Book Review: Mapping your Thesis

We know you research students have a lot of reading to do. Here at the Whisperer we aim to take some of that burden off your shoulders. While we can’t help you with that stuff on fuzzy logic or nanoparticles,  we can read the ‘how to do a thesis’ books and tell you which ones are worth buying. In the past I have reviewed books from my own collection; this is the first ‘freebie’ I have been sent. My relationship to this book has become complex, so let me wind it back to the start so you can appreciate the whole chain of events.

One of the side benefits of having a blog is that your interests are out there for everyone to see. When my friend Reem saw  ’Mapping your Thesis’ by Dr Barry White she knew it would be right up my alley and forwarded me the details in email. I had a look at the blurb and decided I needed to buy it, so I clicked through to the website and saw …

… the book cost $89.95!?

The publisher, ACER, puts out the excellent, and much more reasonably priced, ‘Doctorates Downunder’ books so my first thought was that this was a typo. I rang them up and the nice lady on the telephone confirmed the price. She listened patiently to my rant about PhD students in poverty and promised that if I put my concerns in an email she would pass it on to the publisher, Annemarie.

When she got the email Annemarie rang me straight back. She explained that the book was aimed at libraries and supervisors, not students and was very large, hence the price tag. I explained that I was the target market, but on a lowly level B academic salary with a mortgage I was unlikely to buy it. She offered to send me a copy. I said thanks and offered to review it. We ended up having a long chat about what I was trying to do with the Whisperer blog. This conversation led to others and, eventually, to me signing with Annemarie myself to produce a book (but I made sure that a low price electronic version was part of the contract!).

Anyway, back to “Mapping your Thesis”. When I opened the parcel I was surprised at the heft of it. A large format tome at 360 pages; this is a serious text book. On the phone Annemarie warned me not to attempt to read it from cover to cover. Advice which I promptly ignored – to my peril. On my first attempt I read the introduction, scanned the impressive table of contents and then read a grand total of 3 pages before I had to put it down.

Don’t judge me, ok? This book is dense. Exhibit A – the very first sentence:

“Because change in philosophic fashion will happen again this book is necessarily ephemeral”

Huh?

I put it down for a couple of weeks and picked it up again one quiet Sunday. This time I managed to plow through the first couple of chapters before I ran out of steam. Dr White starts at Plato and does a cook’s tour of western philosophy in the first chapter, then goes on to make a very sophisticated – and fascinating – argument about interdisciplinary research and the structures of the contemporary academy. It reads like a massive – and impressive – brain dump.

Dr Barry White has co-ordinated a post graduate program at the University of Auckland for years and clearly knows PhD student problems inside and out. However his own writing style is a little off putting. His sentences are sophisticated and elegant, but not very friendly. He never addresses the audience directly – there is no ‘you’ and ‘I’ which makes the tome feel dry and distant.

Not to put too fine a point on it, this book is hard work. I already work hard so there it sat, on my desk, for MONTHS. Generating guilt. I wanted to write a review, but I didn’t know what to say if I couldn’t even finish it. I didn’t believe – at that point – that I could recommend the book to anyone, even hard core thesis nerds like myself.

Fast forward to July 2011. I was updating a workshop to help research students pass their confirmation (RMIT’s 1st year milestone) and picked up the book. This time, task motivated, I went to the index and then straight to the section that seemed most promising. Colour me surprised that under the unpromising heading “The relationship between topic, title, thesis and hypothesis” was advice that was both straightforward and useful.

