Strategies Five Productive Chemists Use to Handle the Writing Process Anne Eisenberg Department of Humanities, Polytechnic Institute of New York, 333 Jay Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201
"I don't like to write," Gloria Steinem once said. "I like to have written." She is not alone in this sentiment. For most people, writing is a thorny job from start to finish, and its pleasures lie in contemplating the completed manuscript, not in creating it. In a series of interviews I spoke with r h m i s t s who do a fair amount of writing in their professional lives. N m r considered themselves writers-few had taken more than the obligatory freshman com~ositioncourse in college, . and none did any writing of fictibn or poetry. Yet all publish, and conversations with them revealed an interesting look a t the writing process among professionals. These productive scientists had begun with a typical notion: that writing was a mysterious and creative act, that "good" writers sit down to their desks and wait for inspiration. Their ideas. however. chaneed over time as thev develo~ed systems for k i t i n g that heGed the notion of writing as a mysterious, inspired act. Instead, their descriptions are those of a workmanlike process with a series of stages that can he accomplished one by one. Most use outlines-sometimes generated by the research g r o u p a n d various tactics to break the writing ioh into small, manageable tasks. This arcile condenses the interviews and presents the information within the stages of the writing process they articulated: entering the datayheginnings, fir& and seconddrafts, and final copy. Entering the Data For m v large, complex writing joh, the first step is a literature search. It may begin infurmally, in conversati~~ns with colleagues, or formally with an on-line computerized search of the topic. At the same time that the information is assembled. there is another s t e p Many of th~scientistiI intervirwed used the word "percolate" to descrihe it. They look through offprints ur the latest review volunlesand thenset the wading aside for a time and let what thev've read nercolate. Thev. mas. talk u,ith workers in their group, discussing the ideas or questions. Then they start to write. These two steps may be described as (1) first assemble and (2) then assimilate. ~
~
~
First Assemble E. Bright Wilson, Harvard chemistry professor, comments that the scientific literature is so complex that it sometimes seems easier to rediscover facts than to look them up but that six hours in the library may save six months in the lahoratory.'
These intwiews were conducted with the suppwt of the Educational
Activities Division of the ACS as part of their video series, Technical Communication. A list of chemists interviewed appears at the end of this article. Wilson. Jr., E.. Bright, "An Introduction to Scientific Research." McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, 1952, p. 10. Mount Ellis, "Guide to Basic InformationSources in Engineering," Wiley. New York, 1976.
'
566
Journal of Chemical Education
T h e literature is complex. The assortment of primary sources-periodicals, technical reports, and patent literature-is vast and continues to grow prodigiously. In the beginning, although it seems hard to credit, there were only three scientific periodicals: the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, the Journal des Scauans, and the Acta Eruditorum. That was in 1682. Since then, the number of periodicals has multiplied a t an astonishing rate, with more than 60,000 scientific periodicals catalogued between 1900 and iw n 2 How do scientists k e e ~UD with the deluge of orimarv sources? The men I spokiwiih said the litera6re search was essential to their writine. T o do the ioh efficientlv. .. thev . use a variety of secondary sources combined with professional memberships and informal contacts. (1) Informal network. Conversations and correspondence with col-
leagues, meetings, Gordon conferences,notices in news magazines such as C& ENews. This informal network is a typical starting point along with the one or two journals that are part of membership in a professional society (21
Toble-of-('unrenrsSomtn~a.('hem T ! l l , i , iur iwrancc, repn.. ducts the whle nicuntrnri for 700 )ournals i,iwreklv. This ailon$ fur fairly efficient shupping amwg new articles, n : ~ rhc h op~im~ to check the library or order tear sheets.
(3) Abstracting and Indexing Seruices. Chem Abstracts (CAI is by far the most widely used tool. Its section groups-rganic chemistry, biochemistry, macromolecular chemistry, applied chemistry and chemical engineering,and physical and analytical chemistry-are in turn divided into 80 subgroups. CA is expensive and is usually found only in institutional libraries. Individuals often take advantage instead of CA SELECTS, which provides abstracts within the 80 section subgroups. Much of the information in abstracting and indexing services is offered on-line via computerized data retrieval systems. These search systems are enormously helpful to stay abreast of the volumninous iournal and Datent literature. CA CONDENSATES is the comou& readabli file corresoondine to the minted CA.
