Teaching from participants’ own writing

Participants’ manuscripts give a writing workshop concrete material for discussion, revision and practice, while allowing participants to improve work they need to complete.

Manuscripts and preparation

A three-day scientific-writing workshop described in 2013 uses three manuscripts supplied by participants, circulated beforehand for everyone to read and treated as confidential documents whose copies are returned to their owners at the end. ¹ Its aim is to help non-native English speakers understand writing scientific articles for international journals; it does not include English-language teaching. ²

Participants receive the following handouts: ¹

• The latest ICMJE uniform requirements for biomedical manuscripts.
• Checklists for each part of a paper and for revising subsequent drafts.
• A table illustrating the basis for choosing graph types.
• The discussion structure proposed by the BMJ.
• Lists of words and phrases that can be simplified.
• A summary of the one-hour presentation on writing style given at the end of the workshop.

¹

Discussion and practice

In the facilitator’s experience of teaching perhaps 2000 participants over 35 years, criticism of participants’ drafts caused hurt feelings or resentment only once. ² When participants fear everything is wrong with their paper, the facilitator reassures them that the information is present and needs better organisation, and continually reminds them of their scientific competence and familiarity with the literature. ²

The workshop begins with introductions covering writing experience, including reports or theses, and expectations, which help the facilitator assess participants’ English. ³ Expectations of improving English are gently corrected: improving manuscript structure can make the paper easier for editors, reviewers and readers to understand. ³ Participants next exchange information about institutional literature-search resources and ways to record findings, including reference-management software, before selecting a target journal. ⁴ The facilitator explains differences between journals and the advantage of preparing a manuscript with a particular journal in mind. ⁴

For each element of the paper, the facilitator explains its function using checklists and participants comment on the three manuscripts, asking, for example, whether a title accurately, clearly and concisely describes the paper, is informative and contains its main keywords. ⁵ Authorship discussion introduces ICMJE criteria while allowing participants to consider their application locally, respecting established customs and explaining the criteria’s advantages. ⁵ Several hours are devoted to abstracts, emphasising their readership and faithful representation of every section, the space given to each question and the wording. ⁵ The remaining sections occupy the rest of the first day and the second, followed by submission, the covering letter and a short presentation on style. ⁵

On day three, groups of four or five receive an article without its title or abstract and write a title, abstract and keywords and comment on its structure. ⁵ Discussion with the whole group lets the facilitator assess understanding; if time permits, editing the abstracts on screen illustrates style principles. ⁵ Remaining questions can, if time allows, extend structural principles to literature reviews, case reports, oral presentations and posters. ⁶

A manuscript’s development across a course

A four-day qualitative academic-writing course, offered at the University of Southern Denmark from 2014 and attended mostly by doctoral students from health professions, centres on learning to write a good story. ⁷ The writing process provides its overall structure because many participants do not recognise the distinction between writing to think and writing the final product. ^{8, 9} The aim is to demystify writing and writing up qualitative research without imposing a single discipline or style, acknowledging that writing can be learnt and offering strategies for difficulties. ¹⁰

Alongside selected daily reading, the course uses one manuscript’s development from inception to publication: ¹¹

1. A short conference paper, its slides and the conference call for papers.
2. The developed journal submission and reviewers’ comments.
3. The first and second revisions and responses to reviewers.
4. The published article.

¹¹

The example supports analysis of changes to the title, development and presentation of the argument, paragraph construction and integration of reviewer feedback. ¹¹ Short lectures combine with discussion and individual and group exercises, including strategies for writing, writing up, procrastination and writer’s block. ¹¹ Some class exercises and homework use participants’ own manuscripts so they can improve them in a supportive environment. ¹¹

The course meets for one five-hour day, including breaks, each week for four weeks: ¹¹

1. The writing process, academic writing across disciplines, reporting qualitative research for different audiences and selection of a journal.
2. Manuscript structure: abstracts for different disciplines, journals and purposes; configuring arguments; drafting an article outline; and practice writing about a theoretical concept or analytical perspective.
3. Text elements and revision: strong paragraphs, quotations from authors and research participants, signposting, avoiding plagiarism by mistake and extending vocabulary.
4. Revision, editing and polishing; submission; using reviewer feedback; responding to comments; resubmitting or finding another journal; and discussion of being an academic writer.

¹¹

Participants writing in a second or third language particularly value vocabulary and plagiarism exercises because limited vocabulary can leave their writing feeling flat. ¹¹ Most participants value both progress on their own text and the opportunity to step back from it while following a real manuscript through publication. ¹¹ They also appreciate critical reflection on their writing in sympathetic surroundings amid pressure to publish. ¹¹

Follow-up to publication

The three-day workshop’s facilitator invites participants to revise their manuscripts after workshop discussion and send them for English-language editing before submission, keep the facilitator informed of editorial and reviewer responses, and accept help responding through to publication. ¹² Participants without a manuscript at the workshop can send their first subsequent manuscript for the same support. ¹² Only one or two manuscripts per workshop were sent, leaving it unclear whether other participants had not written papers or felt too timid to send them. ¹²