Dr White points out that a topic is “a theme or area of discussion” and that the title can written in a variety of ways to reflect this: as a question, exploration, statement, investigation, an hypothesis or as a thesis. To clarify with an example: Thesis Whisperer Jnr (aged 10 and 1/4) wants to do his PhD about “rocks” (with a side interest in gold). “Rocks” is a topic area, but there are a range of theses Thesis Whisperer Jnr would write on this topic depending on how he phrased the title, to whit:

• As a question: “What do school children know about rocks with gold in them?”
• As an exploration: “Rocks in ‘scrap heaps’ found in the victorian gold districts”
• As a statement: “Why most school kids are not interested in rocks (even if there’s gold in them”
• As an investigation: “Rocks with gold in them: places they are most likely to be found”
• As a hypothesis: “If rocks have gold in them, they are more likely to be dug up”
• As a thesis: “rocks are cool, especially if there is gold in them”

I have since used this example to help hundreds of students re-write variations of their thesis title in my workshops and it’s become a crowd favourite. It’s amazing how simply re-writing your title can help you refocus and give direction to a paper, a chapter or even a whole thesis. Ever since I have used this book to help me make all kinds of workshop material. In fact it has become my ultimate authority on everything thesis related, up to and including supervision and presentations.

My copy is now well thumbed – but I have still not read every page. It’s a hard book to love, but well worth the effort. So – should you buy it?

It is aimed at the humanities disciplines, but I think people in the applied sciences, design and engineering would still find it useful. If you are like me and teach workshops and research methods courses, you should own this book. If you supervise research students, or intend to do so in the future, you probably should own it. Should PhD students buy it? Probably, but at $89.95 it’s surely not a priority. Borrow it from the library and buy ”How to write a better thesis” for the student friendly price of $24.95 instead.

Related Posts

How to write a lot

“Demystifying Dissertation Writing”

“Demystifying Dissertation Writing”  sits on my shelf of ‘how to’ books. Stylus publishing donated a copy to Dr Charlotte Frost and Dr Sarah Quinell, of PhD2Published, kindly organised for a research student to receive a copy and review it for the Thesis Whisperer.

This review was written by Linda Baines, a part-time researcher, who is just completing her MSc and
starting PhD in September.  Her research interests lie in ethics, knowledge exchange, innovation and corporate social responsbility. She tells me she fits these around a full-time day job at a UK research council and is devoted to her Kindle.  You can talk to Linda on twitter as @LBA_OX12

“Demystifying Dissertation Writing” by Peg Boyle Single PhD, 2010. Published by Stylus Publishing L.L.C., Sterling, Virginia, USA ISBN: 978-1-57922-313-7 Paperback 202 pages

This  book is subtitled “A Streamlined Process from Choice of Topic to Final Text”.  It is aimed at postgraduate students in humanities and social sciences.  So, I was expecting it to be a treatise on ‘how to write your PhD thesis/dissertation’ without any effort.  And it mostly is and it offered me some fresh insights.

The book focuses on the writing process, on starting, writing and completing your thesis/dissertation successfully in a systematic way that maxmises your time and effort.  It is interesting to see what it  does not cover: how to start, undertake and complete your PhD, or more detailed topics such as research methods methodology, data analysis or undertaking a literature review (although it encourages the reader to think about these in developing an outline and suggests how to organize  and analyse your notes).

The book is written from a US perspective, and non-US readers will occasionally have to provide their own parallels with doctorate process they are following.  The author is a graduate teacher and knows and understands her students and the challenges they face in writing a dissertation.   This book provides practical advice.  For many readers   it sits alongside with “Authoring a PhD” by Patrick Dunleavy and “How to Write a Thesis” by Rowena Murray.

This book offered me some new tools and approaches that I could apply immediately, particularly the focus statement, a short summary of what your research topic is about in plain English, and a one page outline of your dissertation (although other books cover this as well).

The strength of the book lies in its focus on the writing process.  It offers approaches to and ways of exploring your topic, refining the scope and the boundaries of a research project, and offers hints for effective reading and note-taking.  Peg Boyle Single stresses the idea of establishing a writing routine, working with fellow students and overcoming writers’ block.  She aims to support the reader in becoming a fluent writer.  She also covers choosing a topic and a supervisor, developing a detailed outline, different approaches to take to thesis (thematic, data analytic and journal article).

