ACSM / APLS 2010 Annual Conference and Technology Exhibition

co-located with

GITA’s 2010 Geospatial Infrastructure Solutions Conference

Professionals Must WriteIlse Genovese

ACSM Communications Director

� professionals must write

Writing for academic journals and popular science magazines is a powerful tool for generating and communicating ideas and knowledge. However, many of us do not see ourselves as writers or were never taught how to write for such publi-cations. In this seminar, I will describe some of the thought processes and “artistry” which can help you to write clearly, concisely, and captivatingly.

Disseminating scienceThe computer, word processing, the spell checker, and the Internet have all had an impact on the way we generate and share information. Word processing makes note taking, drafting, and revisions easier and cleaner, helping authors experiment with words and paragraphs. The spell checker watches over our spelling and grammar, with perhaps 95 percent reliability. Thanks to the Internet, we have access to information on almost any topic we may think about, and we can share our data and ideas—the products of our research and writing—as quickly as never before.

With technology, the need to disseminate knowledge has assumed universal proportions. But, while technology has made the mechanics of writing easier, the requirements that scientific communications be clear, concise, honest, and authoritative remain and may even have become more critical.

As sources of scientific information, online journals and their more populist form, science blogs, are surging in their appeal among authors and the general public. Many of the best known science journals are published by professional societies. Science publishing supported by professional societies has an unequal record, though. In some fields, journals are starved of quality submissions, their volume and print runs are shrinking, and resources for science editors are scarce. Popular science publishing has hit its share of obstacles, too; newspapers are eliminating science sections and science writers, and subscriptions to science magazines are lagging behind those of celebrity-focused social media.

As members of the geospatial community, we have a special obligation to inform and educate others about the contributions of our professions to research and development. How do we accomplish this in words and sentences which carry our message clearly?

How to write betterPages of formatted and spell-checked text do not necessarily con-stitute a collection of well crafted, coherent ideas. Too often, an author who has something important or interesting to say gets sidetracked by minutia, or too pedantic repetition of facts, or lack of experience in writing for science publications.

It is a matter of academic and professional pride to submit papers which editors want to publish. It is bad manners to waste readers’ time with long-winded, obscure, “muddied puddles” of writing. Obscurity is no substitute for profoundness; do not make your readers wonder what exactly you want to say.

Some professors of English have concluded that teaching people how to write well is impossible; that to write “really well is a gift inborn, and those who have it teach themselves” (F. L. Lucas, 1894-1967, quoted in Cassell, 1955). “Still,” Lucas said, “one can sometimes teach them to write rather better.” In this seminar I offer some tips on how to write better for science publications.

Writing, as already mentioned, is part artistry and part process. Figure 1 illustrates the writing process. Figure 2 shows the main stages of writing from pre-writing, to drafting, to revising, and publishing.

Professionals must write—by Ilse Genovese, ACSM Communications Director

Figure 1. The writing process. [Source: http://hs.doversherborn.org].

professionals must write �

Pre-writing happens during “discovery”—we read and jot down facts and ideas which we find relevant to the topic on which we want to write. We think about what we have learned and write a draft. Before a paper is submitted for publishing, it goes through an evaluation by peers and revisions by authors. Authors who edit and revise their papers thoroughly before submission are likely to receive fewer critical comments from reviewers and fewer edits from the editors.

The principles of writing explained

DiscoveryThinking always comes before writing. Thinking leads to discovering ideas for a topic. We learn about a given topic by doing research, by reading about other people’s work, and by brainstorming. Summarizing and critiquing are two strategies often employed during discovery. We summarize our findings and then we evaluate, or, critique our notes to develop a “context” for our ideas. At the end of discovery we should have a pretty good idea about the subject matter we want to write about and its research context. Some authors also settle on the title of their paper during discovery.

PrewritingOnce we know which ideas and data are important for our topic, we can start conceptualizing or “mapping out” the sequence of ideas in our paper. The ideas must build upon each other; they should follow logically in sentence after sentence and paragraph after paragraph from what we know about the topic. The emphasis here is on the “logical thread of ideas” which binds each sentence and paragraph to the one preceding and following it.

Drafting When we jot down the main ideas in a rough form, we are writing a “draft.” A first draft can be messy, un-coordinated or repetitive, and it can contain mistakes. The first draft of the paper captures ideas and the facts that support them. It is not meant to be perfect; and it is definitely not ready for submission. Unfortunately, those less patient with revising can be (and often are) tempted to submit a paper in its early draft, hoping that the publisher’s reviewers and editors will “help them through the finish line.” Don’t submit a paper which has not been thoroughly revised; it is unprofessional.

