Becoming Scholarly Writers: An Autoethnography of Three Emerging Scholars Claire Kostopulos Nackoney, Florida International University, USA Sunny L. Munn, The Ohio State University, USA Suzanne J. Gallagher, St. Thomas University, USA Abstract: Two doctoral students and a new academic use autoethnography to reflect on their experiences as emerging scholars. Five themes are explored: developing mentor relationships, discovering and expressing one’s voice when writing, writing collaboratively, receiving and integrating constructive criticism, and using resources. Implications for adult education are also provided. Among academics, the importance of scholarly writing is rarely disputed. Scholarly writing replenishes the knowledge base with new insights, ideas, models, and theories. It perpetuates scholarly dialogue and serves as a springboard for future research. For doctoral students, writing facilitates entry into the scholarly community. One measure of career success within the academy is the number of scholarly manuscripts faculty publish in peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings. Therefore, early exposure to scholarly writing can not only better prepare doctoral students for the dissertation stage of their studies but also provide those interested in academic and research-oriented careers with a necessary skill set and understanding of career expectations (Austin, 2002). As doctoral students advance in their studies and develop theoretical and conceptual frameworks in their fields, they are expected to become more critically reflective and master the complexities of scholarly writing. However, while they spend a substantial amount of time writing papers to fulfill class requirements, many doctoral students reach the dissertation stage of their studies with limited scholarly writing experience (Caffarella & Barnett, 2000). In this autoethnography, we share our personal reflections on how we transitioned from student writing to publishable scholarly writing. Scholarly writing has content “grounded in literature and/or empirical research” (p. 41) and goes through peer review and an iterative revision process (Caffarella & Barnett, 2000). First, we describe the autoethnographic method used in this paper. Second, we examine common themes that emerged through our personal reflections related to our transitions from student to scholarly writing and the on-going challenges that have confronted us. The paper concludes with implications for adult education. Method As a postmodern qualitative research method, autoethnography connects the personal to the cultural (Ellis, 2004; Patton, 2002). Autoethnography honors researchers’ voices as members of cultural communities by allowing them to use their own lived experiences within a particular culture “to look more deeply at self-other interactions” (Ellis, 2004, p. 46). The postmodern stance acknowledges that when conducting research “many ways of knowing and inquiring are legitimate and that no one way should be privileged” over another (Wall, 2006, p. 2). We began by freewriting about our experiences as emerging scholars trying to enter the scholarly writing culture of the academy. Sunny and Claire are doctoral students and Sue is a new academic. Freewriting allowed each of us to capture our personal narratives without concerning ourselves with content, organization, grammar, and other scholarly writing

conventions (Jalongo, 2002). We compared our freewriting narratives, looking for common conversational threads or themes related to our experiences as emerging scholars. Through this process, we identified five themes: 1) developing relationships with writing mentors, 2) discovering our scholarly writing voices, 3) viewing writing as collaboration, 4) integrating constructive criticism, and 5) using resources wisely. We then examined relevant literature related to these themes while continuing to critically reflect on our own experiences. What follows are observations from the literature along with excerpts from our freewriting narratives that elaborate on the five themes. Developing Relationships with Writing Mentors Faculty who mentor doctoral students on scholarly writing can teach their protégés how to write for a public audience (Engstrom, 1999). They can also help them gain entry into the scholarly community. Mentors can provide collaborative writing opportunities and facilitate their protégés’ networking with seasoned and novice scholars at academic conferences and through writing groups. Mentors can also provide them with psychosocial support (Ortiz-Walters & Gilson, 2005), sharing their own successes and failures as scholars and listening to and helping to allay their protégés’ anxieties about the writing and publishing processes. Through these mentoring relationships, doctoral students can learn about the “discipline, habits, and commitment required of prolific writers” (Engstrom, 1999, p. 270). Claire: The day I interviewed for admission to the doctoral program, the professor who is now my mentor invited me to attend an academic conference and pre-conference with her. I accepted, and by the end of the pre-conference, she had persuaded me to write and present a paper at the following year’s pre-conference. Later that year, she invited me to coauthor a book review with her on a topic related to my research interests. Since then, she has provided