The most immediately refreshing perspective is that the author recognizes that PhD students have other dimensions to their lives; that their research and their thesis are only one of several elements which they are juggling. Like other books in the field, , working ‘little and often’ and ‘start and keep writing’ are the keys to a completing a thesis/dissertation.

Peg Boyle Single writes clearly and her suggestions are practical. This is not a high flown theory book; it is practical, accessible and easy to read.  I read it in several short sessions and found myself sitting down to use and develop some of the tools and concepts that she describes. This book provides a very useful practical introduction for postgraduate students.  This kind of book helps to fill a gap that exists on many graduate courses at Masters and PhD levels; learning about how to write, the writing process and how to manage this.

I would recommend this book along with Patrick Dunleavy and Rowena Murray’s books as essential reading and material for new PhD /postgraduate students, and those in the middle or later stages of their doctorate who are struggling in to get to grips with the dissertation/thesis writing process.  As the author uses generic techniques, the book also provides a good starting point for Masters students.

The writing processes and management techniques and approaches that Peg Boyle Single describes have wider application; they can be used for other kinds of writing projects.  At just over 200 pages, this is a book to skim at first reading for an overview, and to come back to for advice on particular topics.

However, if you are looking for greater insight into doing PhD, then you may prefer to refer to other books such as “The Unwritten Rules of PhD Research” by Marian Petre and Gordon Rugg.

Do you have other suggestions for good books for PhD students to buy, or own a book you like so much that you want to review it for us? Let us know in the comments!

Other Book Reviews

How to write a Lot

5 books to help you with your PhD

What the Wiki?!

If you have a devilish sense of humour, you can derive endless amusement by engaging your supervisors and your librarian in some earnest discussion about Wikipedia.  Next time you’re searching for a vital piece of information, just try asking an innocent question along the lines of, “My girlfriend/ flat-mate/ brother said I should just do a Wikipedia search, but I don’t know how reliable it is – what do you think?” Then sit back and enjoy the fun.

Maybe you’re unaware just how contentious the subject is, but it won’t take you long to find out.

You might argue that, as a sensible and responsible librarian myself, I ought not to encourage you in such mischief.  Well, maybe you’re right.  But the point I want to make is that you need to take care when you’re web-searching. Many librarians vehemently oppose the use of Wikipedia and other similar sources for scholarly research.  Why might that be?

First let me give you Wikipedia’s own definition of itself, so we know what we’re talking about:-

Wikipedia … is a free, web-based, collaborative, multilingual encyclopedia project supported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Its name is a portmanteau of the words wiki (a technology for creating collaborative websites, from the Hawaiian word wiki, meaning “quick”) and encyclopedia.

Now, when I started thinking about this blog post, I intended to alert you to the dangers of putting too much trust in Wikipedia.  However, if I’ve inherited one trait from my late father, it’s the ability to appreciate more than one point of view.  So I looked at a few entries on subjects that I reckon I know well; I felt it was only fair to see what Wikipedia said about itself, and to do a bit more delving into the way entries were put together.  After careful consideration here’s what I think on five key areas:-

1. Not a bad place to start.  If you’re looking for basic facts, and you’re happy to verify them elsewhere, then there’s no harm in going to Wikipedia.

You’re looking for biographical dates?  Or a definition of some technical term?  Then why not take the easy option?!  On the other hand, if what you’re looking up might be controversial, then you need to know more about what you find there.  As a researcher, you have to develop inbuilt antennae to detect where there might be bias, and to handle such information with caution.

2. Reliability.  Can you rely upon the information you find in a resource that has evolved by communal effort, and is not peer-reviewed in the conventional sense, with entries edited by nameless individuals of unknown reputation, and citations drawn from all manner of sources, both old and new?

