Throughout the day I received no emails, no text messages, no spammy newsletters, and no other kinds of notifications. It’s amazing that I find this strange. I never realized how much stress is caused by those little red bubbles telling me that something needs my attention, or that I have to respond to whoever is on the other end. Don’t get me wrong, I want to interact with friends and be up to date on various activities, but it’s important to tune all of that out once in a while.

I’m glad that my sleep day went beyond just turning off my alarm. It’s funny how things work out that way.

It’s a very interesting read, highlighting the general attitude towards space exploration during the late 1950s, 11 years before humans stepped foot on the moon. It also includes a general timeline of research objectives and potential feats that scientists of the time believed would be accomplished soon. Among the items on this list, only one is still incomplete.

Notably, Brughmans does not use slide-based presentation software such as Microsoft Powerpoint or Apple Keynote, but instead uses Prezi. Prezi allows you to present your work as if it is all laid out on a canvas, and enables you to zoom and pan along as you focus in on finer details or depict a broader scheme. It is a highly visual teaching aid that allows a viewer to gain a clear conceptual picture of the content, akin to a map composed of many scales. Prezi is especially useful to present research composed of various embedded components, such as Brughmans’ work. He examined how a set of 70 initial publications cited each other, and also looked at other ‘degrees’ of citations that extend from these initial works (the interrelations between all citations of these 70 publications, and all citations of these citations in turn).

Interestingly, I noticed that I focused less on the physicality of Brughmans, as I was so engaged with the visual aspect of the presentation. However, he still maintained a presence as a narrator, guiding the viewer through the introduction, the data and methods, the various degrees of analysis, and the conclusions. It’s reminiscent of Khan Academy videos, wherein you only see the depictions of the concepts on a multi-scalar black background, drawn as you go along with the course, but you never Salman Khan’s face. One flaw I noticed, however, is that there were many long sentences used throughout, which Brughmans read almost verbatim. Instead, I think it would be better to keep these points abbreviated, elaborating on them based on more detailed notes kept behind the podium.

Also interesting, is that Brughmans presented his work as a narrative, pointing out how his analyses either confirmed his expectations or surprised him. When his results were unexpected, he explained his thought processes that led him to take the next step of his analyses. Brughmans was also sure to point out the amount of work that he put in, especially regarding manual data entry. This helped illustrate some of the limitations that he faced and how it would be difficult for anyone to overcome them, considering the size of the dataset. In spite of this, it’s a good way of showing to the audience that he was directly involved in collecting, mining, analyzing, and interpreting the data, and that this research was entirely dependant on his efforts.

Overall, I think that this presentation was very good. I look forward to seeing him present in person sometime in the near future.

The Good

Broodbank, C. 1993 Ulysses without Sails: Trade, Distance, Knowledge and Power in the Early Cyclades. World Archaeology 24(3):315-331. 

This article is one of the first studies of regional interaction of the Cycladic Islands that utilized network analysis methods. Broodbank takes off from ideas presented in a previous publication, when he posited that a handful of major Neolithic centres were able to control maritime trade, taking advantage of their unique positions in the system of interaction. This paper attempts to identify these loci using Proximal Point Analysis (PPA), and explain how their position within trade networks may have contributed to their advancement.

Right off the bat, Broodbank quotes Mary Helms’ Ulysses’ Sail (1988), and opens up a discussion on the construction of value. In particular, there is a focus on the transmission of knowledge as a source of power, a topic which is referred to throughout the text and acts as a basis for the author’s arguments. The use of theory is not compartmentalized, and is utilized comprehensively to construct the author’s arguments. At the same time, Broodbank uses solid methods that scaffold the theory. However, Knappet, Evans and Rivers (2008) have briefly critiqued Broodbank’s use of PPA and suggest that alternative models (namely a gravity model) may be better suited for similar research.

I also like how Broodbank asks many questions. Some are hypothetical, the answers to which are only understood at a later point in the text, and some are answered right away. In all cases, they make the reader think about what it is Broodbank is searching for. They re-frame the reader in the same light as the author, and reposition the main focus to his point of view. This is a very clever way of ensuring compatibility between the author and the reader.

