Categories
reading writing

#APaperADay: Why and How Academics Write.

…non-academics regard writing as bullshit when it is abstract and vague and full of jargon. Here, academics are accused of hiding behind prose which is dense, exaggerated, obfuscating, overblown, and full of deepities as our frequent claims to profundity have been termed. We could write more clearly and simply but we use our academic bullshit to continue a vicious cycle which encourages students and new staff to imitate abstruse, professorial styles.

Badley, G. F. (2020). Why and How Academics Write. Qualitative Inquiry, 26(3–4), 247–256.

This article doesn’t include a list of instructions that will make you a better writer but it might serve as stimulus, inspiring you to think of writing as more than the reporting of facts. For the most part it’s a nice article for novices who haven’t yet ossified their practice into something “pompous and needlessly complex”, as well as for experienced writers who’ve been doing it for so long that they don’t even think about why and how they write anymore.

I did think that the paper tapers off towards the end, becoming something that reads more like a stream of consciousness than anything coherent, although I think that this may have been the point.


“Academics are often criticized for their poor or rotten writing”.

Writing that is “pompous and needlessly complex”.

How do we make our writing less awful?

Why do we write badly?

  1. We use academese; writing that is “turgid, soggy, wooden, bloated, clumsy, obscure, unpleasant to read, and
    impossible to understand” (Pinker, 2014).
  2. We convince ourselves that our subject matter needs us to use insider-shorthand to convey complex ideas.
  3. We think that “ponderous prose will get us published”. (Nice phrase).
  4. We assume that readers know what we’re talking about; this is called the curse of knowledge.
  5. We use academic bullshit to fill our writing with “deepities”; claims of profoundness that need big words to show just how deep they are.

Our belief that we’re “entering the conversation” is part of the problem; we’re just continuing the cycle of producing more vague, dense, passive, boring writing.

Why do we write at all?

It’s not a good enough reason to say that, as academics, we “have to” write, or because it’s tied to funding. The author provides some examples of other reasons for why academics write. Here are some that I loved:

  • To produce order out of chaos.
  • To satisfy a desire for revenge.
  • To thumb our noses at Death.
  • To act out antisocial behaviour.
  • To allow for the possibility of hope and redemption.

“…writing is the act of saying I, of imposing oneself upon other people, of saying listen to me, see it my way, change your mind. It’s an aggressive, even a hostile act” (Didion, 1976).

“If we try to write as humans for other humans, then we are more likely to make our writing less rotten and more accessible to a wider audience.”

How we academics (should) write

We should consider writing as a daily, human practice.

Producing meaningful text is as dependent on how we write as it is on what we write.

While there are many specific tips we could use to improve writing (e.g. avoid the passive voice, altering the length of sentences, etc.), the simplest might be to commit to writing every day. The aim of this might be to make our practice “routine and mundane.” (Silvia, 2007).

Reading is a prerequisite for writing. One way of joining a community is to start reading what others in that community have written.

Reading can help us to reorient our thoughts. Reading and writing are tied in with thinking. It may not be that we write what we think but rather that what we think becomes clear as we write. “I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” (O’Connor).

“People who write a lot outline a lot.” Preparing an outline isn’t a prelude to “real” writing, it’s part of writing, even if the outline is ultimately abandoned.

“A clear sentence is no accident.” (Zinsser, 2006). But, early messiness can help us to make new connections and get a better sense of what we want to say.

Knowing the how of our writing helps us get closer to knowing why we write.

“…watch out for all attempts made by writers to empty their prose of people as agents by substituting ‘things that act like people’…”. Avoid writing about the world while avoiding the people in it.

Writing as “…an adventure in thought” or a “quest”.

Why and how do I write?

First, Why do I write?

“…writing is an act of hope, a sort of communion with fellow men…a tiny beam of light to show some hidden aspect of reality…”

And how do I write?

” I see my writing as knowledge-in-the-making even though I am not as skilled as some in using writing to learn what I know rather than to state what I think I know.”

Note: For me, this last section was a bit odd; I think it’s an attempt to be playful with words (lots of words) that all present a different facet of how the author thinks of his writing. But for me it doesn’t work. Rather than being a clear description of anything it comes across as a word-salad, with so many meanings as to make it meaningless. It’s also quite long. If you can get through it, you may find some nuggets of value. I skipped most of it. The conclusion is no less confusing.

