The importance of being a good writer?

[futureapppsy2]

How important do you think being a good writer is to being a good researcher? I guess a part of me always assumed that grant proposals and articles were judged solely on their scientific merit and impact/potential impact (both of which our work certainly has a ton of.... 😎), but my PI also seems to care very much that our work is also well written, in powerful, clear, engaging, and flowing prose. Can writing quality and style have a significant impact on the fate of an article or grant? And if so, is that good science?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WannaBeDrMe]

This is certainly not meant to steal any thunder... but everyone's opinion of "quality" will vary as you progress through your career. So, I wouldn't base all of your potential on that one quality.

It isn't a bad thing... it's a good thing, in my opinion. It will help during crunch times if you can spit out passable work on a deadline and have the presence of mind to refine it when you get more time for details.

I don't see how people could write without researching. Even authors of fictional work typically do some research to pull the ideas together. So, I'd venture to guess that good writers are at least mediocre researchers.

Back to the original question... I think that "quality" and "style" can definitely open/close doors. You'll see that different people/funding sources expect different approaches to application...

Good luck and congrats on the compliment. Feels great I bet!! Enjoy it, sounds like you've earned it with your extra efforts!

 

[JockNerd]

How important do you think being a good writer is to being a good researcher? I guess a part of me always assumed that grant proposals and articles were judged solely on their scientific merit and impact/potential impact (both of which our work certainly has a ton of.... 😎), but my PI also seems to care very much that our work is also well written, in powerful, clear, engaging, and flowing prose. Can writing quality and style have a significant impact on the fate of an article or grant? And if so, is that good science?

Coming from the standpoint of having done peer review: you'll understand how important good writing is after reviewing something written poorly.

When an ms or a grant is poorly written, it becomes a mess. If sentences are unclear, concepts are ill-defined, and flow of logic is not smooth then the questions you have to ask the authors are really pretty uninteresting ones and in review you have much less to contribute to the paper. You probably also develop a lower opinion of the work. You end up with general comments on the grant or paper that have much more to do with clarifying things than making substantive improvements.

When a paper is well written, the questions you get to ask are so much more interesting, because the authors were careful to be clear about what they did, why they did it, and how they did it. It's not that it becomes an easy acceptance, but good science is a lot more obviously good when it's well-written.

To improve your readings, read:
-"The Elements of Style," by Strunk (available for free off Project Gutenberg), which is probably the single greatest book on writing well ever written, or the update by Strunk and White. Learn the most important three words in writing: Omit needless words.
-Sternberg's 1993 "How to win acceptances by Psychology Journals: 21 tips for better writing"
-Bem's "Writing the empirical journal article"
-Grammar Girl's stuff (podcast & books)
-(you can safely ignore "Eats, Shoots and Leaves," no matter what anyone says about it)

 

[futureapppsy2]

^
Really? I've read a lot of recent criticism of Strunk and White...

I've always sort of believed that a large part of being a writer is being born one--that training can help a good writer be a better one, but that some people have a natural "gift " for it that can't be taught, somewhat akin to athletic ability.

ETA: I'm asking this is the "writer" in our lab, so I'm happy that good writing is rewarded! 🙂

 

[JockNerd]

^
Really? I've read a lot of recent criticism of Strunk and White...

From whom?? Strunk's work is clear without being pedantic. Reading that work improved my writing, at least.

I've always sort of believed that a large part of being a writer is being born one--that training can help a good writer be a better one, but that some people have a natural "gift " for it that can't be taught, somewhat akin to athletic ability.

Athletic ability isn't a gift; it's the result of hours upon hours of practice and training. Writing is the same. It can be taught, learned, practiced, and honed.

 

[numbereight]

my thoughts on the issue are varied:

research is not writing. thus you can conduct awesome research without writing a word.

also many great psychologists write terribly. i cant pull up any examples right now, but i recall that plenty of the early psychodynamic writing is pretty bad (e.g. one sentence paragraphs with like 36 commas)

i think it was alfred adler who said (paraphrase) "if an idea is good enough, bad writing won't hurt it." and i agree, to an extent.