- – - – - – - - - – - – - – - - - – - – - – - - - – - – - – - - - – - – - – - - - – - – - – - - - – - – - – - - - – - – - – - - - – - – - – - - - – - – - – - - - – - – - – - - - – - – - – - — – - – - – - – - -

The Bad

Fitzhugh, B. Phillips, S.C. and Gjesfjeld, E. Modelling Hunter-Gatherer Information Networks: An Archaeological Case Study from the Kuril Islands. In Information and its Role in Hunter-Gatherer Bands, eds. Robert Whallon, Willian A. Lovis and Robert K. Hitchcock, pp. 85-115. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press. 

This book chapter, which appeared in Information and its Role in Hunter-Gatherer Bands, edited by Robert Whallon, William A. Lovis and Robert K. Hitchcock, is a piece of writing that I think could be written better. The authors develop a model that aims to frame linkages between hunter-gatherer groups within constraints posed by the environment. This topic is appropriate for the publication this text appears in, however there are some structural issues that need to be addressed. There are also some issues with the study itself, and I briefly touch on them.

After introducing the topic, identifying assumptions, and defining key terms, the chapter seems to be divided into two main portions. The first part presents the underlying theory about the potential relations that may exist between hunter-gatherer groups. This is a key part of the text, since it lays out the model the authors propose. This model consists of two variables, (a) the cost of interaction between groups and (b) the predictability of the environment. The matching of high and low values (but nothing in between) for these variables suggests four possible outcomes, and the authors characterize how they would envision interactions between hunter-gatherer groups under each set of circumstances. Although the four sets of variables and their characteristic modes of interaction were described very well in a summary of the model, this was preceded by a thorough yet somewhat confusing discussion on certain types of linkages that we’d expect to observe in various circumstances. The confusion stems from the heavy use of the same word, or variations of that word, multiple times in some sentences (for example, the words ‘predictability’, ‘non-predictability’, ‘high-predictability’, and ‘low-predictability’ are all used very often).

Additionally, some of the arguments Fitzhugh, Phillips and Gjesfjeld make are in part based on very general statements regarding the behaviour of modern hunter-gatherers, that seemingly follow a logic of ‘common sense’. However, many of these assertions are not backed up by any ethnographic references. There are also many instances where it may be beneficial to engage with the literature surrounding social anthropological views towards systems thinking, but there was little to no effort to do so. Additionally, I noticed a few instances when the authors made questionable assertions about the properties of network and possible implications for maintaining network coherence (p. 89-90, 95-96).

The second part of this text was concerned with a case study that aimed to situate the model discussed above to the Kuril Island Chain, located between Japan and Russia in the North Pacific Ocean. The authors identified source groups of pottery and obsidian artefacts that were found on many of the islands (they did not specify whether the sources of the raw materials were identified as well, although they did note which end of the island chain they originated from), and they attempted to trace the circulation of these artefacts throughout the archipelago. The authors provided details regarding the environmental conditions of the region as well. Thus, values for the two variables of the proposed model were defined, and the authors determined which modes of interaction the island network would support based on the set of circumstances that are evident. Even though only a small portion of the artefacts analyzed were chronologically dated, the goal of the authors was to formulate a predictive framework for understanding hunter-gatherer interaction patterns, and to test whether the Kuril island chain would support such a framework. The authors did accurately predict the kinds of connections that were evident based on their model, and even though the chronology was mixed up, the potential modes of interaction that the geography allowed matched what was evident in the archaeological record. However, this model should be tested using other archipelagoes since the Kuril island chain is rather linear, and the matching of artefacts with material source may have been evident based on geographical proximity rather than conformity to this model.

Brughmans, Tom
2010 Connecting the Dots: Towards Archaeological Network Analysis. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 29(3):277-303.

