Advice To Students In Addition To Immature Professionals When Y'all Don't Similar A Critique Of Your Work

I've been thinking hard most whether to portion what follows.  I've finally decided to create thus now, at the showtime of the autumn semester, as a shape of advice to students too immature professionals.  The advice is truly quite simple:  Learning to write good requires y'all to travel opened upward to honest criticism.  It is all correct if y'all don't similar how a professor or someone else responds to your writing, but examine to lay aside your personal feelings too describe whatever value y'all tin from someone who has taken the fourth dimension too made an endeavour to travel helpful to you. Also, travel gracious.

The background is as follows.  A junior faculty fellow member at a medical schoolhouse of late asked me to read too critique a mass s/he had published.  I am oftentimes asked past times students too other immature professionals to create this, too I am e'er happy to pitch in, inwards the promise of existence helpful during the formative stages of their careers.

In this case, I felt that the mass was non rattling good. It's non that the ideas it contained were off base. Rather, the writing wasn't persuasive too clear.  I wanted to travel honest inwards my critique, but I also wanted to create my best to brand the review a proficient learning experience.  So, I truly consulted alongside a number of senior academic faculty members to acquire their advice on how I should approach the task.  What I wrote is what follows--but too then remain tuned for the author's response, too my rejoinder.

Here's my e-mail to the author, alongside items changed to protect his/her identity:

Thanks thus much for sending me your book.  I intend it is a keen concept and, of course, timely. You asked for feedback, thus hither goes:

I've seen many instances, similar this, where the writer has a lot of proficient things to say, supported past times powerful stories.  The work that occurs is that your ain depth of cognition too agreement of the issues gets inwards the agency of presenting them to readers who are non as attuned as y'all to the issues.  Why?  In short, because y'all lay inwards besides much, too it is overwhelming.

I e'er used to tell my students that everything y'all write should travel considered an advocacy document.  You are trying to persuade the reader that your stories are apt too compelling, too the generalizable lessons y'all describe from those stories are every bit apt too compelling. It is very, rattling hard to create this when y'all are thus closed to the subject.

So my curt response to your feedback asking is that the mass could direct keep used a major dose of editing, preferably past times someone who was non familiar alongside the topic.  Only that variety of detached observer tin tell y'all where y'all direct keep done good too where things demand to travel reworked.  For example, a story powerfulness travel compelling to y'all because y'all experienced it; but inwards the telling the ability does non come upward through.  It powerfulness travel the story itself, too it powerfulness travel how it is told.  

There is also a serious demand to split your personal journeying too feelings from a to a greater extent than detached presentation of the testify y'all direct to ship inwards making your points. The reader volition know that it is personal--after all, y'all wrote the book.  But if each story is made besides personal, it loses its ability as a potentially generalizable example.

Beyond the substance, the pattern too presentation of the paragraphs too other graphical issues needs major work.  The text comes across as overly dense.  Something most the font size too margins too trace of piece of work spacing too indentation is exactly wrong--making the mass much harder to read.  The publisher should direct keep provided y'all alongside ameliorate graphic arts support.  

These are full general observations.  I could best illustrate them to y'all if nosotros went through several pages too chapters of the book.  I'd welcome the direct a opportunity to create that adjacent fourth dimension I am inwards your vicinity.  

I desire to closed alongside both encouragement too a warning. [Name,] y'all direct keep the potential to brand a big deviation inwards this plain because of your commitment to the issues too audio judgment too passion.  But, if y'all promise to advance inwards the academic world, your finished writing products demand to accomplish a higher level.  That's surely achievable, but it volition direct keep some run too help.

With fond regards,

Paul

--

And directly the author's reponse: 

Dear Paul,

Thank y'all for taking fourth dimension to send your feedback. I volition permit my electrical flow run (as good as futurity career work) response your e-mail but to travel rattling honest, I am disappointed past times your email. Of course of didactics non because y'all didn’t similar the book, the writing mode or the agency I select to generate cognition — it’s normal that a personal mass volition evoke dissimilar personal responses. What y'all let on problematic has been a guide for others.

What disappoints me is the rather linear logic y'all used to educate too organize your arguments.  I shared your e-mail alongside my mentors, both whom are incredibly good respected too successful palliative medicine physicians inwards 2 dissimilar settings, too they were underwhelmed (and truly confused) past times the email's lack of agreement of too sensitivity towards the complexity of clinical life, aging too policy issues, too wellness attention settings inwards general, especially inwards the context of advanced illness. They were also taken dorsum too concerned past times the email’s lack of agreement some systems (ED too hospice), organization theory, qualitative methods, too communication theory. 

My ain vocalism volition cash inwards one's chips on to develop, too my mentors too I are on a mission to brand a deviation through understanding, learning too change, rather than endless critique too dismissal of differing points of thought too voices that are e'er inwards motion.

Best of luck,

--

To which I felt compelled to reply: 

To travel absolutely clear, [name], my comments were non inwards the to the lowest degree "an endless critique too dismissal of differing points of thought too voices that are e'er inwards motion."  You asked for an honest critique of your writing, which is only what I offered.  If y'all had exactly wanted encomiums, y'all needn't direct keep asked.  This was non a critique of your ideas.  I'm lamentable either I did non brand that clear, or y'all did non understand.  I offered to illustrate the points to y'all inwards especial too inwards person, but y'all direct keep chosen to cast aside that offer.  

Your comment most my lack of "understanding of too sensitivity towards the complexity of clinical life, aging too policy issues, too wellness attention settings inwards general, especially inwards the context of advanced illness" is off base.  You know aught most my experience or cognition of those issues.  Ditto for my cognition of organization theory too the like. My finally chip of advice to you, for futurity correspondence alongside others, is that y'all create footling inwards offering a persuasive retort past times attacking the supposed cognition too experience of the reviewer.  

I'm thus pleased y'all volition cash inwards one's chips on inwards your efforts to direct greater lite to this of import field, too I wishing y'all the best.

Sincerely,

Share this post