additional opportunities for me to write and publish that I may not have found on my own. The mentor-protégé relationship we have nurtured is comfortable, collegial, respectful, and trustful. This has helped me make the transition from student writing to scholarly writing, although I still have much to learn. Sue: I had no idea what I was missing, until I was mentored into academic writing. Being a good writer is a starting point for good academic writing, but there is another universe of expectations to meet. I know that without the mentoring and exposure that I received, I would not be prepared as a new academic to now teach doctoral students how to write. I know I still have more to learn to become a skilled writer, but at least I have a map of the terrain. I can see all the pieces that need to be accounted for and the steps needed to polish the work and prepare it for submission. Discovering Our Scholarly Writing Voices Voice refers to how we reveal ourselves to others (Richards & Miller, 2005) and “enter into the ongoing professional dialogue through writing” (Jalongo, 2002, p. 23). As emerging scholars, we must believe we have something to contribute to the scholarly conversation. We must strive to “[exorcise] the grad student within” (Rankin, 2001, p. 59),“…the self-assured yet hesitant, assertive yet deferential and conflicted self that emerges whenever we find ourselves paying less attention to what we’re saying than to how it will be received” (p. 61). Our scholarly voices will emerge when we begin to trust and believe in ourselves and our abilities (Richards & Miller, 2005).

Claire: When I began doctoral studies four years ago, I lacked the breadth and depth of theoretical and conceptual knowledge needed for scholarly writing. My mentor’s persistent mantra was that “Claire was missing,” I “lacked passion” for my topic, or I “didn’t trust” myself to express an opinion. My strong inner critic taunted me with questions like, “Why would accomplished scholars be interested in what a novice has to say? What can you tell them that they don’t already know?” The turning point was a class assignment where I had to select and apply a learning theory to a life experience. Both critically reflective autoethnographic writing and freewriting have helped me discover my voice and participate in the scholarly conversation rather than simply report from the sidelines. Sunny: Finding my scholarly voice has involved two interrelated issues: expressing the topic’s importance while subduing my passion for the topic. Saying something is important, doesn’t make it so. You must be able to say convincingly “why” the reader should continue reading. Often my passion for the topic has resulted in my sounding like I was preaching on a “soap box” and has gotten in the way of my clearly establishing the topic’s importance. Conservative use of emotion towards my topic has been a continual learning experience that has contributed to the endless discovery of my scholarly voice. Viewing Writing as Collaboration When we think of collaboration in scholarly writing, we typically think of coauthored manuscripts. However, formal and informal peer reviews are also forms of collaboration (Reither & Vipond, 1989). The different perspectives and insights gleaned through both peer review and coauthoring can strengthen our writing. Integrating constructive feedback received through peer review can help us improve clarity and organization, while coauthoring can create a synergistic result that would not have been possible if we were writing alone. Since we identified constructive criticism as a separate theme, we will focus on collaboration as coauthoring in this section. Coauthoring can be equal or hierarchical (Hafernik, Messerschmitt, & Vandrick, 1997). As doctoral students, we can collaborate with peers, faculty, or both. The process can be both rewarding and challenging. While on-going coauthor dialogue can be exhilarating and result in deeper insights and meaning making, sometimes coauthoring can create conflict. Coauthors might clash on the project’s direction, be unable to integrate feedback into the manuscript, or perceive that some are contributing more than others. Furthermore, when students coauthor with faculty, they may feel pressured to subordinate their own voices due to real or perceived power dynamics within the hierarchical faculty-student relationship. For collaboration to occur, however, this power dynamic must be deconstructed so that each coauthor’s contribution is acknowledged and all voices are heard. Sunny: The complicated part of collaboration comes from arranging multiple writing schedules, reaching agreement on feedback, and joining voices so that the piece is comprehensive, understandable, and seamless. My first collaborative writing experience outside of class occurred as a master’s student. While it was an extremely rewarding process, there were also many obstacles. In collaborative writing, one person must take the lead by expressing a desired direction for the paper to which others can add. As the only group member familiar with our framework, my coauthors relied on me to provide an adequate introduction to the topic and supplemental materials from which they could learn. While all three of us had the experiential background, I had to teach the others how to apply their experiences to fit the subject matter.