This paper presents network analysis as a flexible set of analytical tools that can be applied to explore a variety of archaeological topics, while rejecting the notion that network analysis methods can be applied as a standardized, ‘cookie-cutter’ set of practices. Brughmans touches on some major issues surrounding the use of network analysis by archaeologists, and strongly suggests that archaeologists should carefully consider the issues and subsequent ramifications on interpretation when applying network analysis to their research. These issues that Brughmans suggests archaeologists of this sub-specialty should consider are:

• The role of archaeological data in networks;
• The diversity of network structures, their consequences and their interpretation;
• The critical use of quantitative tools;
• The influence of other disciplines, especially sociology (p. 284)

The author evaluates recent studies that utilized network analysis methods to examine various topics of archaeological concern, and points towards the ways that each sought to answer the questions at hand. He does this by highlighting the nature of the data, how the analysis of said data was interpreted, the specific methods that were chosen to enlighten our understanding of the archaeological topic being examined, and whether the study was conducted with an archaeological framework in mind. Additionally, Brughmans conducts his own analysis as a case study, pointing towards his considerations of these issues as he formulates various conclusions. By looking closely at how archaeologists have dealt with these issues, which may be very implicit in some cases, Brughmans illustrates how network analysis can be tremendously useful, but only while suiting the analyses to the questions at hand.

Just as a builder must examine a blueprint of the building he wishes to construct, understand the properties of the foundation he builds upon, and utilize the proper tools when appropriate, a network analyst must define the nature of the relationships he or she wishes to explore, understand which tools to use and what the ramifications will be, while keeping in mind the nature of the dataset. Brughmans shows that there are no standardized methods or modes of interpretation, and that network analysis must be done in light of the wider archaeological and contextual frameworks that surround the topic being researched. I am currently constructing an archaeological framework, reading about various archaeological topics that relate to what I am examining as part of my research (this is the focus of my literature review). This is also helping me more clearly define the relationships I will examine and how they can be drawn out of the data I will be using.

- – - – - – - - - – - – - – - - - – - – - – - - - – - – - – - - - – - – - – - - - – - – - – - - - – - – - – - - - – - – - – - - - – - – - – - - - – - – - – - - - – - – - – - - - – - – - – - - - – - – - – - - - – -

Sindbæk, Søren Michael
2007 The Small World of the Vikings: Networks in Early Medieval Communication and Exchange. Norwegian Archaeological Review 40(1):59-74.

In this paper, Sindbæk examines the structure of communication and exchange networks in Viking Age Scandinavia by analysing the travels of Anskar as depicted in the Vita Anskarii, and by tracing a web of imported artefacts that is indicative of regional trade and interaction. This article also challenges the viability of two well-observed archaeological models regarding regional exchange (the down-the-line model and central place theory) by indicating how they conflict with models that explain the development of complex networks, such as the ones Sindbæk analyses. Sindbæk points out that the down-the-line model treats all sites as having equal opportunities for trade and exchange that is assumed to occur randomly among neighbouring sites. However recent observations on common properties of complex networks indicate that this kind of organization rarely occurs. Sindbæk also argues that central place theory is flawed since it assumes that certain sites will have eventually grown into the large urban centres that are evident today, which ignores the development process. A complex network approach, on the other hand, takes such dynamic processes into account.

By taking on a complex network theory approach and by utilizing network analysis methods, Sindbæk shows that networks based on both the travels of Anskar and the co-presence of imported artefacts form small-world systems with scale-free structures. That is, a few highly connected sites act as hubs that broker interactions between clusters of smaller, more sparsely connected sites. Interestingly, these two networks, which represent communication and exchange systems respectively, correspond with each other at various points. The author also utilizes his analyses to illustrate his concerns regarding the down-the-line model and central place theory.

