next »

[leopard]

I'm looking for strategies to use to make critical but not really helpful feedback into something more constructive. In my department, there are certain professors who promote themselves as (among other things) the folks who will turn the grad students into strong writers. I'm all for this goal and quite appreciative of efforts by faculty to help me improve my writing. I've finally realized, however, that in dealing with a pair of these profs, one gives much more useful critiques than the other.

The effective critique points out problems with argument or presentation and then follows it with a couple of pointed questions that I find help me identify what I need to address to fix the issue. For example, rather than say "this is unclear" the comment is something like "I'm not sure what you mean by X. Are you trying to get at Y or Z?" This helps me see where I went wrong (in terms of clarity) and gives me some avenues to think through as possible solutions.

In contrast, the less effective critique simply says "this isn't clear" or "articulate this idea better" without giving me a sense of what isn't clear or what needs to be better articulated. It's most galling when I've turned in drafts and say "I know I need to improve A, B, and C. Can you give me some direction as to how to do that or to figure out where I'm going wrong" and then receive the draft back with a comment next to A saying "this isn't clear." Yeah, I know.

I recognize that I can't change the way professors edit/comment on papers. But I'm trying to figure how to move from being paralyzed by "I know this isn't clear but I'm not sure why/how to fix it" to actually moving forward. For the paper with which I'm currently facing this challenge, I've met with a couple of peers to try and get their feedback (in a writing exchange kind of thing), but they're not (in this case) seeing the same problems as the professor in terms of clarity. In fact, the parts they thought needed more explanation are ones the professor seemed to think were fine and vice versa.

After this long spiel, any tips for dealing with critical but not pointed comments?

[larryc]

The "less effective" person is actually the better professor. By grad school you should not be asking to have your hand held this way.

Try reading the problem passages out loud. Or better yet having them read aloud to you. Review Strunk and White, and the critical professor's own writing. And find some tougher friends to look over your stuff before you hand it in.

[zharkov]

In addition to Strunk & White, get a copy of They Say / I Say.  Using the "templates" will give you practice in clear writing, especially for academia.

[imawakenow]

Once again, larryc nails it.

OP: When I was starting out as a grad student, I had a professor who would provide feedback like the first example--not only highlighting that something was unclear but also giving suggestions for how to rewrite a section.

How did I respond? Invariably by retyping those suggestions directly into my paper and moving on.

A big part of graduate school--especially if you are intent on pursuing an academic career--is learning to think for yourself, as well as being able to defend your decisions.

So, what to do?

Most fields have journals that are "more" technical and others that are "less" technical. Find one and read an article a week. Break down how the authors build and support their arguments.

Another option to wean yourself off of professor 1's approach--give the same paper to Dr. Specific and Dr. Vague. After getting Dr. Vague's critique, make changes to the paper. Then read the comments from Dr. Specific.

Also, I believe that you mentioned in an earlier thread about going to a regional conference. A lot of times regional conferences won't have a best paper session (some will), but if this one does, that's another way to get a feel for good academic writing. Many authors will make available copies of their papers to people who ask.

At the end of the day, though, you will learn to be better writer by writing and rewriting.

Good luck.

[leopard]

Thank you for all of your feedback.

Perhaps I was not clear enough in my original post, but the difference between Dr. Specific and Dr. Vague is not that Dr. Specific tells me how to fix the problem, but rather points out the problem more directly. Dr. Vague tends to draw a line next to the paragraph and write "unclear." Dr. Speciific says something more like "unclear transition." In other words, Dr. Specific has a clear referent for "this" in "this is unclear" where Dr. Vague does not. Perhaps this is LarryC's handholding, but when I know I'm stuck at a certain point and specifically ask for help with that point, being told "you're stuck" doesn't feel very useful.

I'm working on finding tougher writing critics among my friends. It's taking more time than I thought it would to sift out who is willing to really rip things apart and who is too gentle.

rusleeping: I hadn't heard of the best paper session before, but I will definitely check it out if it takes place at this conference.

[imawakenow]

rusleeping: I hadn't heard of the best paper session before, but I will definitely check it out if it takes place at this conference.

A lot of regional conferences don't have them, as they tend to be smaller (obviously!) and have fewer sessions, but ocassionally they do.

I can't ever remember a national conference that didn't have Top Paper sessions in most divisions. Sometimes they just note in the program with a * that X paper won top faculty paper or top graduate student paper. But often there will be a "Top Paper" session. I go to them not just to see the writing (if they make copies available), but to see what the "best" academics are doing.