These are issues we want to think about. Here's an email exchange I had in November 2006 with Lynn Reynolds, one of our undergraduate writing mentors. It's the beginning of what I hope will be an on-going conversation on the topic, so please feel free to share your thoughts if this speaks to you in any way. London Met is lucky indeed to have such talented and thoughtful writing mentors working for it!
Hi Pete,
I've just been looking over some of the journal freewrites I made following this week's writing centre tutorials and training. Even though this idea hasn't assumed a very clear conference-ready shape, I really like it. I'm sending it to you on the offchance that it might have broader appeal or spark something else.
The question of culture and writing seems to have loomed large over the past couple of weeks. National cultural conventions cropped up, but I also saw some students concerned about bridging a gap between writing for arts and sciences, so cultural issues were present in a CP Snow sense as well.
A couple of the students I met with had previously studied arts subjects and were branching out into the sciences. Some had already submitted reflective reports and were facing their first 'scientific' essay. One student (an English lit graduate now studying psychology) had written an essay and had shown it to an acquaintance who works in biochemistry to solicit their advice. The end result was a strange beast; fluent, critically-engaged prose (her original creation) was punctuated by bulleted sentences (as advised by the biochemist). The conclusion she showed me was really a re-statement of the preceding argument and didn't address the question. When I discussed this with the student (gently), I found that she had made the assumption that scientific objectivity was synonymous with equivocation. We had a really good discussion about the ways in which she had been accustomed to using evidence to support argument as a lit student, and whether these should change now that she is a social scientist. We both looked at our assumptions.
Mine: when writing essays, there isn't much difference between arts and sciences beyond the amount of mathematical argument - or other specialist terminology - encountered. Actually the whole two cultures concept has been vastly over-stated. I use precisely the same strategy to write essays for both.
Hers: arts and sciences are completely different worlds. In the sciences, there is no place for the investigator's opinions.
In the end, we decided that an interesting essay in any discipline which is satisfying to create is characterised by critical involvement - and what is that if not the writer's informed opinion? The real purpose is to give the ideas prominence rather than showcase the writer's ego. Some scientists may seek publicity for their ideas and their subject by placing themselves at the forefront (eg Richard Dawkins and Brian May), whereas others are more traditionally low-key (eg George Ellis, Martin Rees). We came to the conclusion that the fame/infamy approach is best suited to those who already have established careers or who wish to write popular science. Then the 'I' can become more noticeable. Conversely, we found that many of the biographers we both admire (even famous ones) place themselves very much in the background.
Therefore, I would argue that scientific writing is life writing. If we focus on the two cultures concept we condemn ourselves to poor communication as scientists and run the risk of bowing to prejudice and received opinion as artists. Whatever our discipline, we must write as ourselves.
Could this rambly idea be developed into a debate or discussion of some kind?
Lynn
I've just been looking over some of the journal freewrites I made following this week's writing centre tutorials and training. Even though this idea hasn't assumed a very clear conference-ready shape, I really like it. I'm sending it to you on the offchance that it might have broader appeal or spark something else.
The question of culture and writing seems to have loomed large over the past couple of weeks. National cultural conventions cropped up, but I also saw some students concerned about bridging a gap between writing for arts and sciences, so cultural issues were present in a CP Snow sense as well.
A couple of the students I met with had previously studied arts subjects and were branching out into the sciences. Some had already submitted reflective reports and were facing their first 'scientific' essay. One student (an English lit graduate now studying psychology) had written an essay and had shown it to an acquaintance who works in biochemistry to solicit their advice. The end result was a strange beast; fluent, critically-engaged prose (her original creation) was punctuated by bulleted sentences (as advised by the biochemist). The conclusion she showed me was really a re-statement of the preceding argument and didn't address the question. When I discussed this with the student (gently), I found that she had made the assumption that scientific objectivity was synonymous with equivocation. We had a really good discussion about the ways in which she had been accustomed to using evidence to support argument as a lit student, and whether these should change now that she is a social scientist. We both looked at our assumptions.
Mine: when writing essays, there isn't much difference between arts and sciences beyond the amount of mathematical argument - or other specialist terminology - encountered. Actually the whole two cultures concept has been vastly over-stated. I use precisely the same strategy to write essays for both.
