『Just Writing』のカバーアート

Just Writing

Just Writing

著者： Julian Stern
無料で聴く

今ならプレミアムプランが3カ月 月額99円

2026年5月12日まで。4か月目以降は月額1,500円で自動更新します。

概要

 Academic writing is just writing. It shouldn't be a mystery. But it should also be just writing, a way of promoting justice. This is the Just Writing podcast from Julian Stern and Sheine Peart.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Julian Stern
エピソード
  • Writing Despite

    Writing Despite
    2026/05/03
    We write in troubled times and in easy times. Many people treat troubles (institutional or personal, local or international) as reasons not to write. But sometimes ‘easy’ times are even more difficult for writers. Len Deighton is reported as saying there are two things that kill writers: alcohol, and praise. So, in a troubled world, we discuss how to write in troubled times. One suggestion is to admit the struggle, given in, perhaps, to the struggle – in the sense of writing about the very things that seem to be preventing us from writing (policy? institutional challenges?). Perhaps try ‘little writing’. And try saying ‘yes’ to any invitation to write, as that may pull us through. A goal might help us in such a way, but it is also worth writing at times as a ‘leisure pursuit’. (Hmm.) Overall, we are trying to make sense of a world hat doesn’t always make much sense. Isn’t that what academics are for? Just do it. (And admit our errors – such as Julian’s error in the previous podcast, in his story about Peter Worsley: it was Dennis Law whom he met in the toilet, not Geoff Hurst.)

    Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    30 分
  • Hedgehogs and Foxes

    Hedgehogs and Foxes
    2026/05/03
    The sociologist Peter Worsley tells a story about being at a conference in a big hotel, and in the gents found himself next to his footballing hero. I think it was Geoff Hurst (but it was actually Dennis Law). Peter was a good ‘schmoozer’, well-known and well-regarded in the academic world and in the school-teaching world. (I’d used his textbooks myself, teaching A-Level Sociology.) He turned to his football hero and said something like, ‘wow, it’s Geoff Hurst!’ The footballer turned to him and said, ‘wow, it’s Peter Worsley!’ Peter was so impressed that this footballer recognised him, and knew of a sociologist. It made him very proud. ‘I’m so impressed that you’ve heard of me, a sociology professor’, he said to Hurst. Hurst replied, ‘no, it’s just that you’re still wearing your conference badge’. Pride and humility, in one short encounter. It was an example of two worlds coming together, with an unexpected outcome. Worsley specialised professionally in trying to bridge worlds, as an anthropologist and sociologist. One of his best-known books is on ‘knowledges’. He realised that simple ideas of ‘knowledge’ are complicated by the large-scale distinctions between the ways of knowing that people may have. There is not one simple ‘knowledge’, but a whole set of knowledges within distinct worldviews. How do people bridge those knowledges and worldviews? We discuss this in our podcast, but also the distinction between trying to tell one big story, and trying to add to the set of small pieces of knowledge. Do we write ‘one big thing’, one story or theory, or do we write a lot of small things? Scientists may write ground-breaking paradigm-shifting works, or smaller-scale ‘normal’ science within the current paradigm. Religious studies scholars may write from ‘within’ a religious tradition, or may try to bridge traditions. Historians may write large-scale theories or report ‘one damn thing after another’. As academic writers we should be aware of what we are doing, and try to take some account of the other end of the spectrum. ‘Big’ story-tellers should acknowledge the small-scale details, and ‘small’ story-tellers should give a guide, perhaps in the introduction or conclusion, about how these may fit in a larger story. Isiah Berlin wrote about the fox and the hedgehog. A fox knows many things, a hedgehog knows one big thing. As writers, let’s try to be a bit of both; at least, respect both – and respect the reader enough to tell them things they might not want to hear.

    Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    35 分
  • Machers and Schmoozers

    Machers and Schmoozers
    2026/03/22
    Robert Putnam, in his book Bowling Alone (2000), told of the breakdown of connections across American communities. People were no longer joining bowling teams, but bowling alone. People still made things – they were still ‘machers’ – but the skills of connecting had falling away – there were fewer ‘schmoozers’. Machers and schmoozers, or maching and schmoozing, are activities academic writers know about. Sitting alone at a keyboard trying to write something, this is the work of the macher. It can be a lonely business, as the CRAC Report said in 2023 (https://www.ukri.org/publications/crac-vitae-doctoral-training-in-the-arts-and-humanities-report/). But going to conferences, giving or receiving advice, editing the work of other people, being a good colleague – these are all schmoozing activities, or ‘networking’, if you prefer that word. Maching and schmoozing are both vital for academic writing (as they are for a good society, as Putnam noted), and it is worth thinking about our own skills at each end of that spectrum. Sheine and Julian talk about both in this episode.

    Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    35 分
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_c
まだレビューはありません