Categories
research writing

#APAperADay: Twelve tips for getting your manuscript published.

Cook, D. A. (2016). Twelve tips for getting your manuscript published. Medical Teacher, 38(1), 41–50.


I went through this article to present it for discussion at our departmental journal club meeting last week. It’s a useful review paper for anyone interested in academic publishing, especially novice authors who may not have much experience preparing manuscripts for submission.


Getting the manuscript ready

1. Plan early to get it out the door. Write regularly – even if it’s for shorter periods – because it’s hard to find large blocks of time, which means that you don’t write very often. Set clear, concrete goals because otherwise you end up doing lots of reading and editing but don’t put words on the page. Refine in stages, perhaps initially using a rough outline where the argument can be presented and seen all at once, before expanding points into sentences, then paragraphs, and finally into sections.

2. Address authorship and writing group expectations up front. Deciding the order and contributions of each author is important to do early on in the process. See the ICMJE guidelines on defining the role of authors. The main point to take away is that, in order to be listed as an author, an intellectual contribution to the paper (which is different to the project) is necessary.

3. Maintain control of the writing. There needs to be one person who drives the process and ensures that editing of the manuscript is controlled. The author suggests having one master document that only they have access to, with other authors submitting changes on separate documents. This might be less important with the version control and change tracking that’s built into current collaborative writing platforms e.g. Google Docs.

4. Ensure complete reporting. Find out what reporting guidelines exist for your specific type of study design e.g. SR, RCT, qualitative research, etc. Note that the title can be thought of as part of the reporting something to the reader; t’s the one thing that every reader will actually read. The introduction provides context, a conceptual framework, literature review, problem statement and then the question or aim. The Discussion should be focused and informative, leaving out what is not really necessary. It might follow this structure: summary, limitations, integration with prior work, implications for practice or research.

5. Use electronic reference management software. You can do this manually but, after the initial setup of your resource library, using management software is far more efficient. There are two additional reasons to use software; citations can be reformatted into different styles, new citations can be inserted without having to renumber everything else. Don’t capture sources into your library by hand as this can introduce errors; use the software to import from PubMed and journals directly. Mendeley is popular, as is Endnote. I use Zotero, which is an excellent open source programme.

6. Polish carefully before you submit. Make sure that there are as few spelling, grammatical, typographical, punctuation and style errors as possible in the manuscript before you submit. It’s important to be consistent in your editing across all of the above e.g. UK vs US English, different heading styles for first level headings, inconsistent citation formatting, etc. will all suggest to the Editor that you’re not paying attention to the small things.

7. Select the right journal. Who will be reading the journal? There’s no point aiming for a high impact journal if their audience won’t be interested in your work. Review the journal aim and scope, instructions for authors, or even contact the Editor and ask if they think that your topic and question would be of interest to the journal’s audience. Try to evaluate your own work objectively, possibly by comparing it to a few papers from the journal you’re aiming for, and ask if it would fit alongside those articles. All metrics used to evaluate the “quality” of a journal are flawed.

8. Follow journal instructions precisely. Editors may desk reject (i.e. not even send out for review) articles where authors have disregarded the instructions. There are often a variety of other items that need to accompany the article e.g. cover letter (topic, aim, implications), disclosures, conflict of interest statements, authorship, possible reviewers, funding, and ethics clearance. It can take surprisingly long to gather this additional information.

When you are rejected (and you will be rejected)

9. Get it back out the door quickly. There’s no value in delaying it because your feelings are hurt. Try to remember that everyone gets rejected. It may be helpful to have a list of other journals you will submit to if the article is rejected. It is not helpful to argue with the Editor.

10. Take seriously all reviewer and editor suggestions. Even though you are obviously not required to use the feedback, you should at least pay it some attention. The author suggests a rubric for deciding what comments to pay attention to: essential, high-yield, easy and useful, other.

When you are invited to revise and resubmit

It’s unlikely that you will ever have an article accepted without having to make any changes.