Hers: arts and sciences are completely different worlds. In the sciences, there is no place for the investigator's opinions.
In the end, we decided that an interesting essay in any discipline which is satisfying to create is characterised by critical involvement - and what is that if not the writer's informed opinion? The real purpose is to give the ideas prominence rather than showcase the writer's ego. Some scientists may seek publicity for their ideas and their subject by placing themselves at the forefront (eg Richard Dawkins and Brian May), whereas others are more traditionally low-key (eg George Ellis, Martin Rees). We came to the conclusion that the fame/infamy approach is best suited to those who already have established careers or who wish to write popular science. Then the 'I' can become more noticeable. Conversely, we found that many of the biographers we both admire (even famous ones) place themselves very much in the background.
Therefore, I would argue that scientific writing is life writing. If we focus on the two cultures concept we condemn ourselves to poor communication as scientists and run the risk of bowing to prejudice and received opinion as artists. Whatever our discipline, we must write as ourselves.
Could this rambly idea be developed into a debate or discussion of some kind?
Lynn
Hi Lynn, Thanks so much for these thoughts. We are so lucky to have you with us on this project. I agree with so much of what you write here, especially when you say that, whatever the discipline, we must write as ourselves. This reminded me of a quotation from Kurt Vonnegut, which I came across in my notebook last night: "we are healthy only to the extent that our ideas are humane". I may be twisting his meaning a little for my own ends here, but our ideas - for them to really sustain us rather than diminish us - need to come directly from ourselves. And so unless we are writing as ourself we are lost. I used to be a classicist and feel I know all about this!
This has really interesting implications for our project. The CETL "Write Now" is in fact the CETL formerly known as "Scientific Literacy". The Writing Centre was intended to be a "Scientific Literacy lab"! This already had begun to change by the time I was hired, but I was very keen on creating a Writing Centre and avoiding the kind of division you identify - or at any rate creating a place where the tensions could be negotiated and where students could be encouraged to be writers in the fullest sense. But there are still tensions in the project, between the demands for a more disciplinary focus and for a more holistic focus. Like you, I think we will do best if we are confident that there need be no such division. By focusing on the ideas themselves, we force ourself to confront our received notions concerning our beliefs and identity (the stuff of our ego, if you like) and, as you say, this is life writing (especially if you are lucky enough to have a Writing Mentor helping you glimpse this). When we are honest about our ideas, then we are writing as ourselves and, if we are lucky, we might even write ourselves into being. You never know, and if that happens with just one student I will be quite happy.
As for the conference, I will forward your email to Kathy. I don't know if the CETL conference will be the place as the conference is very much being geared towards student success, and this is being interpreted largely in a material sense. Mind you, it would be fun if we could stand out as the lunatic CETL in the corner talking about what we think education should really be about. As far as I am concerned, the mentors can do whatever they wish with the session! Either way, I am sure that there will certainly be a place where we can develop these ideas further, either in print or at a conference. I think it would be wonderful if we could publish these thoughts by one of our Writing Mentors in a journal, as I am sure that these are important issues which go to the heart of what we do in a Writing Centre environment. If you are interested, there is an excellent journal called the "Writing Center Journal" which might well publish an essay of this kind -- it's an online journal and you might find some of the articles in the archive interesting to have a look at. Thanks again and I will send your email to Kathy as I am sure she will be keen on us developing these thoughts as they relate to our project. See you and good luck with the book, Pete
Lynn - I've been thinking more about your email. I think that what you have to say could have real implications for thinking about the teaching of student writing in the UK (and beyond). Here in the UK there has been a move from thinking about student writing as part of "study skills" for remedial students to an approach that looks at writing within the context of disciplinary constraints ("academic literacies"). This academic literacies approach is the dominant approach to thinking about writing at UK universities at the moment. It likes to think about teaching writing in terms of the broader politics and discourse of the university and of the particular discipline. This is all well and good, and it's an improvement on the old deficit models, for sure. But I have never been particularly enthused by it, mainly because I buy into the humane, process approach of the Americans of a generation or so ago (Peter Elbow, Donald Murray etc). A problem here in the UK is that there is no dedicated writing class for all university students as there is in the US -- it is this class (Comp. 101) that is the place where the more holistic, writer-focused writing theories are tried out and contested. Here in the UK students are launched into their academic disciplines from day one and so there is no space for such a non-disciplinary writing class. So we have a writing in the disciplines approach and now the academic literacies emphasis which dominates thinking. So the urgent challenge seems to be how to bridge the gap between disciplinary writing and what you call "life writing". But as you say, if one thinks about it in a certain way, then the gap disappears and we can do both at the same time, especially if we have a Writing Centre and collaborative teaching approaches. In fact we do both better - we have less self-indulgent life writing (not that there's anything wrong with that!) and more invested, more psychologically whole academic writing.
