The main focus this week was understanding and applying Dr. Danks feedback from draft number one. As stated in the previous post, writing is difficult, but there are steps or methods that lead to an excellent product. This is a summary of Dr. Dank’s feedback, how I responded to and applied the feedback, our meeting this Tuesday, July 5th, and finally, next steps and targets for the final week at CMU.
After three days of suspense, Danks sent extensive comments and suggestions on draft #1. He said I was on the right track, but need to “Carefully and clearly lay out the main argument(s) and reasons for those arguments in much more detail.” Also, if something is not commented on it is fine for the current stage. Nearly 90% of the draft was marked in red… With over 19 detailed comments I had no idea where to start. However, I determined to categorize the feedback, find main themes, and apply them to the second draft.
Understanding the feedback took nearly five days. I was determined to figure out what key idea or concept I was missing. Deep down I knew I did not completely understand the main argument which lead the draft into a wild rabbit hole chase. This intuition proved accurate. Although Danks was accommodating in the critique, he was also brutally honest. I simply did not know what the heck I was talking about. Paragraphs moved around too quickly, ideas were scattered, and examples poorly supported. After the cold truth settled in, I accepted the fact that good writing takes time. I saw this draft as a first start to understand what the main argument is. Through writing, your ideas and opinions develope. If you don’t write, ideas remain in dark corners of your subconscious mind, hidden until you pick up a pen or start typing. After three more days, Danks contacted me for the next meeting. I was excited and determined to leave that meeting with a full understanding of what we were truly arguing.
We met in Baker Hall Tuesday, July 3rd at 11:00 AM. Dr. Danks just returned from a week and a half stay in Rome (most likely discussing Artificial Intelligence for good with academics or government). First, we discussed why academic writing is so challenging. Danks said traditional class writing is not nearly as difficult because lectures and readings contain most information for projects and papers. Contrastingly, research/ academic writing is difficult because there is “no right answer.” There is no writing prompt or pre-selected reading material, you must find and create a completely new piece of knowledge, not merely recite existing ideas. This is what separates a teaching institution such as CSU Monterey Bay from a research institution like Carnegie Mellon. For example, instead of merely playing an existing piano piece, you must compose, edit, and perform an entirely new one. Danks said he lets graduate students struggle with drafts and then re-writes it for them so they can see how a seasoned researcher approaches the same ideas.
Next, we discussed the benefits of writing the argument section first, and concluded with my full understanding of the main argument. Starting with the argument you clarify exactly what the entire paper is about. This is the most difficult part of the paper. If you start here and perfect his section, then supporting ideas should fit like missing puzzle pieces. Additionally, you avoid a “bloated” paper. Starting with the intro, body, and then the argument, you will most likely include large amounts of irrelevant “bloated” information. Academic writing is difficult already, so make the reader’s job easier by including exactly what you need to support the argument. Also keep your expectations realistic. Danks says a publication worthy paper takes about six months. After this, I asked Danks to explain an equation formula that holds the key to the main argument. He mapped it out on a large white board and suddenly everything just clicked. As a sneak peek here is the equation… Magnitude = Rate x Usage.
Research aside, I visited the Carnegie Museum of Art and Natural History. The worlds best Dinosaur collection and rare stones including CMU’s MoonArk project reside within the walls. I walked through Carnegie Hall and Carnegie Music Hall as well. Words cannot describe the extravagant beauty and the thousands of years of human labor and ingenuity contained within this museum.
Overall, this week proved challenging yet again. After two weeks of struggling with researching and writing, yesterday’s meeting made it all worthwhile. I broadened perspectives walking through time in the Carnegie Museum of Art and Natural History. As of now, I have a detailed outline for draft #2 and will share these ideas with Danks tomorrow Friday, July 5th at 3:30 P.M. With only one week remaining, I’m determined to write as much as possible and enjoy the final nine days in Pittsburgh.
Timothy Geary Portfolio 