Sindbæk’s article is a tremendously helpful analysis that has helped me develop some ideas for my own research. The identification of clusters that are evident in the network topology, which Sindbæk colour-coded and arranged by region, got me thinking more about the incorporation of geographical and economic aspects into my analyses. The discussions concerning the down-the-line model and central place theory were very insightful as well, however I am unsure about what kind of impact these arguments have had on the broader archaeological community. Also, whether it was intended or not, the analysis and discussion of Anskar’s travels and how this impacts our understanding of Viking Age communications systems really helped humanize the way I look at network analysis.
- – - – - – - - - – - – - – - - - – - – - – - - - – - – - – - - - – - – - – - - - – - – - – - - - – - – - – - - - – - – - – - - - – - – - – - - - – - – - – - - - – - – - – - - - – - – - – - - - – - – - – - - - – -
Watkins, Trevor
2008 Supra-Regional Networks in the Neolithic of Southwest Asia. Journal of World Prehistory 21:139-171.

In this article, Watkins recognizes that archaeologists still tend to identify ‘cultures’ based on the identification of similar artefact styles, and proposes an alternative, bottom-up approach to these inter-site similarities that become more evident during the Early Neolithic. The author asserts that as individual sites began to exchange materials and information, exhibiting the three modes of interaction as described in Renfrew’s model of peer-polity interaction (competition and competitive emulation, symbolic entrainment and the transmission of innovation, and increased flow in the exchange of goods), a broader ‘level’ of shared material culture and practices emerges.

Although it is not made explicit, this point of view seems to be influenced by general systems theory. In essence, Watkins describes how multiple agents (communities) interact in such a way so that a deeper system emerges. This bottom-up approach, which views similar material culture or innovations as the product of developing interactions, holds potential to explain rather than simply describe the distribution of cultural assemblages. This article acts as a strong theoretical base that I must refer back to while conducting my own research on the emergence of broader systems in the same setting that Watkins examined.

So I began imagining the ultimate reference management application. I sometimes come up with visions of an app I wish someone would make, but they tend to simply remain as visions. I’ve posted one great idea on this blog back in October, about how I would design an ideal library app.¹ Writing about it on my blog really helped me develop my ideas, so below is a rough brainstorm of some ways I’d like it to work if faced with no obstacles.

Overview

The application is browser-based. My inspiration is largely garnered from Astrid, Google Wave, Google Docs and Gmail, so try to see it through those lenses. One of my main goals is to centralize and unify the collection of references. An omnibox will be used to search a wide array of databases, catalogues and data repositories, scrape citation info by inputting a URL, search a shared Dropbox folder storing PDFs or other documents, and simply search through already organized references.

Interface

Index

• The main interface, called the ‘Index’, is primarily focused on a list of references, containing only essential citation data.
• Selecting a reference reveals more detailed citation info, any tags a user may have applied, and an embed if applicable.
• Selecting a reference also shows your history of ‘actions’, which includes creation, attaching PDFs, annotations, shares, as well as internal links to highlighted parts and comments within. This is inspired by Astrid’s detailed history for tasks.
• A central search box would allow users to search and collect citation info from multiple databases (such as Google Scholar, WorldCat, JSTOR), library catalogues, or even open data repositories (like TDAR, Open Context or Pleiades).
• References may be ‘archived’ when not needed, and pinned to your ‘inbox’ when they relate to your current work. This is inspired by Gmail’s archive function.

Annotations

• PDFs are opened in another browser tab, where they can be annotated.
• The annotations tab contains the entire document, along with a tools pane.
• Tools include:
  • Highlight
  • Comment
  • Quote
  • Free-draw
  • Screenshot
• Various utilities may also be included:
  • Calculator
  • Sketch pad
  • Mini Google Maps module
  • Dictionary and thesaurus
  • Wolfram Alpha
  • Wikipedia

• All text-based annotations are in plain text.
• All text-based annotations are compatible with XML, Markup and LATEX.
• SoundCloud-like annotations will be used for audio and video content.

Adding references

• Search databases, catalogues and open data repositories via a central, omnibox-like search utility.
• A browser extension allows users to pull citation information directly from a web page, similarly to Zotero.
  • Alternatively, it may be possible to do this by pasting a URL into the omnibox.
• Manual input is also supported of course.
• PDFs and other materials can be attached to references by searching through a public Dropbox folder containing these files.
• VPN credentials or library login info can be input for easier retrieval of PDFs.