However, through this collaborative writing experience, I also found that there was much to learn from the knowledge and insights of my coauthors. Claire: This past year, I coauthored a book review with another doctoral student. I really enjoyed working with her for several reasons. First, she and I had the same work ethic when it came to commitment and follow through. I trusted that she would be responsible and accountable for assigned work and she was. Although most of our collaborating occurred through email, we kept in touch regularly and responded quickly to each other’s concerns and questions. Second, we were able to help each other understand more confusing passages in the book, and we provided each other with ongoing constructive criticism. Although writing the book review took nearly seven months, through this collaborative process, we were both satisfied with the finished product. Sue: My academic writing career began when my mentor invited me to collaborate on a chapter for a handbook on mixed methods research. The group negotiated the research questions guiding the selection, analysis, and synthesis of information for the chapter. Negotiating meaning with multiple parties involved persuasion, dealing with the facts, and finding common ground. As a graduate student negotiating with seven academics, I listened more than I spoke but felt that my contributions were valued and integrated into the chapter. Integrating Constructive Criticism A group of doctoral students taking a scholarly writing class cited constructive criticism “as the most influential element in helping them to understand the scholarly writing process and [produce] a scholarly product” (Caffarella & Barnett, 2000, p.48). Nonetheless, being on the receiving end of constructive criticism can still be uncomfortable. Writing is a personal activity and “students’ feelings of self-worth as productive scholars and learners may be tied to [the] process of having their work publicly critiqued” (p. 49). However, to become scholars, we must move from fearing and resenting criticism to anticipating, desiring, and integrating it into our writing. Sunny: I enjoy providing and receiving constructive criticism because it is a useful learning experience that strengthens my writing. Even though I enjoy receiving feedback, reading a colleague’s comments can still be painful because writing is often a personal experience. I have realized, however, that receiving constructive criticism and learning how to integrate it into your work is a necessary component of scholarly writing. As a master’s student, I developed a proofreading circle with two friends. Each of us reviewed every paper because we each had something different to contribute. Often my comments were the most critical and I learned to deliver them less harshly, while another learned that it was acceptable to tell the writer exactly what she thought as a reader. We all learned to entrust each other with a process that can be intimidating. This has improved our writing today. Sue: I saw the clarity of my writing improve as my mentor and I read our manuscripts aloud and critiqued our work together. After awhile, I began to anticipate her questions and fix things before they became an issue. Writing manuscripts to present at a conference or to publish in a book or a journal opened the door for me to engage others in a conversation about my ideas and to express myself more clearly. Claire: During peer review, I sometimes feel anxious and vulnerable. Faculty who have spoken at a monthly writing group that I participate in have expressed similar feelings. Knowing that accomplished scholars feel as I do about the review process affirms how deeply personal writing is. My biggest fear is that others will think I am uninformed about my topic. Sometimes,

though, the problem stems from the reviewer’s word choice when providing feedback. I now focus on moving beyond what I might perceive as harsh word connotations and approach feedback assuming that the intention is to help me improve. This has made the peer review process less intimidating for me. Using Resources Wisely As emerging scholars juggling multiple commitments, a big challenge has been setting the plan and process into motion to achieve our goals. Finding time to write and publish “competes with the other deadlines in life” (Beukelman, 1999, p. 212). Strategies for finding time to write vary from one person to another. Some find it helpful to develop a writing agenda, listing current and future writing projects and estimated completion dates. It also is important to find writing strategies suited to our cognitive styles as writers (Torrance, Thomas, & Robinson, 1994). For instance, some writers use a “think-then-write” (p. 390) strategy, planning content and reviewing the literature before starting the actual writing process. Others, however, move back and forth between thinking, reading, and writing, using a “think-while-you-write” (p. 390) strategy. Still, others might combine the two methods when approaching writing projects. Claire: Time is always an issue. Often I have to choose between working on a class paper or a conference paper or book review. Each has its own deadline and sometimes they overlap; so I try to devote time during the week