Another potentially important point concerns identity. This is, of course, a big buzzword and everyone talks about the need to create disiplinary identities - and even the academic literacies people talk about challenging disciplinary identites in order to build new ones. But there's no fundamental critique of identity. I'm quite uncomfortable with the notion of academic identities, largely because of my own experience as a classicist. I'm not sure it's a good thing. But your thinking suggests an alternative -- we might actually do the best psychology or classics or history or science or whatever not when we try to write like a psychologist but when we write as ourselves. Discovering who we are is, as in the past, once more the real goal of education and this need not conflict with being a good psychologist (it would be rather weird if it should!). So as I think this stuff over, I am wondering if we might not be able to make a real contribution to thinking about student writing more generally, and this would have implications not only in the UK but also in the US, where these issues are also agonised over, but by many more people. So in short, I think we should keep thinking about these issues of writing and disciplinarity... hope all's well and thanks once more for your thoughts, Pete
Hi Pete,
Thank you very much for your thought-provoking emails. I have been thinking and scribbling around this idea for most of the weekend, so my November novel is slightly behind, too. Mind you, that might be no terrible thing, as my inner writer appears to be Ben Elton. And there was I thinking that I had a duty to knuckle down and provide the world with a great masterpiece. Sigh. Thackeray can rest on his laurels, untroubled by competition from me.
Coming from a classics background you're certainly well placed to foment revolution, especially around the notion of disciplinary identity. In this age of identity politics the need for a critique does seem quite pressing. Speaking as somebody who enjoys classifying things just for fun, I have been interested in this for some time. Cognitive psychology theorises that there are advantages to group identities; they give us a heuristic by which we can identify friend or foe without taxing our cerebrum too sorely (and evolutionary psychology argues that we are hard-wired to classify). But the down side to this is that identities don't always map well to reality. So, an essay examining whether Leonardo da Vinci was typical of either the renaissance or late mediaeval period is as different from a piece of advertising copy as it is from a physiology lab report, even though both may be classified as arts writing. Each piece of writing has its own audience and its own remit to fulfil, and this - in my opinion at least - takes primacy.
I will acknowledge that disciplinary identity has some relevance. But I'll be a bit controversial and suggest that in writing this is mainly (referring back to my point above) to demonstrate to the reader that the writer is 'friend' rather than 'foe'. It's a question of rapport rather than of one format being superior to another. If we give great weighting to our disciplinary identity then we become tempted to write like a psychologist, or write like an architectural historian, rather than as ourselves. And as you have suggested, life writing benefits from shifting attention from pure speculation to evidence, and even a lab report can benefit from a little bit of a storytelling arc. Adhere too rigidly to a disciplinary identity and, I believe, we reject the chance to enrich our writing (and to be more controversial still, I would add our intellectual and social development). We become over-exclusive.
As for a link with writing to succeed (I shudder a little less every time I think about the title but I still think it should be '2' and not 'to'), I am reminded of an experience I had last academic year. Our informal study group (which included Ehsan) decided that we wanted to boost our grades by getting hold of the essay marking criteria for psychology and writing specifically for them. We did this, or at least sincerely tried to, and every one of us got worse marks than before. Oh yes, and the writing was also worse.
But anyway, I am really impressed that Kathy thinks this idea is a goer for the conference. I am also very keen to collaborate with you on some kind of publication. Shall I make an appointment with you to work out a plan?
Yours BenEltonly and with much lazy over-use of brackets,
Lynn
No comments:
Post a Comment