# data[].attributes.headline
SETTING OUT FOR SERENDIP Of Research Quests and Chance Discoveries - Skinnell

# data[].attributes.subject
SETTING OUT FOR SERENDIP Of Research Quests and Chance Discoveries - Skinnell

# data[].attributes.body
Skinnell's discussion of research for his dissertation sounds very much like the creative process of discovering a narrative in creative nonfiction (CNF). In CNF you work with and explore your material (lived experience), letting the facts and the feelings create meaning. Just as Skinnell says, it is very important not to impose (potentially artificial) meaning too early or prematurely. Rather, it is best to discover meaning in the writing process, i.e. letting the words tell you what to say, which seems similar to Skinnell suggesting we find our way in and through the research process itself. Skinnell writes, "if I had set my destination too early, I might have found myself stranded in an inhospitable place; likewise, if I had never chosen a destination, I might have found myself endlessly unsettled. (105)" This interplay between stranding oneself too early or never arriving mirrors the CNF writing process.

I particularly appreciated Skinnell's inclusion of the original story of which the word serendipity is derived: "As Walpole makes clear, the word 'serendipity' derives from a much older quest narrative, The Three Princes of Serendip . In the sixteenth-century Persian fairytale, the protagonists— three princes from the kingdom of Serendip—are compelled by the king (their father) to leave the kingdom. As a result, the princes embark on a long journey, one that does not have a specified duration or destination. In the course of their travels, the princes make a series of unintended but ultimately fortuitous observations that result in their advancement to high positions in the courts of other kingdoms. In due time, the princes prove their mettle and are able to return home with honor. The specific details of The Three Princes of Serendip are not especially important for my purposes, but I reference the story here because the connection of unintended-but-fortuitous discovery to purposeful-but-undirected journeying is an especially generative one for twentyfirst-century researchers. (99)" I also appreciated Skinnell's repetition of these phrases: unintended-but-fortuitous and purposeful-but-undirected. To me, these phrases related to Goggins's discussion of creativity, because what is creativity if not play? If not purposeful-but-undirected play?

Further, Skinnell went on to clarify exactly what he meant, "On one hand, it allows for the modern sense of serendipity as 'chance discoveries' aided by careful preparation. On the other hand, it reintroduces the senses of aimless wandering, steady progression (if not necessarily “progress”), obstruction, deviation, and unpredictable destinations that research often comprises. (99)" These final descriptors: aimless wandering, obstruction, are not as positive as play, though I think they are related. How does one move past obstructions? Perhaps through determination alone, though hopefully also with a dose of creative problem solving, i.e. play.

That word aimless seems particularly important and is highlighted when Skinnell writes, "In other words, if we characterize the research process as an extended journey, serendipity distinguishes decision points along the route as much as, and maybe more than, reaching the final destination. (99)" Thus the final destination is kept in mind, as Skinnell says repeatedly is important, and the researcher may deviate from that original destination if a big enough decision is reached.

Overall, Skinnell's description of the research process seemed in line with the creative process which is a kind of purposeful-yet-aimless play. Skinnell writes, "Although it is perhaps too grandiose to describe it as questing, I kept stumbling forward in the hope I would find something worthwhile. (102)" Any writer can tell you this is what we are doing most of the time. And I appreciated Skinnell's embrace of non-linear progression which sometimes gives creative practice a bad name, or the creative writer a bad time. We are not machines and cannot produce on command because, as Skinnell writes, "serendipity does not prevent dead-ends; more likely, as with any worthwhile quest, it requires them. (103)"

When Skinnell writes, "In the story, unintended-but-fortuitous discovery gives way to deliberate and purposeful decision-making, (105)" he could be describing the process I went through developing a 300-page memoir manuscript.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Serendipity of (Mis)timing in Research - Goggins

# data[].attributes.subject
The Serendipity of (Mis)timing in Research - Goggins

# data[].attributes.body
I'm most interested in Goggins' relationship to creativity which seems sly, somehow neither secure nor trusted, and yet at the "at the center of all scholarly work. (94)" Artists and creative writers know the key to creativity is trust and time. Certainly, I agree with Goggins that preparation is a necessary aspect of serendipity. I am a firm believer that we can, at least in part, create our own luck through preparation. It is interesting that Goggins writes that creativity is also at the heart of preparation, though I suppose the point of the chapter is that you can't know exactly what you are looking for until you find it and in that gap lives creativity.

