Using classic style to combat bad habits

In part two of our Steven Pinker style discussion, we look at the value of classic style in grant-writing. Pinker begins by saying that classic style can serve as "an antidote for academese...and other kinds of stuffy prose," (p. 27) which as a grant-writer working with academics is one of my top goals for you. :) Pinker suggests that the best way to describe classic style is "a writer in conversation with a reader, directs the reader's gaze to something in the world" (p. 56). He argues then that classic style draws on two of our most natural instincts (talking and seeing) to develop our writing. So, if we envision our reader being a bright, educated, researcher, what we're trying to do in our proposal is call their attention to our problem and have a discussion about the problem and the best ways to fix it.

However, academic writers fall into a whole bunch of bad habits when writing that add useless words and sentences into their writing and distract from their actual goal. As Pinker points out, "classic writing, with its assumption of equality between writer and reader, makes the reader feel like a genius. Bad writing makes the reader feel like a dunce" (p.36). Thus, below is some advice on classic style.

Use elegant metadiscourse:
I remember in high school when being assigned a term paper, my teacher instructed us to format the paper to "tell them what you're going to tell them, tell them, then tell them what you told them," and this is not a bad place to start off your high school writing career, but there is some elegance that you need to accrue as you advance as a writer. Pinker tells us in fact to avoid this metadiscourse and to just tell people what we want to tell them. I'm not sure he was talking specifically about grant writing, however, I do think we can take away from this point that one should avoid repetition in any metadiscourse. Pinker suggests that returning to your overarching point and even using key words to summarize is useful, but don't say the same thing again; find a new way to describe and convey the crux of your piece.

Avoid hedging:
Pinker also describes how many people hedge in their writing and they fall into this bad habit unintentionally. He suggests that we can often chuck the hedging words. For instance, I can say, "the birds fly by my window" instead of saying, "Sometimes, the birds fly by my window," and be confident that no one will call me out, saying, "Oh yeah? There are birds flying by your window nonstop? Liar!" But returning to my second sentence I used to in this section, you may notice that I hedged by using the word "often." Sometimes, hedging is necessary. Ah! I did it again. But, it can be useful if we use it intentionally, if it's necessary to make the point. 

Avoid turning verbs into nouns or adjectives:
In his discussion, Pinker cautions us from turning perfectly good active verbs into nouns, or what he describes as zombie nouns. For example, instead of "She affirmed his choice," we turn "affirm" into a zombie noun to say, "She granted him an affirmation." Maybe the second choice sounds a bit fancier, but it is certainly less clear or useful than the original when I let the verb be.


Avoid unnecessary passives:
Now, I've certainly chided you not to use the passive voice in grant writing when you can help it, but since Pinker suggests it, I must take the opportunity once again. Instead of saying, "The experiment will be conducted," say "I will do the experiment." There is no point in removing yourself from the project by writing your grant in passive, third person. Now, you may notice that our heading says to "avoid unnecessary passives." So when are they necessary? Pinker suggests that passives can be useful when we are trying to avoid unnecessary details. For instance, the phrase, "Helicopters were flown in" is passive, but may be the best way to say it since we don't want to get into the details of who was flying the helicopters.

In all of these suggestions, the thing to bear in mind is the importance of being intentional. There are times when breaking these guidelines will make the most sense and then you should. However, when re-reading your writing, look for where you're hedging, turning verbs into nouns or adjectives, or using passive voice, and take a moment to check if that is the most effective way to say it.

Resources:
The Sense of Style - Steven Pinker
Why academics have a hard time writing good grant proposals - Bob Porter

It's not grammar but style

"Summer break" although elusive for many of us, seems like the ideal time to do some reading for pleasure. And, if that is your plan, I don't want to steal your joy, but I'd like to suggest a practical application for your fun-reading. To do this, I will offer a blog series on Steven Pinker's The Sense of Style, which I'll offer over the next couple weeks starting today.

In this book, Pinker works at "replacing dogma about usage with reason and evidence" (p. 6). Although he lauds the the great style-guide writers, such as Strunk & White, he also cautions against stringent language and grammar rules that seem to regard language as static instead of evolving and suggest that good writing is as simple as applying certain rules.

For me, it's a good reminder. With a technical writing background, I often catch myself offering bulleted lists to grant-writers, including 'get rid of all passive voice' and 'cut out hyperbole.' And, sure, this is in response to the overly complicated and layperson-unfriendly proposal-writing I often see, but I think we can learn from Pinker to find a balance between grammar rules and overly complicated writing that is not accessible to most.

Pinker argues for considering style in your writing for three reasons:

• to make sure your reader understands: Unless it's in your diary, your writing is meant to communicate, so make sure you're doing that effectively.
• to build trust: As Pinker argues, sloppy or careless writing also communicates something to employers (or grant reviewers). It suggests that if you can't craft a resume or a proposal well, how can you be trusted to do a good job in the workplace or responsibly manage a research project?
• to offer joy: If you are reading a great novel this summer, you understand the importance of this, but it's also worth remembering for any other sort of writing, whether that be a publication you're developing or a grant proposal - do not sterilize your writing of your passion. Let your passion always infuse your writing.