RevisionDuring revision, we rearrange ideas and rewrite sentences to clarify the connections between ideas. At this stage, we should make a conscious effort to put ourselves in the readers’ place. Ask yourself: “Am I writing for my peers (i.e., an academic paper) or for the public (i.e., popular science article]? The style in which the paper is written, the language, and its structure will depend on your answer.

Rewriting is an essential part of composition; some would say it is the heart of the writing process. “Getting the words right means writing as clearly as I can,” said John Irving in 2005, when interviewed for the National Book Award. “There is no reason you should not, as a writer, not be aware of the necessity to revise yourself constantly,” he added. “If it looks like writing”—read ‘stilted,’ ‘ponderous’—“I rewrite it,” said Elmore Leonard in an interview for Newsweek in 1985.

The important message here is that yes, one needs an inspiration, and, yes, it does not hurt to have talent for writing, but revising is the backbone of a well composed, clearly written essay. You skip revisions at your own peril. It may seem like unnecessary work to you but remember, producing a well written text makes the reading experience of your audience more enjoyable and instructive.

EditingAuthors edit their articles after receiving comments from peers on the substance of the paper—for example, the research described, the findings arrived at, the context within which the research was conducted. In addition, always proofread your article to eliminate errors of grammar, spelling, or punctuation; and look out for such grave sins against good writing as lack of cohesion and repetitiveness.

PublishingAfter the paper has been revised and edited, the process of publishing begins with a submission of the paper to a journal

Figure 2. The writing process. [Source: http://www.icsd.k12.ny.us].

� professionals must write

of our choosing. The technical editor will conduct a preliminary evaluation of the paper to determine whether it is suitable for publication in the journal. Some aspects of the publication or the paper which may lead to outright rejection are:1. The paper describes research in a field not covered by

the journal; 2. The paper does not contribute to research in the field in a

meaningful manner; and3. The paper is so badly written that it is not publishable.

Research papers

StructureAcademic papers are usually structured into six primary sections: Abstract, Introduction/Background, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion of Results, and Conclusions (Figure 3).

AbstractThe Abstract is a testimony of the writer’s skills in summarizing ideas. To get the Abstract right, you first need to get the rest of the paper right. I strongly recommend writing the Abstract last.

Introduction / BackgroundIntroduction and Background are not interchangeable; they should both be used only when it is necessary to separate the research context (the state-of-the-art of research from literature review) and its historical or socio-economic background.

The purpose of writing an Introduction is to “introduce” the reader to the topic which will be discussed and to provide the setting, or context, for the discussion. Some authors may provide a hypothesis for conducting the research in the Introduction. Commonly, the Introduction ends by telling the reader what information will be presented in the following sections of the paper.

The purpose of writing a Background is to provide a wider context for the research described. This can involve different historical perspectives, previous legislation influencing the field, or the economic need for the research.

Materials and MethodsThis section describes the data used by the researcher, their source, and the research methods employed to conduct the research. Some authors may also include in this section the geographic coordinates of the study area. Others may write a separate section about the study area, describing not only its geography and environment but also the population,

what they do for living, and the dominant economy in the area. Still others may devote an entire section to introduce the participants in the research and describe the particular characteristics which “qualified” them to participate.

Results (Discussion of Results)In this section, the reader learns about the findings of the research:

Figure 3. Primary sections of research papers.

professionals must write �

1. Did the research validate the research hypothesis?2. Do the findings of the research disprove or agree with

previous research findings?3. Does the research conducted advance science in the

research field?

ConclusionsIn this section we “conclude” whether and how useful the research was and provide recommendations for implementa-tion or future research. A well written Conclusions section begins with a one-sentence statement of the purpose of the research, continues with one or two sentences describing the findings, and ends with a recommendation for the “next proj-ect on the horizon.”

Back to the AbstractRemember, we said to write the Abstract last. The main purpose of writing an Abstract is to provide a reader who has no access to the full paper with an idea of what the paper is about. It is a kind of a “preview of coming attractions.” As such, the Abstract should answer the following questions—in one or two sentences each: WHY the research was conducted (hypothesis), WHAT findings were obtained (research outcome), and WHERE their effect is likely to be felt (implementation).

A well written Abstract will necessarily highlight the “heart” of the paper. This does not mean that these basic ideas should be expressed by repeating, word-for-word, the Conclusions or the first paragraph of the Introduction. Use the art of paraphrasing to write your Abstract.

StyleWriting a research paper is all about precision—precise num-bers, defined research methodology, specialized terminology. But style matters too.