There's something odd or unfamiliar-to-me in the way the relationship with creativity is described, particularly in the Hirschman quote at the end of the chapter: "The Principle of the Hiding Hand” that “ creativity always comes [as] a surprise to us; therefore we can never count on it and we dare not believe in it until it has happened. In other words, we would not consciously engage upon tasks whose success clearly requires that creativity be forthcoming. Hence, the only way in which we can bring our creative resources fully into play is by misjudging the nature of the task, by presenting it to ourselves as more routine, simple, undemanding of genuine creativity than it will turn out to be ” (13, original emphasis)." Goggins goes on to write,  "Hirschman’s words give us a map to share with our students. Creativity is at the center of all scholarly work. (94)" But that's not the map I would share with my students, exactly. The creative map I would share involves trust. I would encourage students to follow the advice of speculative fiction virtuoso Octavia Butler, "First forget inspiration. Habit is more dependable. Habit will sustain you whether you're inspired or not. Habit will help you finish and polish your stories. Inspiration won't. Habit is persistence in practice.” I wouldn't encourage students to "misjudge the nature of the task," but rather to understand that task fully. Creativity, inspiration, these cannot be forced. But as is well known in creative writing circles, and as Butler states, you can develop a writing habit so that you are ready at your writing desk with creativity or inspiration (perhaps interchangeable here) shows up. The routine is not followed as a means of self-trickery but as an act of, dare I say, faith because the writer trusts, the writer knows that creativity or inspiration will arrive... eventually :)

Additionally, I quite appreciated Goggins's discussion of place-based research. I feel like these are some good quotes to file away should I ever endeavor to write a grant for place-based research in the future: "I was determined to visit and walk the villages she named in her sampler to do place-based research. As Liz Rohan points out from her own research, “Sharing the physical context of a subject by visiting the places where a subject lived and worked allows researchers to strengthen a bond with this subject, which teaches researchers how to think better about this subject” (233). Rohan notes that this is what Christine Mason Sutherland calls “living the research” (233). For me, “living the research” means retracing the steps of those whose lives one is reconstructing and to do so as ethically and faithfully as possible. (89)"

# data[].attributes.headline
Setting out for Serendip: Of Research Quests and Chance Discoveries and The Art of the "Accident:" Serendipity in Field Research (Goggin)

# data[].attributes.subject
Setting out for Serendip: Of Research Quests and Chance Discoveries and The Art of the "Accident:" Serendipity in Field Research (Goggin)

# data[].attributes.body
Oof - I'm going to be honest here and say I had a hard time getting into the chapters in section three of Goggin's online text. As I mentioned in a previous post, I do best with texts that directly relate to me. I don't really love research writing and don't intend to do a whole lot of it, so it was hard for me to place these in terms of relevance to my life.

In Ryan Skinnell's text, it was interesting to follow along with his journey and the serendipitous moments that led him to where he went in his dissertation process as well in terms of his career. In Peter N. Goggin's text, it was interesting to read about the different kinds of research and how different places and experiences in his life led him to his accidental discoveries.

I find these same kinds of things with my students. It seems that inspiration strikes them when they least expect it, and it's fun to watch the "lightbulb" moment occur for them!

# data[].attributes.headline
The Evolution of Imitation: Building Your Style (Meyer)

# data[].attributes.subject
The Evolution of Imitation: Building Your Style (Meyer)

# data[].attributes.body
2. How is imitation different than plagiarism?
Plagiarism, simply put, is the act of directly copying another person's work and claiming it as your own or not properly crediting the original creator. According to Meyer, imitation is, "more complex than mindlessly copying down someone’s words. Think of imitation as having a teacher that encourages you to figure out the hows and the whys something is the way it is—how to break it down, put it back together, and learn from that process to enhance your abilities" (pg. 117).
4. ...Think about your own writing...Discuss...patterns and why they are similar. What do you think led to this similarity? How are the sentence patterns operating to drive the paragraph? The essay?
I love to read, but I don't do a lot of non-fiction reading unless it's texts that directly relate to my life as a teacher (like books about engagement strategies, new grading techniques, SEL, etc.). I like these kinds of texts because I can relate to them. When they include personal stories, I can imagine what's happening and relate to their experiences. I think that's why I use personal stories in my own academic writing. I imitate that style of writing because that is what works for me to better understand and engage with a concept. If I can't relate the concept back to my life or my own experiences, then I have a harder time paying attention or getting anything "out of" that text. It's that need to relate that I think drives the patterns and paragraphs and essays I end up creating. Even though they are not "strictly" academic, I think the texts we've been reading these past few units are showing me that's okay.