Index and World Patent Index are also available on-line
might appear as annual volumes, as part of a single journal number, or as a special edition. Today there is an index, Index to Scientific Reuiews, listing more than 23,000 review articles published each year. If i t is easy to he daunted by the range of primary sources, it's eouallv easv to be swamoed . . bv" the information as it begins to accumulate. There are many ingenious systems for coping with the literature as it starts to pile up. Marshall Beringer, organic chemist and authors of 60 publications, decided that the "key to the game was to pick two-three variables and then go to work." He keeps his 3hy-5-inch card files in two categories: the first is "metallic elements." He may have 15 cards on aluminum, including
. , -
articles, hooks, and review articles. His other category is "type of reaction." These cards are indexed hv such subdivisions as oxidation, reduction, and hydrolysis. In this way, he has some dtlpliuation. l ~ the t amount is tolerable, and he is able cn keeo upwith the literature. There are other, more traditional techniques: (1) Offprints, usually accumulated in vertical files. A good labeling
system is essential;otherwise you won't find the article when you need it. Many people notate articles as they read them. These marginal co&en& are often valuable on returning to a paper, sparking remembrance of an insight long forgotten. Offprints are available thraueh table-of-contents iournals for a fee. Comouterized wr\,icrq can also supply rntirr documenti, althtwh the rltatiun a l m p is more wmmon Ycm may a h write d ~ r e d yto the aurhur. h t he warned that many awid rriponding. Hc prepared to write two or three times. ~
(2)
~~
Originaljournals. Most working scientists subscribe to three-four journals within their fields, which they then store in their offices for ready reference. The rest of the information is derived through indexing and abstracting services, and annual review volumes.
(3) Model formats. One chemist I interviewed had difficulty writing leads (opening statements). To solve his problem, he read the science supplement to the New Yorh Times for several weeks, clipping examples of openings he liked. He pasted them on 3by-5-inch cards and stored them in an "Openings, Standard Formats" folder. He savs it saves him hours of brainstormine. Another chemist I talked with accumulatessuccessful oroooaak and los,ks them over whrnrrcr he gets w a pnrticular vction that l ~ f f l him. ~ s What is an "articulared rnmagrntent plan t,y 01,jm tiv~,"sudd~nly required iu the latest govrrnmrnt suhsrrtim'! A successful proposal may give him some idea of how the writer coped with the "governmentese." ~
. .~
Then assimilate
People who've tried to write before they assimilated the data describe an inefficient and frustrating process. They start to write, stop to read up on an item, return to their notes, and then discover their writing veering off in a new direction. sparked by the latest piece of reading. This inefficient process happens when there's not enough time to absorb the information. Beginnings "When I was in high school, my English teacher told me I could not use an A in an outline unless I also used a B," a chemist told me. "There were rules, too, for Roman numerals and indentations. Under these circumstances, I did the same thing as my classmates. First I wrote the paver. and then I went back and wrote the ontline."In that w&,be got the form right-the A's and B's, the ranks of indentation. He also took care of the far trickier prohlem-getting the outline to match what he'd ended up writing. A great deal of nonsense has been taught in the name of outlining. But beneath the f a t of accumulated directives on the proper form for outlining, there is a Iran tool waiting to get our. Evervone I spuke tu used an outline for most long papers-not the mechanicallv oerfect outlines recommended in high school classes, hut modified versions t h a t they found extremely useful. "I think that oart of the oroblem with outlines," B.~J.Bulkin, a spectrosc&ist and aithor of more than 40 pivblications, comments, "at least as I was taught to do them, is an emphasis on form rather than function." If you think of them as extremely detailed, formal skeletons that must be rigidly followed, they aren't useful. The outlines that are more practical are the relatively simple ones that launch a project, and, once it's in motion, help to keep the authors on track. "For papers I do a scratch outline in which I jot down important points," Bulkin comments. "But for one proposal that I did in collaboration with a colleague, we spent about seven
hours on the outline. The paper didn't write itself after that, hut it was far easier." These are advantages cited for outlines: Scratch outlinrs ourrcome inertia They are an excellent way to get started, setting forth the categories, helping to crystallize thought. (2) A scratch outline puts the argument in its starkest form. "An outline of major points help me note broad arguments that I might miss entirely in the midst of writing," Beringer comments. "Sometimes we get so bogged down in detail when we're writing that we forget to cover a hasic point. If I've checked my arguments off in advance, I can consult the list tu bring myself back in line." (3) A scratch outline is asimple way to spot imbalance. As you write, you may discover that you have nine of one sort of argument, and only one of another. The simplicity of the outline form helps to spot places where there is either t w muchor too little. A scratch outline appears tn act as an organizer, helping to crystallize first thoughts. It can also function as aguide to major points, helping to cover topics in a balanced way. If the writer concentrates on the function rather than the form, the outline is useful, reducing the amount of time necessary for the actual writing job. (1)
