Ask the Editor No. 1

How can I systematize the writing I do on a research project? 

— Qi Lei, Intelligent System Security

This is a great question because it's forced me, in preparing this reply, to ask two follow-on questions which I see are also great questions:

Can the writing anyone will do on a project even be systematized?

What does anyone's writing on a project actually comprise?

I am going to take these in reverse order, because that way the one answer will feed into the other.

What does the writing comprise?

Definitions of the writing itself are surprisingly few. Most people, it would seem, have little trouble telling apart work in the writing from work not in the writing. I think the distinction is much harder to draw.

I have already talked about this in the post for 11 May 2023. My basic point there had been that most researchers mistake the writing for just that part an author does toward the end of a project, when he or she is finalizing the manuscript. Actually, the writing is much more.

The writing on any given project will comprise a lot of writing-production, and it will comprise very many written-products. It is this fact which makes so very challenging any systematization of the writing on a research project. If only the writing was just one single act (e.g., writing to finalize the manuscript) or just one single thing (e.g., the written submission) — then it would be a simple matter indeed to put system on the writing!

But the writing isn't single. Really, the writing on any give project will extend, so to speak, from the first margin, then, all the way across to the last margin. What I mean is, the writing will begin in the margin of some paper where you scribble a criticism or remark, and from there, the writing will end in a margin of your own submission, maybe some proofreading mark like the correction of the word affect for effect.

The writing, therefore, is highly multiple. Just take, as proof, the writing that authors do in Overleaf.

In Overleaf you might expect to find a fairly homogenous form of the writing. I mean, Overleaf is a manuscript-producing program. The work that authors do in Overleaf should be distinctly manuscript-producing, right? Well no. I mean, just ask yourself, What sorts of things does an author do in Overleaf? List these, for yourself. Here, let me get you started: an author outlines, an author hurriedly includes a thought approximately where it might eventually go in the document, an author comments, an author replies to comments, an author includes TO-DO at various locations in various documents that variously contribute to the final manuscript — oh, right, and an author also writes lines in the manuscript which are actually intended as final-version material — but these lines will always need revising, many times over, or even might just get cut altogether before submission.

I think it's plain to see that systematizing the writing on a project is going to very hard to systematize.

Can it, then, even be systematized?

Well, I'm sorry, but no, it can't.

Nonetheless, I do not think that the matter has an end there, so please read on.

How can a researcher systematize their writing?

The writing qua writing eludes capture. Writing is behavior, and what is more, it's the sort of behavior that's as erratic as the behavior of thinking itself. These are not manageable or controllable acts. At least, that's been my argument so far, and if you can get on board with that view of the writing, then I have this advice for you: Accept that the writing is hard work.

Your acceptance here is a big leap forward. By accepting the writing for what it is, you clear away the main obstacle faced by every writer. Because, you are not alone in wanting the writing of your texts to go smoothly. You are not alone in your willingness to prepare yourself, by some way — by any way really, just so that you can achieve more by the writing. However, you are also not alone in very often failing these aims.

But if you accept that writing is hard work,

And that's what it feels like while you're writing,

Then everything is just as it should be. 

— Several short sentences about writing (2012) 68

That is Verlyn Klinkenborg on the matter, and honestly, I couldn't have said it better. But this is not a call to give up. On the contrary, it is Verlyn's point, as it is mine, that by dispelling any illusions you might harbor of the writing, you see reality and know where you stand. From that view, you can actually decide how to do your own writing. At this standpoint, you can even systematize.

Once you know that the writing itself will not be systematized, then you are in a position to decide what really is systematizable. For instance, you have it within your control just how you approach your writing, don't you? I mean, whatever happens during your action of doing the writing, that must be left to itself. But where you perform the action, when you perform the action, which attitude you perform the action with, which expectations you hold for the outcomes of the action when performed — all of that is yours to decide.

So, my answer to the question of how to systematize the writing on a project is this: Waste no effort at attempting to systematize the writing, in and of itself, but do expend effort on systematizing how you approach all the acts of writing which'll contribute to your project. You will approach the writing from a position of complete control when you approach it from that place where you see it for what it is:

The writing is you thinking, in print, on research.

Please email comments or questions to daniel.shea∂kit.edu

This blog is for you.