Collaboration and Sharing

• A side pane from the Index would allow connected users to chat with each other.
  • This would be in the style of Google Wave.
  • Chats are conversation based.
• You can drag references from the Index to the chat in order to share it with the participants.
• Annotations can also be shared.
  • You can view what others are typing in real time.
  • You can have the option to share specific kinds of annotations.

Compiling bibliographies

• Bibliographies are compiled into .html files in ‘plain text’ and opened in a new tab, along with a shortlink.
  • This ensures that anyone can view it, even if they don’t have specialty software to open proprietary file types.
  • This also allows bibliographic information to be copied and pasted to any text editor with ease.
• Bibliographies can be exported to a variety of file formats as well.
• Collections of references assigned to a tag can be compiled into an RSS feed.

Workflow

• Integration with Google Calendar, Google Docs, Dropbox

Things to keep in mind

I’ve noticed that books seem to be exceptional in any iteration of reference management applications. There needs to be a better way to handle books.

There’s also the issue of sharing copyrighted material stored in a public Dropbox folder. Files can’t legally be shared with others, but there’s no laws against sharing files with yourself. Perhaps the Dropbox folder could act a database itself, and this app could essentially ‘organize’ the files into folders respective of their authors, dates of publication, or other bibliographic information specified by the user. Then, files associated with annotations could be linked with the PDF’s as an ‘overlay’. The only legal issue would be sharing of PDFs with others, but this sort of things varies across institutions.

It doesn’t really seem like I’ll be working on this anytime in the near (or distant?) future. In any case, because this is the ideal reference management app it would be licensed under creative commons and be freely available :)

1. After bouncing my ideas off friends and colleagues, and discovering that this solution is actually useful, novel, and in demand, I’m hoping to team up with some of the librarians at McMaster to develop it. There is interest in it, but I must wait for administrative shuffles to be made before proceeding.

This article is very well laid out, starting with an overview of the broader assumptions archaeologists make regarding human decision making, and how these variables translate to our ideas regarding spatial interaction. Johnson then goes on to evaluate how these variables are applied, choosing to examine gravity models in greater detail. By discussing some of the key concepts that underlie this kind of model, Johnson prepares to engage the reader in discussions about how regional systems of interaction develop and operate.

The way that Johnson wrote this paper is well-thought out. He starts off by pointing towards some basic concepts that underlie the study of regional interaction. This allows non-specialized readers to engage with the language and the modes of thought that are commonly utilized when discussing such topics. Then he utilizes the gravity model to show how these fundamental principles can be fitted together in order to examine regional interaction, and also describes some deficiencies of this concept. By pointing out flaws associated with use of the gravity model, Johnson actually enhances the reader’s understanding of how the fundamental variables discussed earlier should be properly utilized. Johnson recognizes this and even goes on to say that “if gravity models provide nothing else, they do encourage archaeologists to consider more systematically the variables involved in interaction” (Johnson 1977:487).

Once the reader grasps how to properly understand and interpret ideas relating to regional interaction, Johnson goes on to discuss more complex issues that have been tackled using such a perspective. This portion of the article provides a more in depth look at the development of systems of interaction, which is embedded in discussions on the adoption of sedentary lifestyles and agricultural practices. These topics could not have been discussed through a lens of regional interaction without a prior understanding of the concepts relating to this sub-specialty.

As much as this article is a review of contemporary discussions concerning the development of systems of interaction, it also acts as an explanatory piece that shows how to properly formulate and interpret ideas relating to this sub-specialty. In addition to reviewing some basic principles of the study of regional interaction, Johnson highlights some novel ways of thinking about state formation, the growth of certain sites over others, and the development of hierarchies. These ideas all fit within the framework that he develops throughout the article, building upon examples that were mentioned earlier.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Johnson, G.A. 1977 Aspects of Regional Analysis in Archaeology. Annual Reviews of Anthropology (6):479-508.