First Drafts Most oi the people intrrviewed prefrrred to do a section at
a time; all broke the writing iol) intosmall. manaeeable tasks and watched out for what they called "data pois&ing." Break the Job into Small, Manageable Tasks. The idea of simply sitting down and writing a proposal may he overwhelming. Instead, some research groups have developed another way to deal with the job. They start with a n outline, and then generate a fairly detailed plan that breaks up the proposal into smaller and smaller parts. One person usually takes the lead in this. Then the outline is circulated and expanded. Different ideas emerge and people make their comments. A fair amount of writing gets done this way. Write a Section a t a Time. Pick a section from vour scratch outline and go to work on it. Try to get through the entire section in one sitting. Bruce Garetz. a ohvsical chemist. comments on this stage of writing. "I always t i y to go straight through a particular section," he says. "I may get bogged down if I'm not careful. I try t o avoid getting stuck by simply not stopping. If I can't think of a word, I just put in a substitute in parentheses. I can go back later and clean it up. If I have to stop halfway through and then return the next day, I find I have to repeat a lot of the work. I lose the focus of the section
"
It's a mistake to write and rewrite particular paragraphs in a first draft. It is far better to get down an entire section a t one sitting. Beringer comments, "When I wrote my first scientific paper, I spent all morning on the first three sentences. Then I realized that if I continued that way, I'd he retired before I finished it. Now I use an outline, so as not to start wandering, and then trv to do the first draft--or a niece of it-all a t one sitting. Of course, I'll go hack for two oithree revisions later. ao straight throueh the first time around." But I tni - to If necessary, usevery broad strokes to do the job. Omit words, skip details if YOU must. Garetz has a svnonvm . , dictionary. When hek finishnl the first draft uf a paper, hegoes back to all of the parentheses and blanks he's lef~tor uuestionahlr choices, andchecks each item. Beringer also waks until he's finished a section to check particular words. "Like many other people," he comments, "I look up one word, and that leads me to look up another, and I stop to think about the definitions. and the time passes." Do the Easier Sections First. Many of the chemists with whom I've spoken have joked ahout this trick of the trade. For instance, the introduction and the conclusion of a paper may be difficult and time-consuming jobs. In cases like this, many writers simply start with the easier part-the report of the results. This is a straightforward assignment and can he handled in two or three hours. Volume 59 Number 7 July 1982
567
In "Alice in Wonderland," the King of Hearts gives this advice. "Begin at the beginning, andgo on till you come to the end: then stop." That is certainly the traditional way to go about writing a paper. But beginnings-particularly introductow historical information-are notoriously difficult. One has to hecide how much will interest the reader, huw much he or she needs to know, huw much should br availnhle ior relerence. Given all of this, it may be better to do the more straightforward sections first and leave the other sections until later, especially if one is working under time constraints. Introductions tend to expand to fill all available time. Martin Pope, Professor of Chemistry a t New York University and author of 74 articles and 5 patents, writes the discussion section first. In the process of the intense thinking and concentration involved in writing conclusions, he invariably finds avenues he hasn't considered. "Always I uncover angles I hadn't thought of before," he says. "Therefore I write the introduction last. Then, as far as possible, I can say where I'm going, and the paper will not b e a mystery story. I don't like mvsterv stories in science." He is a firm believer in putting material incontext. "I like a paper to start in general and then work its way to the specific, connecting the particular to the bigger problem. I know this at the beginning, hut I write it a t the end." Watch Out for Data Poisoning. This disease is endemic to technical and scientific writing. I t begins with the essential job of accumulating citations and articles in one's area of interest. One is soon possessed of folders with clippings, offprints, 3-by-5-inch cards, sheds of computer printouts, review volumes, annual indexes, and lists of abstracts. At a certain point, data poisoning occurs. You'll know that you're in danger if any of the following things happen when you are writing: (1) You find yourself quoting at length when you don't need to.
