Bharanthi:
Ok I'll take a crack at these scenarios. This is a dialogue of learning.
My viewpoint--from reading both many grant apps, , evaluations, and
interim reports, and it is for "up for criticism". At the moment, I work
in a limited geographic area with school linked health service grants that
deal with poverty level school children and their families . Ultimately,
all the documentation goes to the State of California.
Without data virtually any report is useless. If the student does not have
the ability to function at the higher levels of stats. then you go to a
statistician experienced in the discipline. Flaws and unexpected results
will from a major review of the math involved. Admittedly my own math
skills do not approach that of a really good statistician. I turn to
the statisticians in my field to get information revealed by data that
was not clear (in my head) or needs a better interpretation. Data
analysis builds the rhetoric essential to develop the logical
interpretation and also the unexpected results. Those unexpected results
are the real kickers--were they a result of the process, the data
collection, the analysis or a flaw ? The flaw in conceptual understanding
is devestating.
Because the discipline is "noisy and messy" concepts may not always be
clear. The proverbial "can of worms" is then open. So rhetoric is the
fluid building of ideas that express the fine points of data that reveal
the concept (s) and processes If data is awry so will be the rhetoric and
false concept(s)will evolves. The writer may intially starts with a false
concept and stacks the data to enhance the rhetoric. Wordsmithing is an
art either reveals or conceals.
Rhetoric not grammar is the crucial issue. Grammar and spelling are
fair game as so many grammar/spell checkers sit on computers. The
simple declarative sentence is marvelous . If I read a clear, simple
sentence with a no jargon I am happy.
My process: I never rewrite unless it is my own work. I will NOT rewrite
for others. If it is my own, I generally hit about 8-15 modifications
which ultimately turn as need into versions. The final drafts are always
reviewed before submission. My favorite editing tool: "prep" out of
Carnegie Mellon -free! I think it still on the CM English server. This
only for the Mac. The virtue of prep is that you have an original text,
and multiple columns. Successive readers can add columns and comment
directly on the text, directly indicating the section of text that needs
revison.
The process: early on I write about a paragraph that is quick overview
of what I think about their presentation. If I feel it is
unsatisfactory--I say so. Saves infinite amounts of time and acts as a
screen. Once passed this, and if the person(s) desires to resubmit to
me, I spend about 4-6 hours on the first read, get it returned, and then
about same time to complete the critical analysis. The only time, I
ever see the individuals is if they want a conference. I always sign
my critiques, provide full access for the individuals to my e-mail, fax
and phone. I assume accountability for the analysis. If the
submissions fail to take heed of the analysis, they are on their own.
Mary Ann
Mary Ann Sesma e -mail
1621 Sunnyhill Drive msesma at bell.k12.ca.us (preferred)
Monterey Park, CA 91754 sesma at aol.com
phone; (323)261-5860
fax:(323)261-8692