It doesn’t sound too hopeful, does it?  However, if you look at Wikipedia’s own entry on Reliability of Wikipedia, you’ll find that at least some research has found Wikipedia’s “self-healing” properties to be surprisingly effective – in other words, errors are often (not always) picked up and corrected by subsequent self-appointed editors.  But take care: omissions of key facts or areas can in themselves lead to undesirable bias.  Ask yourself: Would you recognise a gap?

3. Unpicking the stitches.  If you’re serious about discerning how reliable a Wikipedia entry is, then you need to do some detective-work.  I view this as a similar exercise to unpicking a garment in order to establish how it was made.

Look at the structure of the article – has some thought gone into the compilation of the entry, including the coding and hyperlinks etc.  Are there references?  (More of this in a minute!)  Additionally, can you establish the author of an entry?  Sometimes, yes.  Go the tab, View History, from there to Revision History, and finally click on Contributors.  If you’re lucky you can click on their name or pseudonym and find out more.  You’ll also be able to see just how many times the article has been edited. All these are clues.

4. Identify the sources.  Towards the end of the article, there may well be footnotes, references and external links.  See if you can establish how up-to-date the information is, and where it came from.

If you’re looking for historical facts, then it may not matter that the information comes from a very old edition of Encyclopedia Britannica.  On the other hand, if that information is judgmental, then maybe there’s an undesirable bias that you won’t want to perpetuate.  Again, with a historical figure, it might be that their contemporaries viewed them one way, but that modern historians see things otherwise.

So, don’t just look for the dates of the sources and nod sagely.  Decide for yourself whether you’re happy with the dates of the sources, and keep an eye open for missing decades or centuries!  Remember that country boundaries can move, place-names can change, and even spelling conventions can change.  (We used to refer to the composer Tchaikowsky; now it’s usually Tchaikovsky.)  How crucial is currency in your particular discipline?  What’s acceptable?

5. Don’t accept the citations blindly without checking them.  Remember my example of the undergraduate looking for three books by a particular author.

Wikipedia didn’t tell her that one “book” was an article in an Italian journal (journal title, date, and volume number would have been useful); a second book had gone out of print so quickly that few libraries seem to hold it. Better bibliographical details would certainly have helped establish that fact; and a third book was still apparently being written. “Unpicking the stitches” just might have established whether there was a chance the book had now been completed – or, conversely, was unlikely ever to see the light of day!

If you see a promising reference, check it out. You can do this in many places: subject-specific abstracting/indexing database, a national library catalogue, a union catalogue (in the UK, we have COPAC, which allows you to search all the UK University and national library catalogues simultaneously) – or, indeed, even Google books, Amazon, Alibris, or another bookseller that deals in both current and out-of-print titles.

After careful consideration I can’t adopt a  black-and-white view either for or against using Wikipedia. Notwithstanding all these warnings, I must admit that I was quite impressed by Wikipedia’s “Reliability” article, and by the care that has gone into setting it up as a collaborative resource.  But at the end of the day, information is only as good as the diligence and reliability of the entry’s creator, and you need to satisfy yourself that you can depend upon the information that you’ve found.

Finally – Can you, or indeed, should you cite Wikipedia in your own work?  Again, Wikipedia concedes that opinion is divided on this.  (Of course, sometimes you can get round the problem by citing the source from which the Wikpedia author derived their material.)  But I’d advise you to ask your own supervisor, or journal editor, if it’s acceptable to cite Wikipedia – and, of course, always to ensure that your own citations are impeccable in their detail!

Have you tried to cite wikipedia? What happened?

