Sigh-ence

There's something about writing journal articles that feels like a game of snakes and ladders.  At present I've just landed on a snake - you know that big one where you go back to number two or something.  And that is without a peer reviewer in sight.

My article writing of late has been a process largely made up of the following:

• Write introduction (general rehash comprised largely of stuff you've read/rehashed/stolen from another document you've written before)

• Write method section (again, largely a rehash of what you've/someone else has done before, with relevant demographic amendments)

• Attempt writing findings section (I'm doing discourse analysis so it's muddy, blurry, obfuscatory and generally a nightmare)

• Re-attempt writing findings section after realising previous attempt was complete nonsensical garbage.

• Submit half-paper to supervisor, who has completely forgotten what the purpose of said paper was.

• Rewrite paper to the 'new and improved' aims and scope, post half-paper submission and supervisor review.

• Attempt to disseminate findings section using oodles of sociological jargon and intelligent-sounding words devoid of meaning.

• Submit to relevant journal, cross fingers an await scathing peer reviews.*

*DISCLAIMER: This is how NOT to write an academic journal article


 Jesting aside, writing journal articles can sometimes feel like a futile task - particularly in the early days of PhD-dom where the practice is not yet reflexive... does it ever become reflexive?  One would hope so, given the sheer volume some sigh-entists manage to generate.

Anyway, enough procrastination - time to roll the dice and hopefully land on the ladder of linguistic enlightenment.