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
  • 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
  • Proper Pride, Proper Humility

    Proper Pride, Proper Humility
    2026/02/15
    You’re likely to experience some pride as an academic writer. Seeing your name on an article or a book, having a positive response to something you’ve written. And you’re likely to experience some enforced humility as an academic writer. The withering reviews, the failed publication proposals. Here, we talk about the ‘virtuous’ pride, ‘proper pride’, the things we should be proud of (the publications, the positive responses), and the ‘bad’ pride, the things we may be tempted to be proud of but shouldn’t (the publications which simply attack people, the unoriginal piece dressed up in new clothes). It’s like that with humility, too. Peer review often humbles us, even if it helps us improve our writing, and we should never think our writing is (always) going to transform the world: proper humility means understanding the limits of our (nevertheless valuable) work. Being negatively reviewed after publication is also humbling, but perhaps even more humbling is not being read at all, being ignored. Enjoy the ‘good’ pride and accept the ‘good’ humbling moments; try to avoid the ‘bad’ pride (often ego-driven) and try to survive the humiliations. It’s all part of an academic writer’s life.

    Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    30 分
  • After the Party

    After the Party
    2026/02/01
    Last time, the 50th episode, so a party to celebrate. At least, one was deserved. So now it is after the party. Annie Pirrie, an excellent researcher who did a great deal of contract research, wrote the reports and articles out of each project. However, afterwards, she thought ‘but what about this, or that?’ Annie said that she often wrote her most interesting, quirky and original articles after the main project. That’s an interesting idea. ‘After’ is a good time to think, to recover, to re-calibrate, to re-fuel, to rest. If you are bereaved, many people say you should not make big decisions. Perhaps the same goes for writing. When you finish a big project, perhaps a book or a thesis, you should perhaps not go straight onto the next project. Instead, you should think, contemplate, perhaps do a small quirky bit of writing. Or perhaps reading – reading books you might otherwise not read, reading novels, biographies, histories, or other materials. When Julian has researched solitude, he has asked when the best times are for solitude, and many people – children and adults – said, ‘after’, the day after Christmas, the day after a celebration, the hours after a sporting event. Solitude is often experienced ‘after’, and solitude is a good place to think original thoughts about writing. Go on: enjoy the afters.

    Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    30 分
  • Our 50th Episode: Please Allow Me To Introduce Myself

    Our 50th Episode: Please Allow Me To Introduce Myself
    2026/01/17

    This is the 50th episode of Just Writing, and I guess it’s time to introduce ourselves. Well, to talk about ‘introductions’ in academic writing. How to set out your stall, how to get people excited or at least emotionally-engaged in your writing. You never get a second chance to make a first impression.

    An introduction to a piece of academic writing will vary from a paragraph or two in an article, to a whole chapter in a book. But we usually start with who we are and why we are here. The ‘who?’ might include personal details: it has become more popular to describe the author’s identity, in order to clarify what biases or advantages they may have, but the personal details may simply refer to previous research on the theme. And the ‘why?’ may include why the research came about, what the intentions of the author are, and so on. Most introductions are written after the rest of the article, chapter or book, but some writers see the introduction as their motivation for the rest of the task, and in that case it may be written first.

    What do we include in the introduction? A guide to the writing to come, and at least a hint at the writing’s conclusion and hoped-for significance – what comes next. What do we leave out? We should avoid over-claiming, or writing condescendingly about other authors or our readers.

    Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    40 分
  • Honey at the Core

    Honey at the Core
    2025/12/07

    We want to talk about writing in other languages. The majority of journal articles in the journals we’re involved with, and two of the books we’ve edited, have had the majority of chapters written by authors for whom English is an additional language. Julian’s own father was German, who wrote his doctorate in his fourth language (French) and then worked and published in his fifth language, English. Some of the greatest writers in English have been writing in an additional language: Joseph Conrad, who was Polish and born in Ukraine, is an excellent example. So we don’t get all high and mighty when it comes to writers in languages other than their mother tongues.

    In a previous podcast, we talked about how ‘academic’ is itself an additional language, so all writers, whatever their home language is, will have to learn to write ‘academic’. AI does a good job of converting text (from any language, including non-academic English) into ‘academic English’, but it is a very bland style. We prefer the character in writing by real people, with the distinctive features of their own culture, including their other languages. As readers, that is, we are interested in the core of the work, and the surface features just give it more character and more authenticity. We have to remember this, when marking student work or reviewing professional academic work. There is honey at the core.

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