11. Respond carefully to every suggestion, even if you disagree. I agree with the first part of this, “respond carefully”. However, the second part seems to suggest that you should make the suggested changes, even if you disagree. The author even says that the “reviewers are always right”. I disagree and will almost always stand my ground on points that I feel don’t need to be changed. I’ll sometimes spend 2-3 times longer arguing for why the change shouldn’t be made, than it would’ve taken to just edit the text. However, I will clarify the writing to ensure that other readers don’t make the same mistake that the reviewer made. You do need to respond to every comment though, ensuring that you’re respectful in your responses. Whatever you think of the actual feedback, someone has taken the time to read and comment on your work. Make sure that you follow the journal instructions for how to edit and resubmit your article.

12. Get input from others as you revise. It’s especially useful to have someone else go over your response to the reviewers. It may also be useful to contact the Editor directly; they have asked you to resubmit so obviously think that your work has merit.

9 (revisited). Get it back out the door quickly. When asked to resubmit, unless the reviewers are suggesting major changes, it might be worthwhile dropping everything else and focusing on making the changes.

There is a little more than a page devoted entirely to a series of tips for effective tables and figures (pg. 5-6).

Table 3 (pg. 8-9) includes examples of different kinds of reviewer comments, with appropriate responses.


Note: I’m the Editor at OpenPhysio, an open-access, peer-reviewed online journal with a focus on physiotherapy education. If you’re doing interesting work in the classroom, even if you have no experience in publishing educational research, we’d like to help you share your stories.

Categories
Publication

Article: Predatory journals: No definition, no defense.

Everyone agrees that predatory publishers sow confusion, promote shoddy scholarship and waste resources. What is needed is consensus on a definition of predatory journals. This would provide a reference point for research into their prevalence and influence, and would help in crafting coherent interventions.

Grudniewicz, A. (2019). Predatory journals: no definition, no defence. Nature, 576, 210-212, doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y.
There exist a variety of checklists to determine if a journal is widely recognised as being “predatory” but the challenge is that few lists are consistent and some are overlapping, which is not helpful for authors.

The consensus definition reached by the authors of the paper:

Predatory journals and publishers are entities that prioritize self-interest at the expense of scholarship and are characterized by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, a lack of transparency, and/or the use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices.

Further details of the main concepts in the definition are included in the article.


Note: Some parts of this article were cross-posted at OpenPhysio, an open-access, peer-reviewed online journal with a focus on physiotherapy education. If you’re doing interesting work in the classroom, even if you have no experience in publishing educational research, we’d like to help you share your stories.

Categories
Publication research

Resource: The Scholarly Kitchen podcast.

The Society for Scholarly Publishing (SSP) is a “nonprofit organization formed to promote and advance communication among all sectors of the scholarly publication community through networking, information dissemination, and facilitation of new developments in the field.” I’m mainly familiar with SSP because I follow their Scholarly Kitchen blog series and only recently came across the podcast series throught the 2 episodes on Early career development (part 1, part 2). You can listen on the web at the links or subscribe in any podcast client by searching for “Scholarly Kitchen”.


Note: I’m the editor and founder of OpenPhysio, an open-access, peer-reviewed online journal with a focus on physiotherapy education. If you’re doing interesting work in the classroom, even if you have no experience in publishing educational research, we’d like to help you share your stories.

Categories
Publication

Resource: Advice for successful academics.

30 tips for successful academic research and publishing.

15 top tips for revising journal articles.

Ten tips for increasing your academic visibility.

Tips for qualitative researchers seeking funding – What not to leave out of your grant applications.

Opening up your research – Self-archiving for sociologists.

Why I blog.

Lupton, D. (2019). Resource: Advice for successful academics. This Sociological Life blog.

I’m a fan of Deborah Lupton’s writing and research in general but she also has a great sideline act where she shares her ideas on academic work at her blog, This Sociological Life. Over the years she’s published a few posts that sum up some of her thinking on academia and she’s now put those posts into a PDF that you can download.

If you’re an academic then you’re probably familiar with some of the challenges that Deborah highlights in this short collection of advice, from writing in general, to applying for funding, to reviewing papers. You’ll recognise that, while no-one can really “teach” you how to do any of this, a few suggestions from someone who’s done a lot of it can go a long way. The PDF is relatively short (14 pages) but includes links to additional resources on the topics that Deborah covers. This isn’t a document to read cover to cover (although you may find that valuable too) but something you can dip into every now and again for inspiration and guidance.

