Writing for publication; reconceptualizing disengagement
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.4322/0104-4931.ctoED2501Abstract
Whilst undertaking Professional Doctorate, the author explored the issue of writing for publication. She showed evidence that barriers to writing exist and competing demands impinge upon the ability to engage with the process. One suggestion is to consider the work of Murray (2013) who proposes the reconceptualization of the commonly held belief that disengagement from competing work is required in order to write.
Writing for Publication; Literature
Educational authors offer: guidelines, strategies, methods, approaches, hints, tips, structures and formats for writing for publication. When synthesized, they propose the following strategies: finding time and space to write, planning the work, selecting an appropriate journal for submission, considering the structure and content, engaging in peer review feedback.
However, research suggests that barriers to writing exist, including those related to energy and confidence, perceived knowledge and skills and environmental barriers (WRIGHT ST-CLAIR; HOCKING, 2005). Dwyer et al. (2015) suggest reframing these barriers. Murray’s (2013) research challenges us to re-conceptualize the notion of how we think about writing for publication. This author took up the challenge and explored “reconceptualizing disengagement”. Murray (2013) suggests that scholars move between series of engagements and disengagements. Disengagement from other activities (MAYRATH, 2008) is necessary to success in publishing, and competing demands from the academic work can represent an impediment to writing (MACLEOD; STECKLEY; MURRAY, (2012). Murray’s Model of Disengagement (2013) suggests considering that engagement involves:
• Social engagement: moving from competitive to social and shared writing.
• Physical engagement: moving from the office space to dedicated writing time and space.
• Cognitive engagement: moving from fear and anxiety to making time and space and to legitimizing writing.
She challenges institutions to avoid expecting staff to “write” in due time like a hobby, stating that “[...] all respondents associated academic writing with disengagement from other tasks [...]” (MURRAY, 2013, p. 81).
You Can Reflect Using Murray’s (2013) Model of Disengagement
Murray’s three components may well have relevance to you and your motivation and ability to write for publication. How can you engage with the process of writing for publication? You can find many guidelines and suggestions but considering Murray’s model may well help you understand how to engage
with the process.
Consider your social engagement with writing. Some people like “buddies” or critical friends to offer feedback and help. Social engagement does not necessarily mean face to face interactions; this could include phone calls or Skype meetings. This social writing sustains commitment and motivation, according to Murray (2013).
Secondly, think about your physical engagement with writing. Where do you work best? Murray suggests we must consider our physical environment. For example, shared office space may be unsuitable for writing for publication. Furthermore, constant demand to respond to “urgent” requests can be overwhelming. “Fire-fighting” is pervasive. It is helpful to find the physical space best for the writer, i.e.,a place where the writer works best. This can be freeing and the move towards engaging with this new physical space is usually positive.
Finally, consider cognitive engagement. In Murray’s study, 75% of the sample mentioned this issue and highlighted fear and anxiety related to tasks left incomplete or missed in order to disengaging to write. Think about legitimizing writing; one needs to allow or legitimize writing for oneself. In addition, psychological disengagement was an issue raised by participants. This means to allow oneself to write and to establish priorities. It was suggested that cognitive disengagement may be difficult to be achieved because “writing” has not been included or given relevance in workloads. Murray (2013) also suggested that the staff often attempts to write in working environments designed for other tasks.
Summary and Conclusion
This brief editorial offered a foundation of initial evidence to re-conceptualize the act of disengaging with some responsibilities in order to participate in writing, by considering:
• A change towards the view that “writing” needs to be perceived in a positive light;
• A change of view that the activity of disengaging from general work is seen in a negative light;
• That the social, physical and cognitive engagement components clarify this process and offer a helpful alternative understanding.
Murray’s (2013) theory has offered: a reconceptualization of the belief that one needs to disengage from competing tasks in order to write. It is suggested that one should engage with the social, cognitive and physical components of writing. So, act with this knowledge and find your own social, physical and cognitive engagement with writing for publication.
References
DWYER, T. et al. A proactive approach to increasing academics’ writing skills and outcomes. Nurse Education in Practice, Oxford, v. 15, n. 4, p. 321-326, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2014.12.004.
MACLEOD, I.; STECKLEY, L.; MURRAY, M. Time is not enough: promoting strategic engagement with writing for publication. Studies in Higher Education, Australia, v. 37, n. 5, p. 641-645, 2012.
MAYRATH, M. Attributions of productive authors in educational psychology journals. Educational Psychology Review, New York, v. 20, n. 1, p. 41-56, 2008.
MURRAY, R. “It’s not a hobby”: re-conceptualizing the place of writing in academic work. Higher Education, Dordrecht, v. 66, n. 1, p. 79-91, 2013.
WRIGHT ST-CLAIR, V.; HOCKING, C. Communicating through publishing: a professional mandate. New Zealand Journal of Occupational Therapy, New Zealand, v. 52, n. 2, p. 5-8, 2005.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
The “Statement of Responsibility, Copyright and License Agreement” according to the model below must be signed by all the authors and sent during the article submission.
Statement of Responsibility, Copyright and License Agreement
Submission date:
Paper’s Title:
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that:
I participated in the conception of the paper and make public my responsibility for its content.
- All information concerning any source of funding received for the development of this research has been properly disclosed and made available to the editors during the submission.
- There were no connections or agreements between authors and funding sources that constitute any conflict of interest, potential or apparent, that may affect the results of the research.
- If experiments with human or animal subjects were involved all ethical procedures were followed and approved by an Institutional Review Board and that informed consent has been collected and archived when necessary, and the dissemination of images was authorized and I assume full responsibility for it.
- That the manuscript is original and that the research is not in part nor in whole currently submitted to another periodical, either in print or in an electronic format, nor is any other material of my authorship with substantially similar content so submitted.
- If requested, I will provide and cooperate fully in obtaining and providing data on which this text is based, for the editors’ examination.
- I have read and agreed with the terms of the Open Access and License Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY), available at: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Authors’ full names and signatures list: