicago rental starting April... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
More direcly responding to your question: I find it much easier to organize a talk than a paper, so usually try to write a talk as a first step. Have a journal club like presentation with some friends where you really present the whole things as a story. That makes you get the whole outline into some kind of reasonable order.
Good luck!
posted by lab.beetle at 3:40 PM on January 24, 2019 [11 favorites]