Related Posts

How a librarian can be a post grad’s best friend

Zotero vs Endnote

Don’t type ‘format c:”

5 books to help you with your PhD

There’s so many, many books on the market that claim to help you with your PhD – which ones are worth buying? I have been thinking about it this topic for some time, but it’s still hard to decide. So here’s a provisional top 5, based on books I use again and again in my PhD workshops:

1. The craft of Research by Wayne Booth, Greg Colomb and Joseph Williams.

I wish I owned the copyright to this one because I am sure they sell a shed load every year. Although it seems to be written for undergraduates, PhD students like it for its straight forward, unfussy style. Just about every aspect of research is covered: from considering your audience to planning and writing a paper (or thesis). The section on asking research questions is an excellent walk through of epistemology: an area many people find conceptually difficult. I find it speaks to both science and non science people, but, like all books I have encountered in the ‘self help’ PhD genre, The Craft of Research does have a bias towards ‘traditional’ forms of research practice. You creative researcher types might like to buy it anyway, if only to help you know what you are departing from.

2. How to write a better thesis by Paul Gruba and David Evans

This was the first book I ever bought on the subject, which probably accounts for my fondness for it. I have recommended it to countless students over the 6 or so years I have been Thesis Whispering, many of whom write to thank me. The appealing thing about this book is that it doesn’t try to do too much. It sticks to the mechanics of writing a basic introduction> literature review> methods> results> conclusion style thesis, but I used it to write a project based creative research thesis when I did my masters and found the advice was still valid. Oh – and the price point is not bad either. If you can only afford one book on the list I would get this one.

3. Helping Doctoral Students to write by Barbara Kamler and Pat Thomson

I won an award for my thesis and this book is why. In Helping doctoral students to write Kamler and Thomson explain the concept of  ‘scholarly grammar’, providing plenty of before and after examples which even the grammar disabled like myself can understand. I constantly recommend this book to students, but I find that one has to be at a certain stage in the PhD process to really hear what it has to say. I’m not sure why this is, but if you have been getting frustratingly vague feedback from your supervisors – who are unhappy but can’t quite tell you why – you probably need to read this book. It is written for social science students, so scientists might be put off by the style – but please don’t let that stop you from giving it a go. Physicists and engineers have told me they loved the book too. If you want a bit more of the conceptual basis behind the book, read this earlier post on why a thesis is a bit like an avatar.

4. The unwritten rules of PhD research by Marian Petre and Gordon Rugg

I love this book because it recognises the social complexities of doing a PhD, without ever becoming maudlin. Indeed it’s genuinely funny in parts, which makes it a pleasure to read. The authors are at their best when explaining how academia works, such as the concept of ‘sharks in the water’ (the feeding frenzy sometimes witnessed in presentations when students make a mistake and are jumped on by senior academics) and the typology of supervisors. It’s also one of the better references I have found on writing conference papers.

5. 265 trouble shooting strategies for writing non fiction Barbara Fine Clouse

This book is great because it doesn’t try to teach you how to write – you already know how to do that. What you need more is something to help you tweak your writing and improve it. This book is basically a big list of strategies you might like to try when you are stuck, or bored with the way you are writing. This book is so useful I have literally loved it to death – the spine is hopelessly broken and pages are held in by sticky tape. There are many wonderful tips in here from ‘free writing’ and ‘write it backwards’ ideas, to diagramming methods and analytical tools. Opening it at almost any page will give you an idea of something new to try.

What books would be on your top 5 list and why?

5 ways to detox your desk (and mind)

Recently I grabbed a book from the RMIT library called “Detox your desk: declutter your life and mind” by Theo Theobald and Cary Cooper. Have a look at this picture and you’ll see why:

This is my at home desk – not my at work desk (which is in such embarrassing condition I am not going to show it to you ).

The book is a fun read, but not one I would urge you to run out and buy if you don’t have the time or inclination. It’s actually more about productivity and is one of the better ones I have read, but half of it was dedicated to asserting the validity of the ideas – which was too much for me (I was sold at the title!). Since it is part of our mission at the Whisperer to do this sort of reading for you, I sifted through it for nuggets of goodness to share.