I hope you find it as useful as I did.


Note: I’m the editor and founder of OpenPhysio, an open-access, peer-reviewed online journal with a focus on physiotherapy education. If you’re doing interesting work in the classroom, even if you have no experience in publishing educational research, we’d like to help you share your stories.

Categories
Publication research scholarship

Article: Which are the tools available for scholars?

In this study, we explored the availability and characteristics of the assisting tools for the peer-reviewing process. The aim was to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the tools available at this time, and to hint at new trends for further developments…. Considering these categories and their defining traits, a curated list of 220 software tools was completed using a crowdfunded database to identify relevant programs and ongoing trends and perspectives of tools developed and used by scholars.

Israel Martínez-López, J., Barrón-González, S. & Martínez López, A. (2019). Which Are the Tools Available for Scholars? A Review of Assisting Software for Authors during Peer Reviewing Process. Publications, 7(3): 59.

The development of a manuscript is inherently a multi-disciplinary activity that requires a thorough examination and preparation of a specialized document.

This article provides a nice overview of the software tools and services that are available for authors, from the early stages of the writing process, all the way through to dissemination of your research more broadly. Along the way the authors also highlight some of the challenges and concerns with the publication process, including issues around peer review and bias.

This classification of the services is divided into the following nine categories:

  1. Identification and social media: Researcher identity and community building within areas of practice.
  2. Academic search engines: Literature searching, open access, organisation of sources.
  3. Journal-abstract matchmakers: Choosing a journal based on links between their scope and the article you’re writing.
  4. Collaborative text editors: Writing with others and enhancing the writing experience by exploring different ways to think about writing.
  5. Data visualization and analysis tools: Matching data visualisation to purpose, and alternatives to the “2 tables, 1 figure” limitations of print publication.
  6. Reference management: Features beyond simply keeping track of PDFs and folders; export, conversion between citation styles, cross-platform options, collaborating on citation.
  7. Proofreading and plagiarism detection: Increasingly sophisticated writing assistants that identify issues with writing and suggest alternatives.
  8. Data archiving: Persistent digital datasets, metadata, discoverability, DOIs, archival services.
  9. Scientometrics and Altmetrics: Alternatives to citation and impact factor as means of evaluating influence and reach.

There’s an enormous amount of information packed into this article and I found myself with loads of tabs open as I explored different platforms and services. I spend a lot of time thinking about writing, workflow and compatability, and this paper gave me even more to think about. If you’re fine with Word and don’t really get why anyone would need anything else, you probably don’t need to read this paper. But if you’re like me and get irritated because Word doesn’t have a “distraction free mode”, you may find yourself spending a couple of hours exploring options you didn’t know existed.


Note: I’m the editor and founder of OpenPhysio, an open-access, peer-reviewed online journal with a focus on physiotherapy education. If you’re doing interesting work in the classroom, even if you have no experience in publishing educational research, we’d like to help you share your stories.

Categories
AI education

Book chapter published: Shaping our algorithms before they shape us

I’ve just had a chapter published in an edited collection entitled: Artificial Intelligence and Inclusive Education: Speculative Futures and Emerging Practices. The book is edited by Jeremy Knox, Yuchen Wang and Michael Gallagher and is available here.

Here’s the citation: Rowe M. (2019) Shaping Our Algorithms Before They Shape Us. In: Knox J., Wang Y., Gallagher M. (eds) Artificial Intelligence and Inclusive Education. Perspectives on Rethinking and Reforming Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8161-4_9.

And here’s my abstract:

A common refrain among teachers is that they cannot be replaced by intelligent machines because of the essential human element that lies at the centre of teaching and learning. While it is true that there are some aspects of the teacher-student relationship that may ultimately present insurmountable obstacles to the complete automation of teaching, there are important gaps in practice where artificial intelligence (AI) will inevitably find room to move. Machine learning is the branch of AI research that uses algorithms to find statistical correlations between variables that may or may not be known to the researchers. The implications of this are profound and are leading to significant progress being made in natural language processing, computer vision, navigation and planning. But machine learning is not all-powerful, and there are important technical limitations that will constrain the extent of its use and promotion in education, provided that teachers are aware of these limitations and are included in the process of shepherding the technology into practice. This has always been important but when a technology has the potential of AI we would do well to ensure that teachers are intentionally included in the design, development, implementation and evaluation of AI-based systems in education.