My MA research will utilize social network analysis to gain a better understanding of regional interactions from the Epi-Palaeolithic to the Chalcolithic in SW Asia and Mesopotamia. Using obsidian sourcing data I will construct a network of interaction in order to document the growing complexity of regional exchange that was occurring during this broad period. During the Pre-Pottery Neolithic obsidian begins to be traded more widely, and objects are often found very distant from their volcanic sources. It is my intention to document and explain the growing complexity of interaction in this region, similarly to how Golitko et al. (2012) examined the obsidian exchange from the Mayan Classic to Postclassic periods. Certain ‘groupings’ of sites that consumed obsidian in a similar manner (either by source, typology, use or context of deposition) will become more evident through SNA methods, and I hope to compare these groupings to the occurrence of other archaeological materials (pottery styles, architectural motifs, burial customs, etc).

At the moment my thoughts are scattered, and I need to pick up the pieces and arrange them nicely. My research question is not very well-thought out, and I’m having a hard time coming up with an brief ‘elevator pitch’ that accurately describes what I am working on. By collecting my thoughts and writing them out I will be able to solidify my ideas and come up with a concrete research objective. Essentially I will describe how obsidian was used throughout prehistory in SW Asia and Mesopotamia, and how archaeologists have made use of the obsidian data. These are the benefits of introducing my thesis in this way:

• By outlining how obsidian was procured, manufactured and consumed, I provide a glimpse of the assumptions I’m making.
• It goes over the history of the examination of obsidian, describing past interpretations by archaeologists. Of course, emphasis will be placed on studies of regional interaction. This also gives me an opportunity to reflect on ideas developed by archaeologists who do not specialize in this region.
• It sets my research within broader archaeological debates.
• It allows me to segway into the benefits of using SNA methods.
• Most importantly, it allows me to set up the necessary ‘foundations’ that need to be explained before I get to my research objective. I find it difficult to just talk about what I am researching without situating my work within broader discussions. I find that all of the above is necessary to evoke before introducing my work.

This introductory chapter will probably exceed the 20-25 pages expected for this class. However, I do find it necessary to complete this chapter before the summer, when I will be compiling a database of obsidian artefacts. Having a proper understanding of your objectives is necessary in order to collect relevant data.

I will divide this piece of writing into components, and assign due dates for each one. The final piece is due April 12. The component outlining the production and consumption of obsidian will be due February 24. The part examining past archaeological interpretations of obsidian will be due March 15. A finished draft will be due March 20 and a second draft will be due March 27, as is stated in the course syllabus.

I’ll also post the outlines for each component, listing all the aspects I will cover. Maybe I’ll make a google doc, and I’ll write in a different colour every time I add contrent or change things around. This will make me think critically about how I write since it is being shown to a wider audience, and it will allow me to see my train of thought once this is all finished. Also, if any of my peers in this class have any suggestions they can comment on the google doc. But perhaps this is taking things too far, I don’t want to write in fear of constant criticism. On the other hand, this kind of pressure can act as a great motivator. I like the idea of writing in non-isolation, and I was even thinking about regularly writing in this wordpress text editor  because I somehow feel more comfortable blogging. I think that it has to do with the public exposure and the relative informality that I associate with blogging. I feel that it would be beneficial to apply the way I blog to my academic writing, so maybe this is the way to go? Dr. Roddick talks about how we need to make writing more social, but does this also imply complete transparency? Perhaps I’ll try this out, and if it doesn’t work I’ll call it quits and go back to ‘normal’ writing.

EDIT: After thinking about it, I’m considering doing a literature review instead, looking towards other relevant studies. This accomplishes the same goal, and the only thing I’ll be removing really is the first portion regarding the production and consumption of obsidian.

EDIT 2: After some more contemplation I’ve settled on a topic. Essentially I’ll be answering these questions:

How have archaeologists looked at obsidian circulation, and how can SNA be used to engage in these discussions?