So if your desk is driving you crazy and you feel submerged in a sea of work, here are 5 strategies:

1) Most of the stuff on you desk shouldn’t be there

How many biros do you have on your desk? Looking at the photo above I have 7 – why? I type most of the time. One biro is all I need. That box of paperclips? I don’t print stuff out so I never use them – likewise the stapler (which I don’t think works anyway). There’s a bunch of DVDs, a child’s folding toy, a cap, a box of old business cards with the wrong phone number of them (why??)… But the biggest problem on my desk is that pile of paper on the left. There’s a parking permit form (I don’t have a car!), a list of instructions for the skin cream for my son’s eczema (note empty box), an old bank statement, a couple of tax receipts and the ‘melbourne magazine’.

You know what I feel when I look at the pile – that’s right. Guilt. I know that somewhere in there work is lurking, unfinished… You know what? Let’s get rid of everything I don’t need today:

Ah – much better. All I have is functional biros and markers, my notes, a book and my phone/gadget cords. It’s not impersonal, just efficient (I kept the photos of my son tucked under the monitor) and it took less than 4 and a half minutes to achieve. Already I feel like a more organised and purposeful person. Ok, so most of the stuff ended up in a box on the floor, but the book told me to leave it there for 10 days and only take out the stuff I need to use. By the end of 10 days I will know what should have a permanent spot and what should be thrown out or put elsewhere.

2) The Inventory.

I’m a busy, engaged sort of person. I always have a few pots on the boil and many of these projects involve small details – ring someone back, supply someone with something, think about an idea – you know the sort of thing. It’s taken me a long time to realise that most research work is just bits of this kind of detail, in endless motion. When details are in my head they have to compete for attention with what I will eat for lunch, what I think of Bruno Latour, my sprained little toe and so on. The details tend to get lost in the fog, where they lurk leading to feelings of  – you guessed it – Guilt.

I spent an hour putting what was in my head into a big list, which acted like the desk clean up. It’s not a to-do list – that would be too confronting. It’s more like an inventory of what I have going on in work and in life.

3) The cycle of work

I think the most useful idea in the book was how to use productivity cycles. The authors claim that your work day starts with a short ‘problem solving window’ (or ‘the hour of power’). The next block of time till lunchtime is good creative time – a place to wrestle with new ideas. After lunch most people’s brains tend to go into a bit of a slump, so this time is good for ‘sorting’, mechanical and repetitious tasks. Towards the end of the day you tend to pick up a bit, so this is good for dealing with people and planning.

I don’t know about you, but I never believe that my body works like other people’s, but clearly it does. I used the hour of power to solve my biggest problem – getting on top of my inventory. Then I employed the ‘creative time’ to a creative problem and I made more progress than I have for a month. Colour me amazed. Now I know that this works for me I will say ‘no’ to morning meetings!

4) The twenty minute rule

The authors claim that 20 minutes is about all you can expect to spend intensely concentrating on something before taking a break. I find it’s task dependent and that I can write for at least an hour before I start to fade. Either way, planning to take a short break every 20 minutes means that you can goof off a bit and recharge as you go.

5) The punch list

Armed with this knowledge you can plan your time in four chunks along 20 minute intervals: Problem solving, Creativity, Sort and People and Planning. Use the inventory to break off tasks, estimate how many 20 min chunks you think you will need to achieve them, and then write a ‘punch list’. For researchers the hour of power and the creative time will be most important to plan. Cross it off as you go for a feeling of achievement. Theobald and Cooper claim that before going home each night, a punch list for the next day should be written.

I’ll report back on how effective I find this approach after 10 days – but I will be interested to hear from people who have tried it or have other refinements to suggest

Reading like a writer

It seems I am the third person in the School of Graduate Research to be struck down by a flu like thing in less than 24 hours. At least I think so. I complained about feeling a bit poorly and the boss was more than happy to hurry me out the door.

Which is why I find myself at home, on a sunny Tuesday afternoon, highly medicated. What’s that I hear you say? Perfect time to write a Whisperer post? Why not – but I don’t feel up to delving into my reader request pile, so I will do a book review.

