I have been giving much thought lately to writing. Metacognition does not, a priori, lead to frequent blog posts.
Cognition, or awareness or thought, is necessary for writing. When you add the prefix “meta” which means “about,” you are really saying “thinking about thinking” or “thinking about knowing.” You have to think about what you know on any given subject to write effectively about it.
However, thinking about writing does not put words in a post or on a page.
Driving this in large part is my Qualitative Research Methods in Education doctoral class. In it, we talk about writing, then we write, and then we talk about what we wrote, and then we write some more. It is an effective cycle of study and practice, of theory and application.
As an instructor of public relations writing, I engage in the same cycle in my classes.
In my previous post, I explored what I am learning about writing qualitative research from my reading about qualitative research writing, then compared that to writing for public relations.
But, if we are going to write really well, what do we need to study? Make that, to read?
Studying the work of Harry F. Wolcott and John W. Creswell is helping me learn to write qualitative research. Thomas H. Bivens’ wonderful textbook, Public Relations Writing, is the book I use to teach my PR Track students how to write.
Every week, I train PR Track students to write succinctly. And every week, I am learning the importance of “thick description” in writing qualitative research.
Possible joke: What is the difference between a PR person and a qualitative researcher? Answer: the length of their sentences.