Assignment: Create a revision plan based upon Becker’s instructions for an article that you have completed or are working on

For this assignment, it is most appropriate for me to use a work in progress because my previous work (during the first semester) really has no chance of ever becoming an article.  How do I know this?  Because I wrote “term papers” during first semester.  Becker describes this phenomenon early in the text.  He states that many students “pick up many of their habits in high school and solidify them in college.” (pg. 10)  This is not the case with my writing.  I am not utilizing the approach I took in high school or college; that was too many years ago for me to even remember how I wrote back then mechanically.  However, during first semester I did share a few things in common with my earlier writing approach:

1. I wrote the term papers “by doing whatever reading or research was required throughout the term and worked out the paper in my head as I went along.” (pg. 10)
2. I was frightened that “what I wrote would be ‘wrong’ and that (unspecified) people would laugh at me.” (pg. 4)
3. (I felt) I had no clue what I was writing about nor did I fully understand the assignment or requirements of the term paper.

Why were these elements so detrimental to the finished product?  The answer is because I could not get past them.  Becker offers a motivational approach to getting started.  “I must believe absolutely that if I write crap or think idiotic thoughts they will tell me.” (pg. 118)  I want to avoid any confusion.  I was not scared to write.  I was not “frightened” that I would be wrong, rather, I was quite certain that what I was writing was a tad askew.  How did I know this?  The preparatory sessions involving my professor and peers were quite shocking.  On one occasion, I presented my outline to a group who emitted an assortment of baffled gazes.  The response was that I most likely did not understand the assignment criteria.  It was not that I was falling on poor undergraduate habits, I simply was never introduced to the format that was now being requested of me.  I wrote a “proposal” for my master’s thesis.  I was asked to write a “proposal” for one of my first doctoral classes.  At this point in my second semester, I am still quite uncertain about what the criteria for a “proposal” really is.  But, that is just fine!  The criteria for a “proposal” vary from professor to professor, from class to class.  There does not seem to be any defined criteria for a “proposal.”  Please correct me if I am wrong.

In my professional life, I submit grant applications and funding applications called “Requests for Proposals” (RFP).  These applications are extremely defined and often include a checklist and explicit instructions.  The “proposal” as a term paper assignment is not at all as clearly defined… on paper.  The instructions for the proposal (or any similar assignment) are not all laid out on the syllabus.  We have talked in class about the ambiguity of the syllabus and the limitations of it.  Granted, the syllabus should be as clear and explicit as possible.  But, a professor cannot teach a student how to write (what the professor believes constitutes) a proposal.

Planned Step 1 – Communicate Before Beginning to Write

Becker talks about, well, talking about what I am working on (pg. 118).  He expresses his belief that talk is cheap and performing a so-called “initial unveiling” (my words) of the research I am performing and writing is somewhat useless.  Becker refers to “safe comments” as responses and conversations that result in “inconsequential bull.”  I need to avoid that, especially when receiving constructive feedback from my peers.  This can be false strength-building.  At the same time, I need to have conversations on fundamental structure with my grading professors.  Although Becker does not hit this point, he eludes to it and I can deduct this from his book.  Personally, it would be to my benefit I will benefit from holding conversations with my professors about the format BEFORE discussing the content.  I predict this will be rough at first because a professor of contemporary theory will likely prefer to discuss Goffman and Fanon as opposed to answering “Am I meeting the page requirements and do I have the proper section headings?”  However, I need to ask these questions to get over the initial hump.

Planned Step 2 – Believing I’m Right

If you know anything about my academic history, you can probably understand the origin of my low self confidence.  In law school, no matter how many times I read the same case and was certain I understood it, whoever yelled the loudest in class won the argument.  In law school, I would cite a case but my interpretation would be labeled incorrect.  I must move past that horrific experience.  I believe now, in all honesty, that if I follow the proper mechanics of critique I will be given at the very least a hint of respect for attacking a social problem.  I have been schooled on how to form an argument.  I know how to cite.  My habitual writing style is to build a paragraph by pulling a quote from the text that I believe is important and then surrounding it with both supportive and critical comments, often counter-playing another theorist’s ideas for or against the initial statement.  I am lucky enough to know what are and are not “academic” sources.  What do I need to believe in?  Once I know the definite format, as I will be certain to get clarified in Step 1, I can then have confidence that I know how to write a solid critical argument.  I can then ask the professor for feedback on my arguments… only after and as a separate step.