Thus, for these reasons, Pinker encourages us in his opening chapter that to become better writers, we must first become better readers. Whose writing do you love? The next time you're reading their work, make a note of passages that jump out at you, ones that you particularly love. Read those passages again and work to identify what the author did that makes you like it so much.

Pinker points out that we're often told that using the passive voice or using alliteration is bad practice, but that's simply not a hard and fast rule, and I'm not just defending alliteration because my name is Naomi Nishi! Instead we need to understand who we're writing for, what we're trying to tell them, and what's the best way to tell them. Oftentimes, in academia and in grant-writing, we think that all emotive words are inappropriate, but is that right even when our goal is to get our reader to feel something? In grant-writing, one of our key goals is to get our reader excited about our idea. Ridding our writing of anything that conveys excitement then is bad practice.

I'll admit something to you. Although I am a card-carrying Technical Writer (OK, I don't have a card, but a diploma), I have never been a stringent grammarian. So, as an experimental psychologist and a linguist, Pinker speaks to my writerly soul in his acknowledgement of the messy and dynamic nature of language where knowing "the rules" is useful, but accepting that these rules are and should be broken when it is for the good of your writing. I hope you will enjoy this series; I'm looking forward to it!

Resources:
The Sense of Style - Steven Pinker
Steven Pinker's Website 

Research PR Tips

Being able to discuss your research with a broad audience can help you in many ways. It allows you to write for the layperson in your grants. It allows you to tell your story and get the word out about your research. It allows you to attract students and collaborators. After attending the National Organization of Research Development Professionals (NORDP) conference, I heard from several RD folks on how researchers can better market themselves and tell their story.

Below are some tips:

Have a website:
A website is an opportunity for you to make sense of your work to people who may be interested for a variety of reasons. This is a place where you can organize your research for non-experts and experts alike. It's a place to link to the press you've received and to market your publications and yourself. One website that I like belongs to Professor Jennifer A. Lewis who is admittedly a research rock star, conducting research on 3D Printing at Harvard. But look at the language and organization she uses to illustrate her multi-faceted research. She makes sense of her very complicated research to a broad audience. She is also using her website to link to all the news and publicity she has received on her work.

Create an elevator pitch:
Certainly, I've said this before, but having a clear and concise elevator pitch on your work can give you a great advantage. This is especially true for when you are meeting Program Officers or colleagues at conferences or when e-introducing yourself to folks who may be able to support you and your work in a variety of ways.

Have an FAQ page
When you're discussing your work with colleagues or laypeople, what questions do they ask? What seems unclear to them? Try to make a note when you're asked questions about your research to identify the hang-ups. You can then use these questions not only to revise and clarify how you talk about your research, but consider making an FAQ sheet that you can hand out at presentations or link to on your new website! An FAQ approach can be an easy-to-read approach to offering clarifying information on your research.

Use social media
At the NORDP conference, I was struck by how many folks get their NIH or NSF updates on twitter or how many are discussing research on facebook. If you're not familiar with these channels, try using the twitter hashtag at your next conference. You'll be able to engage and connect with people interested in the same areas as you. You can follow them and they can follow you. After the conference, continue to tweet about your research, especially any updates or publicity you receive.

Making your research clear and accessible to a wide range of people can grow your reach and ultimately your support and network. So, consider these ideas to build good PR around you and your work!

Resources:
Tips for using social media to promote your research - Nature
Developing a PR Plan - Entrepreneur

Conference Networking

Well, conference season is upon us. It's a busy time with travel and simply preparing your own presentations, but make sure that you take a bit of time to strategize about your networking. Conferences are an ideal place to meet with colleagues (new and old) and meet with program officers. All of these connections are valuable. Below are some tips to help you make the best of them.

Prepare
Before you attend any conference, find some time to identify who you want to meet. Are there agencies you're planning to apply to? See if a Program Officer will be there. Looking for a new collaborator with a certain type of expertise? Identify folks who might fit the bill. 

Seek them out
After you've figured out who you want to meet, look at the conference program to figure out where they'll be, whether they'll be presenting or in a round table. Sometimes, round tables or alternative sessions can be a better place to catch up with people instead of panel sessions that can get very large and make it difficult to talk to folks. Also, consider emailing folks beforehand to set up time to meet for coffee or a brief chat.

Name drop
When meeting someone new, bring up any connections you might have. Do you share a mutual colleague? Do you know someone who went to or worked at their institution? Once you've identified a connection, name drop. People are much more likely to meaningfully engage with you and your research if they have a mutual friend or colleague that serves as a sort of validation for you and your work.

Follow-up
Always follow-up with people. If a Program Officer is interested in your work and asks you to send an abstract on your project, email that to them, preferably within 24 hours while you're still top of mind for them. Also, follow-up with notes to folks after the conference. Consider sending "nice to meet you" notes via snail mail to add a personal touch. Although a follow-up email is fine, a hand-written note can be a nice touch especially when folks are sifting through their email after having been out of the office for the conference.

These tips can help you get the most out of your conference experience and networks, and can help you to grow and enrich your network effectively.

Resources:
Pro tip: How to maximize networking at conferences - Forbes
How to network at a conference - Wikihow