Mastodawn

MPFantod Mar 19

Dr. Victoria Grinberg

Great blog by Pat Thompson on academic writing:

▶️ https://patthomson.net/2026/03/08/getting-comfortable-with-being-uncomfortable/

"Academic writing is a form of thinking. It’s not the transcription of thoughts already completed, but a process of thinking itself. One of the ways we make writing harder than it needs to be is by writing as though our argument has arrived fully formed, rather than being wrestled into shape over several drafts."

This is why you *need* to write yourself, even and especially when writing is hard!

#AcademicChatter #PhD

getting comfortable with being uncomfortable

Good academic writing means sitting with a discomfort that never entirely goes away. It’s not a discomfort that comes from having nothing to say. Most of us have more than enough ideas crowding the…

patter

Robin Barton Mar 19

@vicgrinberg This is a wonderful statement and so true. The more you write the more you think

@vicgrinberg bruh is that fuckin AI

John Faithfull 🌍🇪🇺🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🧡✊🏻✊🏿Mar 19

@vicgrinberg 💯

Richard Paul Mar 19

@vicgrinberg Why is so much academic writing impenetrable? Especially the prose in English journals (though it’s equally true for scientific journals). I produced the Folger Shakespeare Library podcast. Before that I made documentaries about NSF-funded scientists. I read tons of articles. At least 60% of them verged on incomprehensible. Oh, how I wish NotebookLM had been invented when I was doing this work.

Dr. Victoria Grinberg Mar 19

@Spacehistory likely because they are written with an audience of colleague in mind with whom they share a lot of context and background that a random reader from outside the field will lack. My writing in scientific papers and in scientific outreach books is very different, but so are the depth and intricacy of concepts I convey.

Richard Paul Mar 19

@vicgrinberg A person needs to be taught to write like that, though. I didn’t get an advanced degree; I went straight to work. Are people actively taught to write like this in graduate school? If so, what’s the rationale? Is it exclusivity, because it feels like that’s what it is? If you write like a Member of the Club, then you’re a member of the club.

Dr. Victoria Grinberg Mar 19

@Spacehistory because you want to convey complex thoughts in a limited amount of text and you assume your readers do not need certain explanations because they have the same background as you.

If you, for example, read an advances recipe book, it will just tell you to "sauté" something and not explain what sauté means as opposed to a beginner one. And not explain how to clean a fish but assume you know. And if you are a knowledgeable cook, you will noy want every recipe to explain such details.

@Spacehistory @vicgrinberg part of it is trying to get the most information in the least space possible. Part is that writing introductory material takes time and a lot of this work is already volunteer time. Part is that reviewers might feel insulted if you take time to explain basic things the may they already know and so their feedback is better/less picky if you sound really technical. Part of it is that's just how professionals within the field tend to talk to each other about their science

@Spacehistory @vicgrinberg I purposefully tried to write thorough introductions on my papers, and I got criticized by my colleagues and reviewers for being "too colloquial". I told them "I'm writing to the level of an introductory grad student. Deal with it." But committing to that did make my life more difficult.

Richard Paul Mar 19

@Artemis201 @vicgrinberg This seem so counterproductive and exclusionary on the reviewers’ part.

Dr. Victoria Grinberg Mar 19

@Spacehistory @Artemis201 it isn't usually because most readers are not young grad students and because at a point you start getting annoyed at people repeating the same intro information again and again. Scientific writing is condensed. There are dedicated intro articles - they are a good starting point for a new field. That said, the introduction also needs to exist and contain all the starting point and context for the paper, but it can and should be very focused.

@vicgrinberg @Spacehistory yup.
My recommendation for new students just learning about the field is that they read someone's PhD thesis. Those are designed to take someone from an introductory level to understanding the most complex parts of the research.

Dr. Victoria Grinberg Mar 19

@Artemis201 @Spacehistory yes! Good thesis intros are so cool! (My most used reference was the thesis intro of one of my advisors at the beginning 😅)

Richard Paul Mar 19

@vicgrinberg @Artemis201 This conversation has (I feel) gotten away from the point I asked about. I am asking about writing that is incomprehensible. I’m going to use a pop culture illustration here. On THE PITT there will inevitably be a moment when someone rattles off a long string of scientific/medical terms. Almost immediately, that will be explained to someone. (1/2)

Richard Paul Mar 19

The brilliance of the writing is that, because this is a teaching hospital, they have to make some of these things clear to the student doctors. Other times, these things need to be made clear to the patient or the patient’s family. I don’t understand why academic writing skips the explanatory step. (2/2)

Dr. Victoria Grinberg Mar 19

@Spacehistory go back to my first reply, I answered it. Repeating: Because, in your example (which I haven't seen but assume is a medical series), those are high level medical professionals talking to each other. When you are in the middle of work & know that your colleagues know term X, you will not explain it. You waste yours & their time with a 2 min explanation of something you can say in one word. (sometimes there is also just bad writing, but this is not what we are discussing here).

Dr. Victoria Grinberg Mar 19

@Spacehistory if academics write public outreach article or pop sci books or when they lecture or when they write an introductory articles, they will explain more. But not while working.

Dr. Victoria Grinberg Mar 19

@Spacehistory and of course this question you asked has overall nothing to do with the original post and the blog linked in therein.

Richard Paul Mar 19

@vicgrinberg It did to me. When I read, “is a form of thinking. It’s not the transcription of thoughts already completed, but a process of thinking itself,” I think: Then why is it typically so incomprehensible, and does that have something to do with the process of thinking that is done by the people who do such writing. Then I read deeply into the article, and when I didn’t see that issue addressed, I posted my reply.

Dr. Victoria Grinberg Mar 19

@Spacehistory ah... I think you did not quiet understand what the linked blog post is about; which is fine because it is about academic writing and that is not something you seem familiar with (as is: it's not something you do yourself). The same way an article about details of filmmaking (or medicine) would not be something that I would be able to fully understand since I have no personal experience with it.

Dr. Victoria Grinberg Mar 19

@Artemis201 @Spacehistory I feel it's less reviewer being insulted and more reviewer trying to make sure that it's a scientific paper and not a lab report 😅 plus the journal requirements for keeping the papers as short as possible (and the extra cost of long papers).

@vicgrinberg @Spacehistory yeah this