Pleasure and academic writing? Really? Yes, really. This podcast is about enjoyment, even if – in fact, precisely because – a lot of academics, when you mention academic writing, sigh, their shoulders drop. So let’s try to find the moments of joy in writing, and if you do (if we do), then the reader will pick up on that, too. Writing carries emotions.

Thinking about the process of writing, we can think about mountaineering or, if your knees are not so good, hill-walking. Buying your new walking boots, and all the other equipment you need, and getting to base camp is the first stage. (For the less adventurous one of us, getting to the car park near the hill.) That’s something like a literature review. Start climbing, with all the uncertainties of the weather, is like doing the empirical research or building your own argument. Getting to the summit is like completing the empirical research – and finding there’s still a long way to go. And going down hill is enjoyable and may seem easy, like writing a conclusion, but it's got its own dangers. After the climbing is complete, you might be home and looking at photos of the adventure. That is like having had a piece of writing published, and seeing it in a journal or a book. Sharing your photos with others is like being cited and people asking about your writing. All stages have their pleasures as well as their pains, and we should find the pleasures and celebrate them. Enjoy.

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

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

Gill Simpson studied English at Leeds, and after another career, studied for a master’s degree in theology and then taught theology and religious studies in a university. She is now completing a doctorate, using autoethnography, and she talks with us about her earlier experience of academic writing as a visceral, physical experience – using handwriting rather than a word-processor. The French philosopher Derrida praises handwriting too, as ‘with the computer, everything is rapid and so easy; you get to thinking that you can go on revising for ever’. Recently, Gill has rediscovered the value of handwriting in academic writing, as it makes it more personal and engaging. That is also related to her doctoral work on how the ‘personal’ is often driven out of higher education, through focus on structures and other minutiae. Writing freely should not, however, be a luxury.

In an even more visceral metaphor, Gill talks about academic writing as being too often just about the head, with the body, like a headless horseman, allowed to gallop away into the distance. Academic writers need to focus on ‘how to’ issues, but these should include ‘how to be’ issues. In the future, Gill hopes to do more work encouraging freewriting, and encouraging joy in academic writing.

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

What do you write about, when you don’t have anything to write about? Three starting points for what to write about: Oneself, perhaps, in the form of a journal, or using autoethnography/autobiography. Work, and what is important to that. Something you’ve read, or something in the world, that annoys (or that pleases) you.

But ‘not having anything to write about’ might be the result of demons. The ‘you can’t write anything of value’ demon, and the ‘last word’ demon. How do you get rid of those demons? Start bad and work your way up to good. In other words, start with gibberish – embrace the gibberish demon.

What’s the danger of not writing at all? What is means, is giving your agency to others. We really don’t want to be doing that!

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

Adam talked about his teaching, which ranged from more didactic (with the Foundation Year students) to more autonomous (with the Master’s students), and said much the same could be said of his academic writing. His doctoral thesis was more didactic, a book chapter he wrote – related to the thesis – which was more relaxed and left room for the reader to engage more autonomously. Writing the thesis, Adam felt obliged to use a specific ‘official’ style, that attempted to show off how clever the author is, and attempted to prove something. And yet earlier work on his own master’s dissertation was guided by advice on clarity: clarity is clever because it makes your cleverness clear. So the doctoral thesis sits alone, and Adam would like to write academic texts in the future that also speak to the general public beyond the academy, including, perhaps, something on the theology of football. And more in the more open style that leaves readers more autonomous – free to engage in their own way.

In the book on the theology of football, and in other writing, Adam likes to write collaboratively, as that too opens up spaces for the reader to be more engaged. And what about the Green Children of Woolpit? You’ll have to listen to this podcast to find out.

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

Today we have a guest: Bob (Helen) Bushell-Thornalley. Her specialism is physical education and sport and her approach to academic writing is similar to her approach to physical activity: being in the moment, considering it a long game. It all started with her involvement in the 2012 Olympic Games in London. Looking back to the origin of the modern Olympic movement in Victorian times, which was stimulated by a concern about sedentariness, and a lack of military fitness. Bob’s doctorate involved spending a lot of time in the archives, not conversing with people (despite her supervisor saying she should) – or should we say ‘conversing with dead people’? She focused on the meetings and correspondence between Baron Pierre de Coubertin, a French educator and philosopher, and Dr William Penny Brookes, a GP in Much Wenlock, Shropshire, England, who was concerned with what would now be called ‘public health’ and (again, the newly-discovered) ‘social prescribing’.

Working in the archives, Bob had to isolate herself – not her usual way of being – and read the documents, especially the correspondence between these two key figures in the development of the modern Olympics. Not only reading the text, but reading between the lines, the white spaces telling her what had not been said. Bob became a better writer by becoming a better reader, listening to missing or excluded voices. Even so, academic writing still seems to Bob as indulgent, as is reading and thinking – and yet she, like all of us on this podcast, works in a university. How strange.

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

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

Today, we’re talking about editing. Both of us have been involved in editing a book, one a couple of years back (and currently in the middle of another editing job), the other just about finishing the first book editing job. So we’re both quite fresh to the role. And entertained, and exhausted. It wasn’t quite what we thought it would be, but we were determined to explore how an edited book – typically, a ‘handbook’ to be targeted at university libraries – can work better, or worse. Reading handbooks, before jumping into the editors’ pool, I noticed that some were overedited – the editors had such control of the contributing authors, that they seemed to have been made to submit, and the editor might as well have written the whole book themselves, and it would probably have been more interesting. At the other end of the spectrum, some edited handbooks are so loosely edited, that they are merely a collection of different (possibly really interesting) chapters with no connection to each other and no additional value in being in a book. What I liked most was one that retained the original voices of each of the contributing authors, but then added a book-level narrative (by the editor) that made the collection more than just the sum of its chapters. This was a matter of curation of the chapters, their ordering, the introduction to and if possible conclusion to the book (written by the editor), along with the index, a clear title, and so on. The gift of references, too, and a narrative flow across the book that doesn’t deny the distinctiveness of each contributor.

All of that means a lot of fluidity (not always liked by contributors, editors, or publishers, but absolutely necessary), a lot of friendly negotiation (keeping talking to people is crucial), and a lot of imagination and creativity. As a contributor, the process is not quite the same as writing an article for a journal – as you are one actor amongst a set of actors in a play, rather than being a solo performer amongst other soloists. As an editor, the process can be unexpected, and you don’t get as much credit for the work as you might have hoped, but it is a joy to see an edited book published – a collective joy, and all the more joyful for that communality.

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