Planned Step 3 – Start Early and Often

This final step is meant to get to the root of any problems I may have faced.  We continually discuss “awareness” in class.  Or, at least I hear us discussing awareness often because I think it is important and want to hear it.  Regardless, I need to recognize what areas of improvement I believe are necessary for me to fix.  The Becker book has many pages of thoughts about writing in the passive voice and using proper grammar.  When time permits, I have no problem with these areas!  How do I know this?  Because I never receive final paper submissions returned to me with comments such as “poor grammar” or “avoid the use of passive voice.”  The feedback I get is also proportionally small in regard to comments like “your argument is totally wrong here.”  Although, I do receive some “straw man argument” comments sometimes.  So, what do I need to work on?  (1) Know the format!  and (2) Know the material!  If I focus on accomplishing these two elements as sequential steps then I will see much greater success in the future.

My Plan for This Term Paper

Currently, I’m writing a final paper for SOC 885: Methods.  That paper can be found [here] and I am attaching a hard copy to the assignment that I am turning in to Dr. Gold.  My step-by-step specific plan is to:

1. Take my paper to Dr. Conner this week during his planned office hours.  I had not initially planned to do this because I was afraid that I was progressively behind other students.  In other words, I didn’t want Dr. Conner to see that I was without a 30 page rough draft.  Too bad, so sad for me.  Since I am without a 30 page rough draft, I am going to have to grin and bear it and go make an appearance at his office hours and show him where I am at.  Better to find out now that my format is grossly askew than during the final review.  I will ask Dr. Conner:
   1. What do you think about the format of my paper?
   2. Do the section headings seem appropriate?
   3. Am I in line with the requirements of the assignment?
   4. I will not ask Dr. Conner about the arguments in my paper during this first meeting.
   5. This step is by far my most unanticipated encounter and is aimed to fix my weakest area.
2. I will have greater confidence in constructing my arguments.  This is not to say that I have been less than confident previously.  However, I think I always had it in the back of my mind that I was writing “on a wing and a prayer” that my format was proper.  Now that I know it will be, I can have even greater confidence in the construction of my paper and worry less about appropriate section headings and more about forming a stronger argument.  To improve my critical style, I will review past papers I submitted last semester.  I think the themes will be standard.  Generally, I receive the “straw man argument” and “weak argument” comments as opposed to “this simply is incorrect.”  I just need to build stronger arguments.  More preparation and additional time to read and write will enable this building strength.
3. Since I follow a pretty standard format of writing (quote/citation surrounded by supporting/denigrating arguments), I plan to see Dr. Conner again (or another reviewer) toward the end of the semester and request this: “Please read each paragraph and comment on whether or not I am providing relevant critique.  Also, tell me in general if you feel each paragraph’s sub-argument is strong/direct or weak/indirect.”

This was a difficult plan to write using Becker’s book because I really believe that I avoid a lot of the “small stuff” in the book like grammar fixes and confidence issues.  I did not get as much out of this book as I have from previous class discussions and readings.  That is not because it is an unnecessary book.  I think that many of my peers probably got a lot out of this book… because it pinpoints areas that are familiar to them. For me, though, there are other areas that I need to fix that are briefly mentioned in the book.  I will continue to avoid writing abstractly because it “cheats the reader of concrete specificity.” (pg. 83)   I just need to make sure what I am specifically stating is correct and strong!  I guess I am a strong believer in avoiding the details and abiding by “the Zen lesson of paying attention.” (pg. 89)  If I work harder at building the forest, the trees will grow taller (oops, I inserted a weak metaphor!).  I need to maintain attention at all stages and “the problems will start taking care of themselves.” (pg. 89)