3/17

Working on revising the CE article this morning. First step: generating a "To Do" list. 

Or...first step, revise introduction. That's what I've spent the morning on. There are some substantive changes here. First, I cut the descriptive section on NSC. Then, I added Brandt to the introduction--a decision I was at the time a bit unsure of (and am, perhaps, still a bit unsure of). Then, i got to work reworking the introduction. I'm feeling pretty good about what I have at this point, but I still have the concern, a concern which was raised by the reviewers, that I don't get to my argument until p. 5. I was hoping to move that up and now, with all the revision I've done, it still is at p. 5. The exact quote from Schilb's letter is:

Indeed, I share the concern expressed by one of the referees that the article’s main claim or argumentative intent doesn’t currently appear until page 5, which seems fairly late.

Well, I've changed my introduction around a good deal, but the main argument still doesn't come until p. 5. GIven that this is specifically mentioned by a reviewer and the editor, it does feel as though I should probably DO something about this. My choices--delete stuff so it can be moved up or rearrange a bit to get the argument up earlier.

But, the accomplishment of the morning is getting that first section rewritten. The next thing to do is:

1. Allow some time to go by and return to the intro for editing (too frequent use of the "transition from school to work" phrase.

2. Should there be a few sub-headings in the intro? For example, methodology? (no).

3. How to move that claim/argument up?

Then, onto the next section--very shortly after this introduction, I need to get right to the Reverse Commute, Take One. I need to either:

A) incorporate the overview on Tony into the first section, or

B) cut that section down to maybe 1-2 pages. (it is currently 4-5)

In general, I have this habit of forcing the reader to wade through too much stuff. I am too copious in some ways. As an academic writer, I need to learn how to be more concise. This was a problem with my dissertation and it is a problem here, as well. 

Once I get through the Introduction and cutting down the background section on Tony (or cutting it entirely). I need to draw in Bawarshi's concept of "incomes" to the first section of the reverse commute and also, perhaps, bring in a bit of Adler-Kassner's definition of academic literacy. 

Then, the second section on plagiarism needs a bit of an overhaul--the main thing I need to do there is to begin NOT with Tony's 1960s ppt. but, instead, with a rich description of the competency manual/orientation manual. 

This was the first time I have returned to work on this article in some time. I am feeling good about it. I think I know what I need to do and now I just need to find the time to do it. Solving small problems, one at a time...