Categories
writing

Summary: Ten simple rules for structuring papers

Good scientific writing is essential to career development and to the progress of science. A well-structured manuscript allows readers and reviewers to get excited about the subject matter, to understand and verify the paper’s contributions, and to integrate these contributions into a broader context. However, many scientists struggle with producing high-quality manuscripts and are typically untrained in paper writing. Focusing on how readers consume information, we present a set of ten simple rules to help you communicate the main idea of your paper. These rules are designed to make your paper more influential and the process of writing more efficient and pleasurable.

Mensh, B. & Kording, K. (2017). Ten simple rules for structuring papers. PLoS Computational Biology, 13(9): e1005619.

Thank you to Guillaume Christe for pointing to this paper on Twitter. While I’m not convinced that the title should refer to “rules” I thought it was a useful guide to thinking about article structure. I’m also aware that most people won’t have time to read the whole thing so I’m posting the summary notes I made while reading it. Having said that, I think whole paper (link here) is definitely worth reading. And, if you like this you may also like this table of suggestions from Josh Bernoff’s Writing without bullshit. OK, on with the summary.

First, there’s this helpful table from the authors as a very brief overview.

https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005619.t001

Principles (Rules 1–4)

Rule 1: Focus your paper on a central contribution, which you communicate in the title. Adding more ideas may be necessary but they make it harder for the reader to remember what the paper is about. If the title doesn’t make a reader want to read the paper, all the work is for nothing. A focused title can also help the author to stay on track.

Rule 2: Write for flesh-and-blood human beings who do not know your work. You are the least qualified person to judge your writing from the perspective of the reader. Design the paper for someone who must first be made to care about your topic, and then who wants to understand your answer with minimal effort. This is not about showing how clever you are.

Rule 3: Stick to the context-content-conclusion (C-C-C) scheme. Aim to write “popular” (i.e. memorable and re-tellable) stories that have a clear beginning, middle and end. While there are many ways to tell stories, each of which engages different readers, this structure is likely to be appropriate for most. Also, the structure of the paper need not be chronological.

Rule 4: Optimize your logical flow by avoiding zig-zag and using parallelism. Only the central idea of a paper should be presented in multiple places. Group similar ideas together to avoid moving the reader’s attention around.

The components of a paper (Rules 5–8)

Rule 5: Tell a complete story in the abstract. Considering that the abstract may be (is probably) the only part of the paper that is read, it should tell the whole story. Ensure that the reader has enough context (i.e. background/introduction) to interpret the results). Avoid writing the abstract as an afterthought, as it often requires many iterations to do it’s job well.

Rule 6: Communicate why the paper matters in the introduction. The purpose of the introduction is to describe the gap that the study aims to fill. It should not include a broad literature review but rather narrow the focus of attention to the problem under consideration.

Rule 7: Deliver the results as a sequence of statements, supported by figures, that connect logically to support the central contribution. While there are different ways of presenting results, often discipline-specific, the main purpose is to convince the reader that the central claim is supported by data and argument. The raw data should be presented alongside the interpretation in order to allow the reader to reach their own conclusions (hopefully, these are aligned with the intent of the paper).

Rule 8: Discuss how the gap was filled, the limitations of the interpretation, and the relevance to the field. The discussion explains how the findings have filled the gap/answered the question that was posed in the introduction. If often includes limitations and suggestions for future research.

Process (Rules 9 and 10)

Rule 9: Allocate time where it matters: Title, abstract, figures, and outlining. Spend time on areas that demonstrate the central theme and logic of the argument. The methods section is often ignored, so budget time accordingly. Outline the argument throughout the paper by writing one informal sentence for each planned paragraph.

Rule 10: Get feedback to reduce, reuse, and recycle the story. Try not to get too attached to the writing, as it may be more efficient to delete whole sections and start again, than to proceed by iterative editing. Try to describe the entire paper in a few sentences, which help to identify the weak areas. Aim to get critical feedback from multiple readers with different backgrounds.


