Writing Workshops

Abstracts play a vital role in the communication of research. Studies show that abstracts are the most frequently read part of a research article: abstracts help researchers determine whether or not to read the entire study. But how do writers communicate the relevance and legitimacy of their research to members of the discipline, and beyond? This evidence-based workshop introduces two typical structures for abstracts, while accounting for differences in disciplines and purposes.

Did you know that 40% of language production in English is formulaic, that is, made up of common expressions? However, producing effective writing in English can be challenging for many non-native writers of English. The good news is, these formulaic expressions can be learned. This workshop is designed for those who speak English as an additional language. In this workshop, participants are introduced to common expressions that perform a number of basic functions in academic English. Participants will walk away with a better understanding of how to use common academic English expressions in their writing, as well as the motivation and confidence to develop a larger repertoire of these expressions to further improve their academic English writing proficiency.

One of the major challenges that academic writers encounter is making connections within the text, for example, making comparisons and drawing conclusions. Rather than counting on readers to figure out the meaning of a difficult text, academic writing requires writers to make clear connections between ideas. In this workshop, we introduce a variety of academic expressions that are commonly used by academic writers to outline the overall structure of the text, or specify the relationships between sentences. At the end of the workshop, participants will walk away with an awareness of the writer-responsible nature of academic writing, and develop better facility with using academic expressions to connect ideas in their own writing practice.

Writing an effective Introduction is not an easy task, especially for multilingual writers who speak English as an additional language. As a complement to the workshop “Research Article Introductions: Mind the Gap” this workshop introduces participants to common academic expressions characteristic of Introductions (e.g., background context, literature review, knowledge gap). Participants will walk away with a better understanding of common academic expressions that facilitate effective communication in the Introduction section.

Lay summaries offer researchers opportunities to increase the visibility and accessibility of their research and thus invite public dialogue. As a way to promote science communication, many open access journals, public policy institutes, and granting agencies require researchers to provide summaries of their studies for non-specialists. But how do scholars communicate specialized research to non-specialist audiences, and why? This evidence-based workshop introduces researchers to some of the ways in which lay summaries differ from scientific abstracts and enhance science communication.

The research article is the most privileged form of publication in which academics present their intellectual contributions. As such, research article conclusions offer writers several final opportunities to engage with readers in this high-stakes writing situation. With conclusions in mind, the facilitator explores some of the organizational patterns of research articles written in English, while accounting for disciplinary norms and differences.

Research shows that writers of research article introductions establish an original research space by pointing out a research gap or problem that the current study aims to address. In this way, the introduction offers an opportunity for writers to begin to tell the research story, or summarize the scholarly conversation, in order to take their own conversational turn. But how do writers persuade readers that the research gap or problem is consequential? In order to answer this question, the workshop facilitator analyzes a number of real-world examples across a range of disciplines.

How does one give a successful academic talk? “Make eye contact,” “be confident,” “dress professionally”… The advice that we often receive tends to focus on the performance aspect of “presenting”, rather than viewing it as an opportunity to communicate and further our research. This workshop aims to help participants develop a better understanding of how to engage in scholarly conversations. By analyzing successful examples of academic talks, the facilitator discusses some of the essential elements of this academic genre and offers strategies for telling a successful research story.

Researchers who study academic writing across the disciplines offer a number of evidence-based models for the macro-structure of research grant proposals. This writing workshop draws on that body of research to produce a versatile, malleable, and dynamic model or heuristic to help solve the problem of what a grant proposal achieves and how.

Literature reviews accomplish several purposes for scholars writing up their research study, or research story, in order to summarize the scholarly conversation. In the introduction to a research article, research paper, or thesis chapter, for example, writers review research in order to provide readers with relevant background context to situate the current study. But how do writers summarize the scholarly conversation already underway and, then, join that conversation? This evidence-based workshop introduces researchers to some of the typical structures of literature reviews, while accounting for variation in communicative purposes, audiences, and disciplinarity.

This workshop introduces researchers to the typical organizational structure of a research article in the STEM disciplines, while accounting for variation in disciplinary differences. That is, some conventions and features of academic writing remain constant across STEM disciplines, while others vary to account for discipline-specific norms and expectations of community members. The workshop facilitators draw on evidence-based research to identify some of the similarities and differences in style at both the macro- and micro-levels of the text. The workshop includes dedicated time for participants to revise a section of a research article. Workshop facilitators and writing consultants from the Centre for Writing and Scholarly Communication are available for peer feedback on a draft. Therefore, this workshop is most useful for those with a research article underway.

The Public Humanities Hub and the Centre for Writing and Scholarly Communication present a workshop on writing the op-ed. The op-ed derives its name from traditional print media, where the op-ed is published on the page opposite the editorial. Hence, the op-ed section of the newspaper offers scholars opportunities to engage with new audiences and new issues, and to identify new purposes for writing in the 21st century, for example, using a public forum to influence public policy or judicial processes. This evidence-based talk considers some of the typical linguistic features and characteristics of this particular type of text, while paying attention to audience and place of publication. The facilitators welcome questions and comments from participants throughout the interactive talk, whenever something sparks your interest.

In this workshop, we focus on the interrelations between writers (academic and professional), their source materials (cited works), and their readers (intended audience). This pedagogical approach to writing with integrity positions workshop participants as emerging scholars grappling with the intertextual structure (why and how one text relates to others) of academic and professional writing—writing that positions emerging scholars as part of a dynamic, research community with something to say. This means we move beyond the mechanics and ethics of citation to consider some generative questions about the functions of citations in scholarly and professional writing.