EDIT 3: I realize that I never provided a concrete outline for this, so I included one below:

1. Introduction to this chapter

2. Obsidian characterization

• How it works
• Early endeavours at obsidian sourcing

3. Obsidian characterization and the study of exchange

• In SW Asia and Mesopotamia
• In other regions

4. Social network analysis in archaeological, anthropological and historical research

• Using SNA to research regional interaction
• Using objects/material culture
• Using other kinds of sources

5. How my project contributes to broader discussions/conclusion

I’m going to start off on a positive note. What are the conditions that enable me to write well, get on a roll, and hammer down ideas like it’s nobody’s business? First of all, I like writing in a busy environment. I like working in coffee shops, atriums, lobbies, libraries or even household kitchens or living rooms. However, I prefer to be by myself at the same time. I know this seems contradictory, but I must be isolated within a crowd in order to do my best writing, like sitting alone in a coffee shop for instance. If I am forced to write at a desk in my room, away from hustle and bustle, I tend to play some ambient instrumental music, which gets me into a rhythm. This helps the ideas flow onto a page, and allows me to skip over a troubled sentence, preserving the rhythm that the song provides for me. I can go for hours like this without leaving my desk, and if I get up to get some water or do some other mundane task, this ‘roll’ will probably be over when I get back.

I find that when I write productively I enter a certain mindset that breaks very easily. Before I start I try to conclude my prior thoughts, perhaps by finishing up my leisurely online reading list or sending off an email that I’ve been contemplating about. But this can backfire, I can find an article that links me to a chain of other articles, or I could get side-tracked into dealing with whatever the email is about.

I also try to make sure that everything I need is within arms reach. I close every non-relevant program on my computer, I open the most important sources on my PDF reader/browser (I find that reading PDFs in Chrome is best), and I clear my desk so only essential things are right next to me. I have a pretty broad desk that allows me to spread out, but some coffee shops have very small tables that don’t permit you to stretch out.

After reflecting on my writing habits, it seems that I work in two stages. First I try to get my main ideas onto paper (or rather a word processor) in a cohesive and comprehensive way. I find that once these ideas are down, which is often the main challenge for me, supplementary work is much easier. This would consist of reorganizing and smoothing out paragraphs, transitioning ideas, linking back to the thesis, or adding examples or analogies to illustrate a point. I sometimes get side-tracked when doing this. I could get carried away with a certain side-point that I try to emphasize too much, or I could be looking for an example from previous work on the topic when I stumble across another somewhat relevant article that takes me in a different direction. I often have to remind myself that I have a paper to write, and that I have to continue on the course that I laid out. So the ‘roll’, the uninterruptible mindset that enables me to get a paper finished, could be applied to both of these stages of writing.

If there’s one way to characterize my writing process, it’s this: once I’m in ‘the zone’ I tend to be very productive. It’s getting there, and staying there, that is the main challenge for me.

• #1 – Your writing workflow: A blog post on your writing process and a reflection of what slows you down, or where writer’s block emerges.
• #2 – An Outline: A basic outline of the writing you wish to complete this semester.
• #3 – Review of a “Reviews in Anthropology” article: Find an article pertinent to your work and analyze the strengths of the literature review.
• #4 – Knowing your audience & recognizing the skeleton of written work: Annotations of 3 articles in 3 Anthropological journals.
• #5 – The Good and the Bad: Discussion of what makes articles fail and succeed by looking at an excellent article and a weak one.
• #6 – Review of a good presentation: Within the department, at a conference, or from a Youtube link.

I think blogging is a great medium for a course like this. Blogging can help students gain confidence in their writing abilities, formulate ideas that can be shared and discussed, balance the formality of academic writing, and develop a presence among peers. I find that blogging is easier to do than writing a formal piece, as I tend to consider blogging more ‘active’. I want this view to change. Both blogging and ‘formal’ academic writing should be considered active, and these lessons just described should be applied to any piece of work. By the end of the course I hope I’ll be able to apply my current mindset regarding blogging to other forms of writing as well.