エピソード

  • The Smell of Revelations?

    The Smell of Revelations?
    2026/08/03
    In this episode, we start with Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels, which was first published 300 years ago. The story is very well known by children and adults, but the original novel is not so often read. It seems like a children’s adventure story, but it is also a political and religious satire. And towards the end of the book, the author, Swift, seem to reveal quite a lot of his true feelings about himself, even a self-disgust. We talk about how academic writing, like Swift’s book, can reveal more than we expect about ourselves. This can be a good thing, but whether good or bad it is worth thinking about what we say – and what we should say – about ourselves in academic texts. There is often (at least) a ghost of ourselves, an imprint, in what we write. Shy or outgoing, something is revealed by our articles and books. There is a smell.

    Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    23 分
  • Writing in Exile

    Writing in Exile
    2026/07/26
    In today’s episode, we talk about what it’s like to be writing in exile, kicked off by Ovid, who was a famous writer 2000 years ago who eventually got on the wrong side of the Roman Emperor, and was exiled to what is now Romania. Ovid wrote letters home, telling of his exile, and these are wonderful accounts of how exile can affect a person. Julian’s father was an academic exiled from Germany, and that’s influenced Julian too. There is pressure and suffering, and the feeling of being an ‘alien’ (‘alienation’, I guess), which is close to the sense of ‘imposter syndrome’ common amongst academic writers. But being an exile can have a positive effect. It can help a writer see things from a different perspective, and can help them reach new audiences. Our ‘small’ exiles – the time we spend in hospital, perhaps, or even on holiday, the experience of arriving in a new city or a new institution – can involve both the bad and the good effects of larger-scale exiles. As academic writers, it’s as well to make use of every experience, to enhance our writing.

    Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    26 分
  • What We Like: Quantities of Qualities

    What We Like: Quantities of Qualities
    2026/06/13

    We want to talk about what we enjoy most in academic writing. Not about the content or influence, the substance of the writing, but the writing, the quality of the actual writing. This is as close as we have got to a ‘top ten’, the sort of lists popular with podcasts. There are five ‘qualities’ that we discuss, and we tried to give some examples of academic writers who exemplify each of these qualities.

    The first quality is ‘literary’ writing, the elegant writing that might be expected of a novelist. Its aesthetic qualities impress the reader, and it is a pleasure reading the text. Examples include the writing of Anne Pirrie, and Gillian Simpson, both of whom we have worked with. Apparently effortless, lyrical, writing – like (good) dancing, hiding its skill and effort.

    The second quality is clarity. Overall, the writing fits together, and makes for a consistent argument and a straightforward structure. Each sentence can be clear and lucid too, without unnecessary flannel or confusing ambiguity. Aristotle’s writing has this quality, with Plato better at the ‘literary’ qualities.

    Third, enthusiasm that comes over in the writing. This can be a simple enthusiasm about the topic, or a ‘bigger’ enthusiasm, a visible activism that shows how much the writer wants to change the world. Two writers are mentioned, bell hooks and Gloria Ladson-Billings, both of whom are enthusiasts who manage to avoid ‘preachiness’. They are authentic and more invitational than preachy.

    Forth comes writing that is full of knowledge. Ninian Smart’s book of a thousand years of philosophy, or Nel Noddings guide to the philosophy of education, are given as examples of single authors managing to write what you would think would be the work of a whole team. There are many more such writings.

    And the fifth category is the sort of writing that ‘rescues’ you. You are stuck, in your own research and writing, and one book can help ‘unstick’ you. The writing that can get you over a barrier. Even better if it can keep getting you over a variety of barriers. Another mention of bell hooks, and John Macmurray can do this too. For us, at least.

    These are overlapping categories, but it’s always worth looking out for the qualities in academic writing that you find helpful. And the writers who achieve these qualities. What works for you?

    Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    39 分
  • What’s the Point? Punctuation: that’s the point, isn’t it –

    What’s the Point? Punctuation: that’s the point, isn’t it –
    2026/05/17

    Punctuation is what we all use, but rarely think about. Academic writing suffers from poor punctuation more than most genres. Too many academics forget to use a full stop, for example, partly, perhaps, because they think their thoughts just go on and on and on, and mustn’t be interrupted. But the full stop is a wonderful little piece of punctuation, in good uses, giving the reader a chance to take a breath, albeit in bad uses a bit of a macho mark. Commas are good friends for marking out sub-clauses, but they have a secret: they are great at emphasising the word before the comma. Semi-colons can create a neat two-part sentence. Exclamation marks have almost no role in academic writing. Question marks remind us that questioning should be at the heart of all research. (Real questions, not those pesky rhetorical ones.) Colons are good introductions, like a well-mannered party-host. We even discuss en-dashes and em-dashes – the latter expressing poetic openness when used at the end of a sentence, as in the poetry of Emily Dickinson. (In academic writing, em-dashes are more useful at providing for subclauses, when there are already too many commas in the sentence.) Bullet-points are like showy semi-colons.

    Punctuation marks are quiet alternatives to emojis, and Lynn Truss has written whole books about them. We just have a podcast.

    Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    48 分
  • 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
  • Essays and Assignments, Complex and Simple, with Su Matthan

    Essays and Assignments, Complex and Simple, with Su Matthan
    2026/03/01
    We have a guest in this episode, Su Matthan, and we talk about the differences between essays completed at school and assignments completed at university, some of the challenges of research ethics forms, and the challenges of making complicated things simple. And writing with both hands. All of this is in a context of people learning together, more than each person learning for themselves. Academic writing is a social activity, however much it also includes a lot of solitary work.

    Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    46 分