If you “style” your writing so that the reader does not have to wrestle with the meaning of your sentences, then you have a good style. This implies that long, convoluted sentences crammed with (often too detailed or irrelevant) fact are not in “good style.” A paper brimming with technical jargon which only a select few can understand does not foster disciplinary approach to research; it confuses. Free “borrowing” of ideas and fact without acknowledgment misses entirely the point of literature review and is definitely no evidence of the author’s knowledge of the subject matter. It is, in fact, unethical.

»

»

»

But chunks of referenced quotes from literature are no more desirable. They take away the author’s “voice” and can distract you from the main theme of your paper. Guard against repeating yourself. If you are too timid to express ideas in your own words—i.e., paraphrase—your paper will turn into a stream of direct quotes. The danger here is that you end up repeating over and over again the same fact or observation. Repetitiveness is boring, and it definitely is not in good style. Focus on ACTORS and ACTION, i.e., nouns and active verbs rather than verbs in the passive. An actor–action syntax will imbue your prose with life, make it vivid.Don’t try to impress others. Some writers believe that using abstract nouns makes them sound more academic. Replace nouns with verbs, whenever possible if you want to achieve a “leaner,” fitter prose. — Example: “it is our expectation that” vs. “we expect that.” Declare a moratorium on abstract nouns. They often force us to use clumsy constructions, e.g., “on the basis of” or “in regard to.”But, be mindful of the exceptions! — “Her needs” is better than “what she needs.” Often, abstract concepts such as freedom, revolution, change can only be expressed with an abstract noun. Be concise. If an author uses phrases where a word would be sufficient, that author is not concise. If an author uses a pair of adjectives where one would be sufficient, that author is not concise. Words such as “actually,” “basically,” and “generally” are empty words and can often be deleted without in any way affecting the meaning of the sentence.Be coherent. Coherence is a way the sentences fit together. Some papers may have all the relevant ideas but the ideas are hard to follow. The line of reasoning seems jumbled, and the paper is not readable. Coherence depends on how well you transition between ideas, i.e., how you begin successive sentences or paragraphs. A simple way to be coherent is to make sure that the beginnings of sentences dealing with the same subject “look over their shoulders at what came before.” Be emphatic. Construct your sentences so that the ends pack the punch.Be in control. Look for sentences which never seem to end. Runaway sentence can be shortened, but be careful not to end with choppy statements about points which do belong together. There is nothing wrong with complex sentences—if they are constructed using appropriate grammatical structures.

»

»

»

»

»

»

»

»

»

»

� professionals must write

One of the most exasperating things about reading some texts is that their authors (usually students or young professionals) do not know how to compose well structured papers. Prof. Steve Frank, the technical editor of Surveying and Land Information Sci-ence, and I, the managing editor, have had the opportunity to read many such texts. In this section I tried to highlight stylistic problems frequently occurring in papers written by inexperienced au-thors. The following example illustrates how to use the structure of academic papers to write better science papers.

Case studyLet us assume we are writing a paper for publication in Surveying and Land Information Science. The theme of the paper is “Forensic Surveying related to Accident Scenes,” the same as the theme of the 2010 NSPS Student Competition. As is usually the case, the participants in the contest were given ideas on topics they could write about; they could dis-cuss methodology, technical standards, equipment used, safety considerations, and how forensic surveying serves to im-prove forensic work at accident scenes. They could also provide examples of ac-tual forensic surveys of accident scenes. Pretty novel and interesting theme to write about! Let us do it!

First, we need to do research to learn more about forensic surveying—who does this kind of surveying and which instruments are useful in foren-sic surveying. Then we need to find out what are the recommended standards for accuracy in forensic surveying and which instruments will deliver results in compliance with those standards. Safety is always a consideration when working in the field, so one will need to address safety standards as well.

The pros and cons of forensic surveying, or any technology for that matter, are best illustrated on a concrete project. This illustration will provide information on the project objectives, the reasons for using forensic surveying in that particular proj-

ect, and how has this technology improved (or not) surveying of accident scenes in this particular instance. Finally, we will write a conclusion—is forensic surveying of crime scenes the best solution for such work and, if there is need for improve-ment, what type of research is needed to make them.

Figure 4 attempts to illustrate how the thought processes involved in discovery and drafting “feed” the structure of an academic paper on forensic surveying.

Figure 4. The structure of a paper on “Forensic Surveying of Accident Scenes.”

»

»»»

»

»

professionals must write �

Popular science articlesThe same maxims apply when writing articles for science magazines—think before you write, chose a topic which will inform and educate, do research to educate yourself in the subject area (if you are not an expert on it), write down the pertinent facts and ideas, write a draft essay, revise copiously, have it reviewed by peers, then do some more revising and editing, and, finally, send it off to the magazine’s editor.