And finally, here’s a great figure to show how each section can be structured using the guidelines in the article.

https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005619.g001
Categories
AI learning

Knowledge is more important than money

Those who work really hard throughout their career but don’t take time out of their schedule to constantly learn will be the new “at-risk” group. They risk remaining stuck on the bottom rung of global competition, and they risk losing their jobs to automation, just as blue-collar workers did between 2000 and 2010 when robots replaced 85 percent of manufacturing jobs.

Simmons, M. (2017). 5-Hour Rule: If you’re not spending 5 hours per week learning, you’re being irresponsible.

As I mentioned in my Plans! post from a few days ago, I’m trying to make more space in my day for reading. It’s partly because I enjoy reading more than almost anything else and partly because of my growing conviction that reading is one of the most important things I could be doing with my time. Reading is also a pre-requisite for being able to write well and I’d like to improve my writing quality and output during 2019. This post is really just a writing exercise where I expand on one of the points that I made in the post I just mentioned, providing some background and rationale for why I want to read more (this may become a short series of posts where I unpack my thinking around my plans).

In the early stages of your career, you want to focus on building what Cal Newport calls career capital, which is a shorthand for the kind of credibility that you can only get through hard graft. It’s the characteristic that makes people trust you because you’ve demonstrated a track record of consistently good work. It’s not just about showing up on time; it’s about how you show up. While career capital can be turned into financial reward, it’s really unlikely (unless you come from old money) that you can have money without first putting in the work. So it seems to me that you should make choices, especially early on in your career, that increase your chances of learning something new rather than looking for a bigger paycheque. Promotions are fine things to aim for but they won’t always lead to better opportunities in the long-term if they’re not associated with a high level of career capital (and yes, it’s possible to promote without having done the work).

Kevin Kelley said that you should “move into spaces that increase your options” but you can’t do this without first having a solid foundation of broad and deep knowledge of the world, or at least in your domain of interest. There are few opportunities available for those who are left behind and in the second decade of the 21st century, it’s become increasingly clear that many professionals are at risk of being left behind. Automation and machine learning are likely to make many tasks that we consider routine, redundant. Imagine if 25% of your daily work was automated away; what would you do with those extra 2 hours? Will you simply work fewer hours (at lower pay)? Or will you be ready to fill that time with meaningful tasks that machines can’t automate?

I started this post by saying that knowledge is more important than money because a high salary is a poor indicator of your ability to adapt to automation, whereas knowledge is the one thing that can help you to move quickly. The only way to plan for an uncertain future is to keep learning and one of the best ways to learn is to read.

Categories
writing

PSA: Writing is hard

A few days ago I submitted a chapter for an edited collection on Speculative Futures for Artificial Intelligence and Educational Inclusion and I thought I’d take a moment to share some of my experience in writing it. When I talk about writing with colleagues I get the impression that they’re waiting for the moment when writing becomes easier, and are therefore in a continuous cycle of disappointment because it never does. This public service announcement is for anyone who thinks that you will one day arrive at a point where writing is easy.

The original abstract was submitted about 4 months ago and represented what I thought would make a compelling contribution to the collection. But over time I realised that the argument I was trying to make felt forced and I just couldn’t get enough out of it to make it worthwhile. This is after 2 months and about 6000 words. About a month before the due date I decided to throw most of it away and start again, this time from a new position that I thought was stronger and would make more of a novel contribution. I deleted about 4000 words.

After a few weeks, I had my first full draft of about 8000 words that needed to be cut to 6000. At this point, I started printing it out and editing by hand. After editing on paper I go back to the digital version and rewrite. Then I print it again, edit, revise and print. I usually do this 3-4 times before a final submission. The pictures below were taken on the 3rd revision of the full draft. You can see that I’m still pretty dissatisfied with how things were going. Maybe it’s because I’m not a very good writer, or maybe my thinking was still incoherent.

When I finally submitted the chapter I was still pretty unhappy with it. There were significant parts of it that felt rough. There were still a few weak arguments. Some of the sentences were awkward. And to top it all, I’m still not entirely convinced that the contribution is going to add much value to the collection (because, imposter syndrome). Now that I’ve spent 3-4 months thinking about the topic I can’t help feeling that it’s pretty average.

Maybe I’ll get better with the next one? Maybe that’s the one that will be right. Or, maybe writing is just hard.