to each project. Something I’ve also started doing is converting class assignments into conference papers or journal manuscripts, allowing me to leverage previous hours spent on researching and writing. Developing a writing agenda listing current and future writing projects and targeted completion dates has also kept me focused. My goal is to publish something each year: a book review, conference paper, or journal article. Fortunately, I am very self-disciplined. Some days I write a lot (several hours at a time) and some days I write a little (15-20 minutes). What matters is doing something daily--freewriting, reading/note-taking, drafting, revising--to advance towards my writing goals. Sunny: Throughout my graduate experience, my time has been limited due to the demands of full-time work and school. With such a tight schedule, I should have a very strict writing schedule. Unfortunately, I do not. Some authors create a precise writing agenda, following it to the tee. Others read the literature and then write; some read while writing. I have always taken the latter more integrative approach. Reading stimulates my thoughts, giving me new ideas that contribute to the paper I am currently working on. Due to schedule limitations, I have used my resources wisely by reworking class papers into conference presentations. My biggest feat was writing several class papers that also contributed to my master’s thesis. I then turned many of these papers into conference proposals and presentations. I am now using feedback received during conference presentations to improve the papers and submit them for journal publication. Implications for Adult Education Transitioning from student writing to publishable scholarly writing is an intentional process driven by internal and external processes. Internal processes include being selfdisciplined, trusting ourselves to have and express informed opinions, and seeing ourselves as worthy of joining the scholarly conversation. We also need to trust others—mentors, professors, peers, and reviewers—so we can be receptive to their feedback and integrate it into our writing. External processes include creating writing agendas, coauthoring manuscripts, and developing relationships with mentors to help us achieve our goals. Although faculty might approach

students whom they would like to mentor, students should also initiate relationships with respected scholars who can help them gain entry into the scholarly community. As we reflected on our own writing experiences, we found ourselves asking why publishable scholarly writing does not appear to be the norm among doctoral students. How, for example, might faculty facilitate or suppress the development of student scholarship? What teaching and writing paradigms do they bring into their classrooms? What type of classroom environment do they nurture? Whose voice takes precedence in the classroom: the professor’s or the student’s? What do faculty emphasize in student writing assignments: writing for a grade or writing to facilitate scholarship? We hope that the topic of becoming scholarly writers will continue to be explored and that emerging scholars will join us in this conversation. References Austin, A. E. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as socialization to the academic career. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 94-122. Beukelman, D.R. (1999). Scholarly writing: Managing the competition for time and attention. AAC Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 15(3), 212-214. Caffarella, R.S., & Barnett, B.G. (2000). Teaching doctoral students to become scholarly writers: The importance of giving and receiving critiques. Studies in Higher Education, 25(1), 3952. Ellis, C. (2004). The ethnographic I: A methodological novel about autoethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Engstrom, C.M. (1999). Promoting the scholarly writing of female doctoral students in higher education and student affairs graduate programs. NAPSA Journal, 36(4), 264-277. Hafernik, J. J., Messerschmitt, D. S., & Vandrick, S. (1997). Collaborative research: Why and how? Educational Reseearcher, 26(9), 31-35. Jalongo, M. R. (2002). Writing for publication: A practical guide for educators. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon. Ortiz-Walters, R., & Gilson, L. L. (2005). Mentoring in academia: An examination of the experiences of protégés of color. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67(3), 459-475. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rankin, E. (2001). The work of writing: Insights and strategies for academics and professionals. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Reither, J. A., & Vipond, D. (1989). Writing as collaboration. College English, 51(8), 855-867. Richards, J. C., & Miller, S. K. (2005). Doing academic writing in education: Connecting the personal and the professional. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Torrance, M., Thomas, G.V., & Robinson, E.J. (1994) The writing strategies of graduate research students in the social sciences. Higher Education, 27(3), 379-392. Wall, S. (2006). An autoethnography on learning about autoethnography. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(2), 1-12. http://www.ualberta.ca/~ijqm/