(2) You find yourself including background information from your
research folders that is not essential.
(3) You decide that you arenot doing justice to your sources and in-
clude many citations that are not essential to the argument. (4) You find yourself going off on tangents, interesting avenues that open up with each new piece of background information you decide to include. (5) Instead of using references to cheek a point, you find yourself reading in new areas and then including information from these sections. While the new information is interesting, it is not essential. (6) You feel overwhelmed by your hackground information,decide that it is far too comprehensive to include within one piece of written work, and quit. Skilled writers often refer wrvlv . . to this situation as data poiwning. It is the point at which the hackground information becomes unwieldv. . Iivou . find vourselicmstant!v ~[msultinr: your sources, quoting a t length, or going off into interesting new avenues...vou probablv have gathered more information . than you can assimilate. ~ "hackyour t references, digest the basic information, and then write without consulting your sources except when you need to verify or expand a point. .\lake E'rnnl ('hwk of Cu~irvnl.The t h t draft that you write is the one in which yo& major ideas are set forth and elaborated. If you have time, put this draft away for a night or two. Then take it out aeain. Ask vourself. "Have I covered mv outline and make sure you major points?" ~ o i a c to k actually have developed all of your major arguments. It is easy to leave essential information out. Do you need more tables? Snectra? Did vou actuallv write the conclusion? Or did you leave it to your reader to infer the conclusion from the data? Second Draft
Once you have a first draft and are satisfied that it covers the basic arguments, you will want to go back and check for thc persuasiveness uf your arguments. "I check fur Iuyic, cuherenrr, iind tlow at this point," says William I.itchmnn, a physical chemist in nuclear magnetic 568
Journal of Chemical Education
resonance spectra with more than 26 publications. "I want the person reading me to follow and come to the same conclusions I've reached. This is crucial for awriter." He adds, "If you can exnlain your point on paper, cover all the bases, lead your reader t o the h l y reason& explanatim, then yuu'rr done the iub. If there are tu.0 or thrre alternative explanations, nirh of them equally good, then your paper is not worth puhlishing." Marshall Beringer comments similarly. "Once I have a first draft, I often find it doesn't have its emphasis in the places that I want." "I write to persuade," he continues, "whether it's a memo, a report, or a paper. I establish a frame of reference, a view of the universe. And then, by weighingmy fads, by ranking them and presenting them in a particular order of importance, I try to lead my reader mescapably to my conclusion." When you look over your first draft and are satisfied you've included most of the raw material you need, you may find that vou have failed to do that essential thing., "lead the reader inescapably to your conclusions." At this point, you may need to do some moving, insertion, and expanding of points. Many experienced writers find that felt-tipped pens, scissors, and paste are their most valuable writing tools a t this point. They dismember the copy and rearrange it so that i t is more persuasive. It is more a matter of rearranging than rewriting. "In the real world," Beringer comments, "everything is connected to everything else. I t is a seamless web. But in writing one tries to make a path, an arbitrary channel with one site leading naturally, inevitably to the next. Sometimes one fails and has to eo back several times before one is satisfied that the path ha: heen made." The aecond draft is often referred 10as rhe"cut and paste" version in which one rearranges, moves, inserts, and expands until one is satisfied that the reader has been properly conducted along the path. Final Copy Once you are satisfied that your arguments are persuasive, you need to go over what you've written for more prosaic, mechanical considerations. Is the text accurate? Have you checked every figure reference? Every citation? Do text references match figure references? Have numbers been