(This pattern is the pattern I asked my students to use: #1: state the construct you are interested in exploring; #2: write a short paragraph considering the construct and avenues you may explore within the construct.)
1. Writing is a “thing” (e.g., an activity, a skill, a talent) that some people can do and others cannot. A more nuanced version of this construct would read: I do not find writing naturally easy; therefore, I am obviously not good at it.
2. People often entertain the idea of writing as a “natural talent” that consists of a straightforward or simple ability (think à write à edit) that some people can perform quite easily and successfully while others are doomed to just not “get it.” Instead of an innate ability that some astute, and lucky, individuals possess, I want to explore the possibility of how writing – or one’s ability to write – often depends on a set of social or external constraints/mediators that may be more determinant than one’s innate ability to produce text. Things to consider could be i) eschewing the idea that the inability to write effortlessly means an inability to write at all, iia) how writing is not an uncomplicated “thing” but includes a complex set of recursive operations, iib) how writing is a dynamic concept that encompasses many meanings for different individuals, and iii) how academic writing follows a set of conventions that must be learned/internalized to be successful.
First, I really like how you break down the proposal into two areas--the identification and then the exploratory paragraph--that is something I want to remember using with future proposals.
ReplyDeleteAs for your specific proposal, you're going up against a big one! Who hasn't broken their abilities down into one of those two camps (natural talent or no talent, never going to get it)? I think this will be a wonderful construct to explore because it's very nature will be self-reflective, I can definitely see being able to build a frame narrative around your concept! Thank you for sharing your idea, it will be great to read more :)
MJ,
ReplyDeleteYour construct is well laid out and relates to another researcher's on talent. You two may be able to feed off each other and should be each others' PS partners.
Aside from 'natural talent' mythos (bought into not just by struggling students but also by many successful writers, alas. Nabokov famously said, "There is only one school, the school of talent.") there is also "inspiration" which ties into Romanticism. Related is writing as an isolated act (which it is in some ways).
In your last two list items there is an interesting but not yet articulated tension between on the one hand the complex and individually meaningful and different aspects of process, and on the other,the requirement (?) that successful writing adhere to academic conventions. These each might be constructs of a sort (enabling or not, I am not sure) and deserve some thinking out as that. The point about conventions is more the case within particular discourse ecologies (the readers of the journal Written Communication, or the genre of the scientific or social scientific article, e.g.). Does the discourse presented in 1510 (mostly academic) display a fixed set of conventions? Which genres within AW allow more play with conventions? Finally, how does this relate to the construct of natural talent/ease?
Student's proposals will not display a developing sense of the conversation but yours should since you presumably have done some research and reading on it. Allen, Lamott, Diaz in our readings relate directly. See if you can begin to define a niche for yourself in the conversation.
--AR