There are some differences, of course. The target audience of popular science magazines is the public, which implies different purpose of writing, different language, and, some-times, different style, compared with those characterizing an academic paper.

A scientist writes to present new research or to evaluate the impact of research and present an argument for or against it. Popular science articles are written to inform the general public about some piece of science and how it affects their lives. The author has to “translate” the science so that the general reader can appreciate it.

The starting point is to remember that you are talking to an intelligent person who may not be a scientist. Popular science articles are generally shorter than research papers, and often, they dispense with the formal structure of sections. Instead, the message—the reason for writing the article—is spelled out in the first paragraph and the rest of the text is devoted to explaining the science and evaluating its impact (positive or negative consequences) in real life.

Popular science articles are usually written with more “pas-sion.” The style is conversational and its purpose is to focus readers’ attention on an issue. To do this successfully, a writer of popular science articles has to be able to convey the meaning of specialized terms in “plain” English. One can never completely escape using specialized terms, but those used should always be explained, without using technical jargon.

Popular science writing is not only more passionate, it can also be more difficult to accomplish because it requires more “artistry.” This begins with selecting a topic “angle” for the essay.

The selection of an angle is often subjective, but that does not mean that it is random, or without a well defined purpose. Popular science writers should address issues that are compelling and relevant to a general audience. To write a compelling article on a compelling angle, they need to have good understanding of the competing theories or tangents which might have a bearing on the angles they have selected.

Experienced writers of popular science will refer to competing theories and arguments without digressing and

diluting the message of their essays. This must also be done without obscuring the truth. A phrase such as “the evidence suggests” or “this is a highly probabilistic theory” puts a subjective qualification on the argument referred to. Allowing one’s views or perceptions to “color” science will not lead to an accurate translation of science.

The punch line of a popular science article is in the first paragraph. How we phrase that paragraph, and even its first sentence, are signs of our artistry in writing popular science articles. A dry, wordy beginning will not serve; the first paragraph must “hook” the reader to want to continue reading the rest of the article.

Predictably, there is no single technique to arouse the readers’ interest. Some authors will present the “angle” in a form of a question, others might express it in stark, almost staccato phraseology, and still others may use tighter, concise wording which creates a feeling of expectation. I find that even though I have a clear, concise angle and know what I

want to say about it, I experience a mental block until I have “written in my mind” the first sentence for my article.

Popular science articles are about general truths or patterns rather than nitty-gritty detail; in other words, they have to be accurate, but not necessarily precise. To give an example, the precise measurements of a research paper—e.g., “82.2 percent of respondents identified geomatics as the area with most growth potential”—are transformed into figures we can visualize in our minds—i.e., “most respondents (82 percent) identified ….”).

Figure 5. Meeting transportation challenges with GIScience. [Source: www.esri.com]

One very effective way of making the complex understand-able to non-experts is to explain technical terminology with metaphors. Metaphors add “spice” to the writing and help us to translate terminology in a way that it is easier to re-member.

For instance, one can liken our perceptions of gradual and dramatic climate change by using the metaphor of a rowboat. The boat is rocking gently back and forth as you push the water with a paddle up the rim of one side and then the other. One could go like this forever, right? But, one day, you push a bit harder on one side, the boat rocks a hair too far, is swamped with water, and sinks like an anchor. The message is that while the climate changes gradually, radical change can upset status quo very quickly and dramatically.

Two warnings about metaphors. Don’t get caught up in metaphors; this makes you sound as if you are writing for your own amusement. Over-representing concepts in metaphors can also suggest that you have grave doubts about the readers’ ability to understand science unless you transpose every concept into daily experience.

Always, tailor your metaphors to your audience; the meta-phor will only be effective if it is embedded in the cultural and economic reality of the readers. For instance, using the image of a cathedral to describe the human mind will be understood

in Europe where cathedrals are part of the cultural landscape but not in Asia where people are familiar with temples or re-ligious shrines.

Translating science into popular science is not a task for the faint hearted. It requires good knowledge of the subject you want to write about, imagination, and an extremely good command of technical and idiomatic English. You will know when you have written a good popular science article when the readers forget that they are reading science and think, “Wow, I did not know this. What a fascinating story!”

ConclusionWriting about science for research audiences and the general public is challenging but not impossible. The challenge usually becomes more manageable with experience. The rapid expansion of the principles of GIScience into most fields of research, economic development, and policy makes it imperative that we disseminate our ideas and knowledge by writing for academic journals and popular science magazines. I will not repeat here all the principles of good science writing. However, if you remember to be clear and to the point, and write in your own words and style, about what you know or interests you, I want your paper.