# data[].attributes.headline
Writing with Force and Flair (FitzGerald)

# data[].attributes.subject
Writing with Force and Flair (FitzGerald)

# data[].attributes.body
There is a poster in my classroom (a gift from my cooperating teacher after my student teaching experience) that says, "Believe in the power of 'yet.'" I thought of that poster as I read FitzGerald's lines, "Writing, I think, is not unlike skating (or cooking or painting or piloting an airplane). Each of these activities may be learned and taught" (pg. 53). I think it's a nice reminder (from me to my students and from FitzGerald to me) that we may not be great writers, but that's because we haven't necessarily learned it yet.

I also appreciated that FitzGerald used a technique we've read about in previous weeks: the use of personal stories in professional writing. To me, FitzGerald's use of figure skating to represent writing and the weaving of rhetorical devices is a cool connection that I wouldn't have made on my own but I felt was beneficial in this chapter. However, he's right, "To some audiences, a metaphor will seem far-fetched, the injection of irony ineffective. Does my analogy of writing to figure skating work for you? Does my characterization of figures as verbal 'apps' strike you as appropriate for this essay? These are the kinds of questions you must consider whenever you use tropes or schemes to bring your material to life before an audience. The better we know our audience, purpose, and genre, the more likely we are to select effective 'verbal' apps" (pg. 56). I like the idea of showing students formal writing doesn't have to be "stuffy," but I will need to make sure to discuss intended audience and purpose before allowing the students to interject some of their crazy stories that may not be effective in their writing.

Side note: I checked out the "Figures of Speech Served Fresh" blog that FitzGerald mentioned in his "Learn More About Rhetorical Figures" section and, while kind of dated, some of the posts are quite funny and would probably be helpful/relevant to students as they work to learn and identify different rhetorical devices in writing and the world around them.

# data[].attributes.body
I came across the word serendipity when I was in high school. I found the word to be useful in many different situations. It was serendipitous when I came across a person that I needed to talk to. It was serendipitous that my favorite flavor of ice cream was ACTUALLY in the store... it is usually gone.
I do wonder, though, if I feel serendipity because of how my brain works. I can get lots of ideas, but have a really hard time settling in on one. If a news article or story comes up to connect with one of my topics, I wonder if that is serendipitous. On the other hand, could it be more likely that I found something BECAUSE of all the topics I was considering?  Can having too many topics ruin focus?
Peter Goggin states that while some aspects of research may appear to be serendipitous, it is more likely that the researcher was not paying attention in that realm of discovery.  "...what is significant about serendipity in academia is that it is dependent on scholarship, methodology, and planning for expectations of discoveries yet to be made (2)".
I enjoyed his narrative about having a topic catch his attention but he waved it off as entertainment over using it as an academic research idea.
I had no idea that there were so many different forms of rhetoric. I suppose anything could have its own form. People do talk/write about topics differently. There is usually a certain audience that would listen/read to those focused topics.

# data[].attributes.body
Peter Goggin's article, "The Art of the 'Accident,'" reads similarly to Maureen Daly Goggin's "The Serendipity of (Mis)timing in Research." His subtitle reads "Serendipity in Field Research." Not only similar in topic, Peter Goggin's article is developed primarily through narrative. Yet, he did catch my attention a couple of times.

At the beginning of the article, he poses a question to introduce his research and the topic of the article. He asks, "how do we as researchers know accidental discovery when we see it, and more important, how can we learn to anticipate such moments of accidental discovery?" (Goggin). While the rest of the article doesn't convey scientific research, the topic of the article is on "field research" (Goggin). As such, it made me think of scientific research writing. Adding a new question to my mind: "do scientific research texts commonly employ questions to introduce their research?" If so, this would seem to be a rhetorical figure, adding an ornate-ness to the writing voice.