accidentally transposed? Did you use the dictionary to check the meanings of words when you weren't sure of their usage? At this point, meticulous attention to detail is essential. If anything in the paper looks questionable-from the spelling of a word to a figure citation-check and verify. You should also check to make sure you've included transitions, the words that lead readers from one argument to the next, and topic sentences, the opening sentences of paragraphs or sections which state the points you then develop. Transitions Beginning writers underestimate the importance of transitions, those clear, unmistakable signposts of a writer's arguments. When you are in the middle of writing a report, the internal logic of the paper may be quite obvious to you. However, it may not he as apparent to your reader, who does not have your familiarity with the subject-or your outline-to follow. Transitional words and phrases can function as an outline. Exnerienced writen s i m ~ l insert v these words and phrases after'they have finished writing. They use such s t a d h y s as "first," "second," and "third" to prefix their main points. They add "in conclusion" before the ending. When they are enumeratine. thev add "in addition" or "furthermore" so that the reader Gill r i l i z e that the points are related to each other as part of a list. They use these words as markers to make the progression of their ideas clear to the reader. The use of transitional words and phrases and of topic sentences will help the reader to follow your arguments.
Headings and subheadings are devices that many writers include a t this stage. "I don't like continuous text," Beringer comments. "I use center headings and paragraph headings that outline the content for the reader and carry me through. They are as useful for the writer as for the reader." Heads and subheads are effective siannosts for readers and good organizing aids for writers. T& traditional heads of "Introduction," "Procedure," "Results," and "Conclusions." used in lahratory reports, can uiten he ndnpwd for technral papers nnd reports. .Many pcople use these headings as part of their outlines; others add headings as part of a later draft. Wringing the Water Out
The order, coherence, and clarity of one's arguments are fundamental in "eood writing. I t is also imnortant to make ----~--these arguments with a minimum of repetition and circumlocution. Economv of statement is a virtue in scientific writine. In your final draft, check for passives, unnecessary repetition, and qualifiers. Favor unadorned, direct statements of your points.
.
~~
~
~
paper, and the final product. Today this document enjoys an afterlife through computerized indexing and abstractine services, and through inclusion in review articles. The process begins with a first draft and goes through the stages described in this article. The scientists interviewed did not descrihe a tidy act. It would he a simple, straightforward matter if there were a one-for-one correspondence between what one thinks and what one puts down on paper. This is not so. One's ideas change as one writes. "That's what makes writing exciting," Beringer comments. "If it were simply transferring to paper ideas one already had, moving from one medium to another, that would he one thing. But that isn't what happens. Instead, one's grasp of the subject changes as one develops one's understanding. By page 4 you have an idea you didn't have on naae 1." The writing process is not pro&ammahle hecause awareness of the subject gruws as one writes. tlut there are orderlv on)cedures that are used by these productive people to make the process more effective.
u
Conclusion Bulkin estimates that a productive scientist averages 1,000 mxes - a -vear-nlus internal documents and memos. After the iiterature searih and the laboratory work, there is the report, proprietary document or patent application, revisions of the
Chemists Interviewed Bernard J. Bulkin, Dean of Arts and Sciences,Polytechnic Institute of New York F. Marshall Beringer, Department of Chemistry, Polytechnic Institute of New York Bruce A. Garetz, Department of Chemistry, Polytechnic Institute of New York William Litchman, Department of Chemistry, University of New Mexico Martin Pope, Department of Chemistry, New York University
Volume 59 Number 7 July 1982
569