Part of our mission at the whisperer is to take some of the PhD reading burden off your shoulders, specifically by reviewing books on writing and doing your thesis. The other day in the library I noticed just how many books there are on this topic. Here is a snapshot of just two of the shelves in the 800′s section in RMIT’s library – and these are books just on editing for goodness sake. What’s a PhD student to do?

Anyway, the other day a paperback in the creative writing section by Francine Prose called “Reading like a writer” caught my eye. I vaguely recalled hearing her interviewed on the radio a few years ago, so I borrowed it even though it wasn’t strictly on topic.

Well – what a gem this book is.

As I have said before - if a book on writing doesn’t make you want to sit up and read it all night you should probably just throw it out (with the possible exception of Joseph Williams “Elements of style”). Francine Prose has a lovely understated writing style which must have taken decades to perfect. She starts each chapter with a story from her life as an avid book reader with such gentle humour that the book just grabs hold of you and wont let go.

Before I tell you what Ms Prose has to say I have to make a confession of sorts. When I was doing my PhD I found it almost impossible to read fiction – at least fiction that forced me to think in any way. During this three year period I tended to read popular science for fun. But for true brain downtime – you know, the type which sends you to sleep at night – I turned to trashy books. Deeply trashy books.

I have never quite recovered from this aspect of the Permanent head Damage experience and I am sure my husband is mildly appalled by the kinds of things he sees on my TBR pile beside the bed. “Reading like a writer” seemed dedicated to the topic of learning to read better quality fiction, so I thought it might help me with my little trashy books issue. Turns out there is much in this book that is useful to any kind of writing. Part of the reason is that the approach taken by Ms Prose is deeply informed by her experience as both a writer and teacher. As she explains:

“One essential and telling difference between learning from a style manual and learning from literature is that any how-to book will, almost by definition, tell you how not to write. In that way, manuals of style are a little like writing workshops, and have the same disadvantage – a pedagogy that involves warnings about what might be broken and directions on how to fix it – as opposed to learning from literature, which teachers by a positive model” (pg 44)

To prove her point, she uses examples from great fiction to highlight good writing techniques and to trouble aphorisms like “always write short sentences”. Rules like this will be discussed and then followed with examples of great writers breaking them with gay abandon.

You see, Ms Prose claims that, past a certain point of competence, you need to learn to pay proper attention to other writers’ prose in order to become a great writer. Now that’s advice that you hear a lot, but what’s great about Proses’s book is she tells you how to do it. For example she begins her chapter on words with a story about her English teacher asking the class to circle every variation of ‘eye’, ‘sight’ or ‘looking’ in King Lear. She recalls her sense of shock discovering the levels of meaning this simple exercise squeezed out of the Shakespeare play.

I think this simple exercise can be easily adopted by research students to learn how to write with more authority and confidence. Following the advice of Kamler and Thomson in their great book “Helping doctoral students to write”, I often tell research students to look through papers of writers that they like and circle all the verbs, especially the verbs which the writer uses when they comment on the work of other researchers. Consciously re-using these verbs gives your writing an immediate boost.

Ms Prose then turns her attention to sentences; claiming that good writers take apart sentences like mechanics take apart engines – to learn how they work. It’s impossible to include all the insights in this chapter, but one piece of advice she offers is to read your work aloud. It’s a remarkably effective technique to find clunky sentences, especially ones which run on too long. If nothing else you are likely to run out of breath if the sentence doesn’t have the right number of commas in it.

While the chapters on narration, character, dialogue and gesture are fascinating, they might be safely skipped if you are  reading for non fiction purposes. I recommend you read the chapter on details and on paragraphs however.  I particularly like the way she describes paragraphs as ‘breaths’ and the breaks between them as ‘flashes of lightening’. Not only do these metaphors elegantly capture the purpose of paragraphs, but they are easy to remember as you write.

Well that’s my self imposed 1000 word limit approaching, so I will go off and medicate myself again. Happy writing!