The author stresses how important it is to write several drafts and banish the idea that the first draft must be perfect. I don't mean how seriously authors take their subject, but how seriously they take the details of their metaphor. For students who get hung up trying to frame a dissertation topic, I ask them to write down, in no more than one or two sentences, one hundred different thesis ideas. Yazar sosyolog olduğundan verdiği örnekler de sosyoloji üzerinden, ancak kitapta bahsedilen sorunlar akademik yazımla uğraşan herkesin karşılaştığı türden. Social scientists, whether earnest graduate students or tenured faculty members, clearly know the rules that govern good writing. As competition in academia grows increasingly heated, Writing for Social Scientists will provide solace to a new generation of frazzled, would-be writers. Y Likewise for this point To discuss more complex points, organize that section like a mini-argument.
The best research on writing see, for instance, Flower 1979 and Flower and Hayes 1981 analyzes the process of writing and concludes that writing is a form of thinking. Becker's message is clear: in order to learn how to write, take a deep breath and then begin writing. Nevertheless, I took the chance, driven to it by stories of the chronic problems students and fellow sociologists had with writing. While reading the book I mostly nodded with agreement. In fact, a more specific context is better than an overly general one. The prejudices that do exist operate more subtly, as when the editor decides that one badly written, poorly organized piece is worth putting some special effort into, but not another. The understanding you're trying to convey will lose its coherence if it is put in terms that grow out of a different understanding.
This requires a certain amount of chutzpah. I like to get it out the door. Get it written and then you can introduce it. In science, the largely unwritten emphasis is on reproducibility. I learned the importance of subject matter and having something to say about it. Writing a draft without data makes clearer what you would like to discuss and, therefore, what data you will have to get. Writers find the question of which-way-to-organize-it a problem, again, because they imagine that one of the ways is Right.
Throughout, his focus is on the elusive work habits that contribute to good writing, not the more easily learned rules of grammar and punctuation. It is not always an easy process, as Becker wryly relates. Some of these matters appear briefly, largely because I am pretty sure that graduate students and young professionals in sociology and related disciplines simply will not search out or pay attention to advice from outside their own field. Becker, true to his calling, looks for an explanation for this bizarre behavior not in the psyches of his colleagues but in the structure of his profession. Authoritativeness is not inherent in any piece of writing. Every journal editor I have ever talked to has agreed that, whatever prejudices they secretly expected to implement on assuming office, they soon found the main thing was to get enough decent articles to fill the journal and get it out on time. It would had been nice if the book commented how we internalize emotions that in fact are constrained by socials structures.
You do that, that is, if you know that they are there to use. Proper spelling and grammar are important because mistakes of this nature detract from your argument. If you missed your deadline, you lost your turn in the printer's queue, people complained about their magazine being late, and the officers of the sponsoring organization wanted to know what was wrong. Knowing that you will write many more drafts, you know that you need not worry about this one's crudeness and lack of coherence. Better to pursue the goals of normal science: to do a piece of good work others can use, and thus increase knowledge and understanding.
Instead of focusing in the legalities of writing properly, we should make the complicated clear. If you want to convince yourself that the time and effort spent getting your degree are worth it, that you are changing in some way that will change your life, then you want to look different from everyone else, not the same. Large number of people, working together, develop a new way of formulating and investigating the problems they are interested in, a way which finds a home in lasting institutions of scientific work. Inother words, I have some degree of control over the risks involved in writingand letting others see what I have done. After a few fumbling preliminary remarks, I had a flash.
Be sure to give the reader guideposts along the way, to help them follow your argument. Since I followed that advice, a reader can get the gist of the book just by looking at the pictures and reading the captions. Some useful tips for style. Scientific writings are a form of rhetoric, meant to persuade, and some forms of persuasion the scientific community considers okay and some illegitimate. Sociological writers keep data around in various forms: notes on reading, field notes, summaries of results, ideas about how to organize materials, bibliographies, memos on this and that. Thesis — stated position; what you want to argue. That is easier than it sounds.
Their results give some support to my own practice and teaching. I don't think so, although fear of such labels pushes people to desperate attempts to think of new concepts. For a contribution to be worthwhile, you must read the literature carefully and without bias; doing this will enable you to identify some of the subtle differences in the viewpoints presented by different authors and help you to better identify the gaps in the literature. But as you write more you begin to realize that the risks are worth taking. They tell how to overcome the paralyzing fear of having others read your work. He, rightfully so in my experience, claims that the desire for initial perfection leads to less and in the end lower quality writing.
When he retired from active teaching he was a professor of sociology and an adjunct professor of music at the University of Washington. Two habitual problems are passive construction and abstract nouns, primarilyto avoid being direct. Underexploited normal science a source of hints, hunches, etc. One may end with a presentation of the implications of the study and areas upon which other researchers might focus. Of course these benefits will follow! The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 60637 The University of Chicago Press, Ltd.