His last conclusion at the end also stuck out to me as he claims "the key to successful research is to focus on cumulative exploration and thus invite serendipity into the process itself" (Goggin). While I do not engage in much, if any, field research, I do have to be conscious of my setting, both time and place, where I conduct my research and subsequent writing. I have to be in the right writing conditions to be more attuned to those moments of serendipity. I think it would behoove students to consider their ideal conditions for working and writing.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Serendipity of (Mis)timing in Research - Goggin

# data[].attributes.subject
The Serendipity of (Mis)timing in Research - Goggin

# data[].attributes.body
"The Serendipity of (Mis)timing in Research" by Maureen Daly Goggin seeks to illustrate "how serendipity...plays out in all sorts of research spaces and to prepare students for it in their own research" (Goggin). To do this, Goggin takes a similar approach as a text we read last week that's primarily narrative with a conclusion at the end.

At one point in the article, Goggin identifies what is called the "finger story" by poet Diane Wakoski when summarizing a text from Elizabeth Parker. The significance came when Goggin "became obsessed with finding out what became of her" due to a "powerful plea" by Parker. The plea comes not at the top of the piece, but comes naturally or "serendipitously" in the middle of the piece. This reminds me of how I tend to draft and come to my main point at the end of the paragraph. I will usually move that sentence to the beginning of the paragraph as the topic sentence. The final structure of the writing becomes more purposeful but through, in part, that "serendipity" Goggin addresses.

# data[].attributes.headline
Writing with Force and Flair for YOUR Audience

# data[].attributes.subject
Writing with Force and Flair for YOUR Audience

# data[].attributes.body
I thought was going to respond to FitzGerald, though Suzanna I'm happy to see your summary and to respond to some of your initial thoughts.

I too was struck by FitzGerald's focus on audience in the writer's choice to use or not use figures and in selecting which figures to use. In some ways, I think FitzGerald's suggestions about academic writing both ask the writer and reader to expand what academic writing is or can be and perhaps also points to some of the most effective academic writing.

I also appreciated FitzGerald acknowledging the brow-beating some of use received regarding NOT using repetition: "When I survey my students, they admit reluctance to use anaphora or
other figures of repetition, worried they will be faulted for being repetitive. (58)" I know I was told by teachers repeatedly ;) not to repeat words, phrases, ideas in my writing. From my studies in the MFA program I now know repetition to be one of the most powerful tools writer's have to make meaning. Looking back, I see the scoldings I received from teachers regarding my use of repetition as probably easy, unimagined feedback by tired and overworked teachers, uninterested in or really unable to nourish a young writer. I think this goes back to the benefit of highlighting what is working in someone's writing rather than the constant focus on what is not working.

I appreciate FitzGerald giving the historical context to our distrust of figures, "I believe that we must overcome a long-standing suspicion about the use of rhetorical figures, a suspicion that we inherited from the so-called Age of Reason. In this historical period following the Renaissance—a high-water mark for ornament—figurative language fell
into disrepute. (58)" It's good to remember that things like style and convention ebb and flow throughout the years and that it's okay to bring "ornamentation" back and to remember it's purpose.

Further, I thoroughly appreciate FitzGerald's championing of play, "Another word for experimentation is play. My approach recognizes the value of play. Too often, we focus on clarity and correctness to the exclusion of other virtues. Not that we shouldn’t value being clear and error-free in our writing. It’s just that we can also write, as I say, with force and flair. (60)" In the MFA program, we frequently recognize the value of enjoying what we are writing, or playing as we work. We often talk about the relationship between enjoying writing and our audience enjoying reading what we have written, and how the opposite is often also true: we are uninterested and uninspired while writing and our audience feels the same as they read.

Lastly, I appreciate the idea of a list of figures, though what I have been wanting for years is a list of different sentence structures (so that when I find myself stuck in a rut, I can check out the list and choose a less familiar sentence structure to use).

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
I agree with this sentiment whole-heartedly and this is the way I teach close reading in creative writing (based on Chris McCormick's). 