However, when it comes to the fate of your grant or article, yes good writing matters. People are more engaged in your writing when it's simple and clear. Part of publishing your research is telling a good story and a story is told best with articulate sentences. I try to write powerfully to not only be forceful, but to give people a strong perspective to push back against, stimulating dialogue. Eliciting strong opinions = citations. When you're trying to convince someone of something, clear, precise, simple, and sometimes passionate is the way to go.

writing is not entirely inborn if you ask me. my writing was OK until my wife got a hold of me. her parents are a college professor and a second grade teacher, both great writers, who helped her become a clear and powerful writer. until she taught me how to write, i wrote in these flowery sentences that sounded good but lacked meaning. working with me over time, she has slowly (and often painfully) helped me change my style to be more of all the things your professor seems to want you to produce in your writing.

Ever since, every prof i've had has remarked on how good my essays are. a lot of them arent even that good. i just write with a simple and clear style.

get yourself a basic template and go with it. anyone can be a good writer if you ask me. feel free to PM me for some simple suggestions if you'd like.

 

[cara susanna]

My writing ability was actually brought up at one of my interviews (not to sound vain, but I know writing is one of my strong points), so I'm assuming it helped my application.

As for innate vs. learned, I think that the more you read, the better of a writer you become.

 

[psychanxiety]

I think writing ability is hugely important for researchers. In the labs I've worked in, once a researcher becomes a top dog PI they spend most of their time writing. If you can write persuasively, then it's much easier for you to impact people's understanding of the field. In my lab at least, we wouldn't even consider hiring a research assistant who can't write well.

This isn't to say that a great researcher who is a poor writer won't do well. I just think it's much easier for a good researcher who is a great writer to be successful. It's all about having clear ideas and communicating them persuasively.

 

[Ollie123]

Sure, you can do great experiments without having to write much. However, I don't think you can be a good scienTIST without at least decent writing skills. You don't have to be a superstar...I can only think of a few people who are. You have to at least be average though...and average for a PhD, not average for an undergrad🙂

Writing certainly affects manuscript and grant submissions. For grants... if someone shows they are unlikely to be able to effectively communicate the results of the study, why on earth would anyone give them money to do it? Communication, both to the scientific community at large, and to the applied folks, is the end goal. Its not just running the analyses, going "Hmm, that's interesting" and doing the next experiment.

That said, this is not poetry. I've seen far too many people who think effective writing means crazy metaphors, complex sentence structures, adding peripheral quotations from famous people and other random crap.

Clean. Simple. Easy to read. That's what matters. No reviewer is going to tell you to add in a quotation from Lincoln but they will definitely reject it if they have no idea what your conclusions are.

I say all this knowing that effective communication is probably my weak point right now. I'm probably marginally okay at writing, and terrible at speaking. I'm sure some people have a natural gift for writing, but I also think anyone willing to work at it can become MORE than good enough to have an excellent academic career.

 

[Mindchange]

Good writing skills definitely do matter.

I worked as an editorial assistant for a research journal for a number of years. If something is poorly written (i.e. has typos, grammatical errors, etc), the editors and reviewers tend to make the assumption that the submitting authors did not put the time into attending to details and providing a polished product. They also begin to wonder if this was the case when actually conducting the research.

The great thing about grad school is your writing skills definitely improve throughout the process. You will write so many class papers, reading reactions, case notes, treatment plans, intake reports, research manuscripts, etc. that you can't help but refine your skills. The great thing is that you will get a lot of constructive feedback throughout the process. It's humbling to submit a "finished" draft to a journal only to have the reviewers ask for substantial changes. Throughout the process you become a better writer and researcher.

Finally, your internship application essays are what set you apart from everyone else. Generally, people have significant overlap with number of hours, integrated assessments, clinical experience, etc., so you need strong essays that work for you. This is your "first interview" with internship programs. Any grammatical errors, typos, or unclear sentences are not the first impressions you want to make.

One method for increasing your skills is writing more. I recommend the book How to Write a Lot by Paul Silvia. It's published by APA.

P.S. I hope I don't have too many grammatical errors in this entry. Oh, the irony...

 

[airmont]

Try:

Harvey, M. (2003). The nuts and bolts of college writing. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.

It is short (< 100 pgs.), and includes clear and specific recommendations for increasing concision, clarity, and flow, as well as some grammer and style stuff. It is great!!

 

[futureapppsy2]

Okay, after spending much of my day trying to make a horribly written proposal sound coherent, I've come to ther conclusion that writing matters--a lot.

I agree with cara susanna. I've been praised as writer. I was also read to a lot as a young child, which lead to me becoming a voracious reader as I got older. I've always hypothesized that the two were connected somehow.