# data[].attributes.body
So often reading in Writing Studies I feel frustrated by the lack of consideration and seeming willful ignorance of the knowledge and wisdom from the field of creative writing, not to mention the long and rich history of creatives across disciplines sharing tools and tricks about the creative process. In Meyer's chapter, I finally see a marrying of the two disciplines. It is a commonplace that to be a good writer, you must read a lot. Stephen King once said, "If you want to be a writer, you must do two things above all others: read a lot, and write a lot." Similarly, Ray Bradbury is quoted to having said, “Just write every day of your life. Read intensely. Then see what happens. Most of my friends who are put on that diet have very pleasant careers.” More specifically, we talk about the need to read like a writer as Francine Prose wrote in a book of the same title: “Like most--maybe all--writers, I learned to write by writing and, by example, by reading books.” And so, I for once agree whole-heartedly with Meyer and am excited to see, IMHO, one of the best strategies for improving one's writing discussed in an academic writing course (though, perhaps of course (?), the author pays know mind to the discussion of the same in the field of creative writing). Still, I can forgive Meyer as being as uninterested in the field of creative writing as his colleagues.

I thoroughly agree with Meyer who writes, "Don’t worry that by imitating them you’ll lose your own voice and your own identity. Soon enough you will shed those skins and become who you are supposed to become. (235-36) (118)" Imitation is a tool to learn new or different ways of writing that then become familiar to you and, eventually, your own.

It's intriguing to think of using this same technique in academic writing. I suppose it requires finding an example of academic writing I particularly enjoy and then mimicking/imitating it. I think I might just have two such articles in mind for my own writing project in this class.

# data[].attributes.body
While William T. FitzGerald spent a portion of his article, "Writing with Force and Flair" on the benefits of imitation for writing instruction, Craig A. Meyer focuses an entire article on imitation in "The Evolution of Imitation: Building Your Style." He classifies imitation into structural and contextual imitation. Structural imitation comes at the sentence-level, using sentence frames as a sort of structural mad-libs. Contextual imitation focuses more on summarizing and paraphrasing the ideas and claims of others to take ownership or even synthesize ideas and form new ones in your own writing voice. Meyer uses Desiderius Erasmus's example, like FitzGerald did in his piece. Meyer also relates contextual imitation to the study of structure at the idea level and how ideas are formed and developed throughout a given text.

My only addition to this article is to offer a resource. I frequently used "Fun-Size Academic Writing for Serious Learning: 101 Lessons & Mentor Texts--Narrative, Opinion/Argument, & Informative/Explanatory, Grades 4-9" by Gretchen S. Bernabei in my classroom. In addition to practicing writing techniques, it offers dozens of essay frames that help students develop their ideas and pick the best structure for their given writing assignment.

# data[].attributes.headline
Writing with Force and Flair - FitzGerald

# data[].attributes.subject
Writing with Force and Flair - FitzGerald

# data[].attributes.body
Reading the overview of this article did not instill in me confidence for the rest of the piece. I find the observation that "not all figures are appropriate for every genre and context" to be trite particularly for an academic audience (52). Thankfully, the rest of the text explores a novel classification of rhetorical figures for me. FitzGerald also addresses the lost of "ornament" as a writing "virtue" in contemporary writing instruction (54).

FitzGerald presents rhetorical figures as falling into one of two "overlapping senses: expression and pattern" (54). The expression category includes writing tropes that substitute "one word or phrase for another or related word play" (54). The most common being simile, metaphor, hyperbole, and personification. The pattern category uses schemes focused on the shape of the figure. FitzGerald says schemes "serve to structure ideas and to strengthen arguments" (54). While also commonly used in writing, schemes are not as commonly labeled as tropes.

Then, FitzGerald takes a social constructionist approach to the use of figures in language. FitzGerald makes a theoretical observation about figures, claiming "they are the very thoughts we express to make sense of things for ourselves and for others" (55). In other words, our minds make connections to other relatable concepts or experiences. These connections equal figures, and different types of connections have specific terms assigned to them, e.g. simile and metaphor.

Returning back to a question I have on the use of a writer's voice in scientific writing, FitzGerald offers me some clarity. While observing the academic tone as one avoiding "flowery" or "verbose" language, he still insists that "all writing has a context that brings creative pressure to bear on our choice of stylistic tools" (56). Taking this into consideration, I wonder if scientific writing leans more on schemes than tropes to add that creativity that helps strengthen arguments and conclusions.

FitzGerald addresses the loss of "ornament" as caused by the Age of Reason as a response to the Renaissance, and as a result, rhetorical figures "fell into disrepute" and "came to be regarded as too persuasive" (58). I think this connects to an issue I have with ELA Common Core State Standards that distinguish between persuasive and argumentative essays, suggesting that one focuses more on emotion or pathos than the other. Yet, I still contend that all writing is argumentative whether direct or implied.

The last part of FitzGerald's article that stuck out to me was the list of his Go Figure activities. I love using sentence frames, or what he calls "imitation," to instruct students on ways of structuring types of sentence and also ways of constructing arguments. The meme I posted connects to his activity of "copia" (59). I think it would be a fun exercise for students to make their own memes using copia. I also appreciate his concluding statement that the use of ornament is how both the reader and the writer "relate to your writing" (61).

# data[].attributes.headline
 The Evolution of Imitation:Building Your StyleCraig A. Meyer. - Diggins 

# data[].attributes.subject
 The Evolution of Imitation:Building Your StyleCraig A. Meyer. - Diggins 

# data[].attributes.body
Meyer’s article on the evolution of imitation begins with a call to reflect on how one learns  things from reading for understanding, doing to master (as in riding a bike), and learning by copying movements of others (as in writing the alphabet).  His thesis is that by imitating and incorporating another author’s “experience and talent into our writing” we can learn and enhance our own writing.  He is quick to point out the difference between plagiarism and imitating.  He uses the example of musicians listening to other musicians and how those experiences impact the knowledge and experience of later musicians.

Meyer sees imitation in writing as a tool to improve and notes that author William Zinsser argued that learning to write through imitation was essential and helps all writers to grow.  Zinsser states, “Never hesitate to imitate another writer.  Imitation is part of the creative process for anyone learning an art or a craft.”

Meyer focuses on two kinds of imitation: structural and contextual. Structural is “mimicking the actual sentence structure of an author.”   The idea is to see how words work together to create meaning and notice patterns to sentence structure.

Here are some examples of structural imitation provided in the article:

Model: Writing with real voice has the power to make you pay attention and understand—the words go deep. (Elbow 299)

Imitation: Movies with great actors have the influence to make us believe and take part—the drama becomes real.

Model:  I stared at the speaker in mute astonishment. (Poe 154) •

Imitation:  I smiled at my girlfriend in silent acceptance.

Contextual imitation focuses on the style of writing, considering what, where and why an author chooses to do something. The meaning and interpretations of the meaning are at the heart of contextual imitation.  The example used in the article is a simple sentence by Erasmus, a teacher from the 1500’s.  His simple sentence: Your letter pleased me greatly provided the following contextual imitation:

• Your letter heaped joy upon me.

• After your note was handed to me, my spirit quite bubbled over

with joy.

• I conceived a wonderful delight from your pages.

• All else is utterly repellent compared to your letter.

• At the sight of your letter the frown fled from my mind’s brow.

• How delighted I was to read your letter!

• The happiness occasioned by your communication is greater than

I can describe.

Meyer concludes that studying author samples helps the writer learn from other’s strengths and weaknesses.  It is a process of pulling writing apart and understanding it at a deeper level. What we learn from other authors becomes part of the writer and makes their writing stronger.

The connection I made to this idea of imitation comes from my Yoga Teacher Training class. We had a lecture on the idea that nothing is original.  We listened to an audio clip of that idea that there is nothing that has not been impacted by another.  At first, I was reluctant to agree and thought of many reasons why I wanted to challenge that idea.  However, our teacher framed it in the idea of teaching yoga and how every teacher borrows and learns from each other.  Novelty can be an aspect of a class but it is more in how the postures are put together than anything else.  We, as yoga teachers, are taught to share and borrow from each other and grow and learn from each other.  This idea of learning to create yoga classes by imitation is similar to what Meyer argues in his article on imitation in writing.  I also think of this idea in terms of my teaching the ancient authors in my Latin and ancient Greek classes.  We are reading Cicero now and dissecting his speeches.  Speakers throughout the centuries have borrowed from Cicero’s style of oratory.  :)