I claimed previously that Getting Things Done (GTD) was a bit more organizational system than I needed or was willing to commit to, but I’ve since found myself gradually revising that statement. There are still a lot of elements of the system that I don’t use, particularly the “tickler” file, and some of the tips that make more sense for management types than academics, but I’ve been adding more and more GTD principles to my workflow lately.
(For a quick GTD primer, see the Wikipedia entry, and Merlin Mann’s extremely helpful blog post on getting started with GTD.)
Most recently, I’ve embraced the idea of the weekly review. Lifehacker has quite a few posts on the weekly review, but this recent one is a good starting place. A weekly review used to seem a bit excessive for my academic workflow—so many of my projects and deadlines are long-term that I thought there wouldn’t be enough to review each week, particularly this semester when I wasn’t teaching. And it’s true that I don’t rely on the weekly review to keep me from being overwhelmed with tasks and appointments that I’ll forget—I’ve got that stuff pretty well under control.
What the weekly review does for me is give me a chance to assess my progress on whatever I’m working on—which right now is a chapter revision and a conference paper—and adjust, correct, and tweak my priorities and motivation. It encourages me to reflect and be more deliberate about the way I use my time, and it gives me an opportunity every week to re-direct my focus and start with a clean slate.
One of the double-edged swords of working in the humanities is that the news media doesn’t often report on the findings we publish in journals. Double-edged because on the one hand, we don’t get much popular exposure for the work we do, and on the other hand, that work doesn’t get grossly mischaracterized as tends to happen when the media reports on the findings of a particular study. So it’s not often that I see sloppy reports about study findings that actually relate to my academic interests.
But a recent article in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology about reading and identification (though that’s not how the authors phrase it) has been getting (typically hyperbolic) headlines: Do Your Favorite Book Characters Change Your Life?, You are what you read, study suggests, ‘Losing Yourself’ in a Fictional Character Can Affect Your Real Life, etc. Each of those articles was more unhelpful than the next in figuring out what this study was actually claiming about reading and (implicitly) fiction, so I had to take a look at the study itself.
The results summary in the abstract gives a nicely succinct synopsis of what the authors are claiming about their research:
“Results from Studies 1–3 showed that being in a reduced state of self-concept accessibility while reading a brief fictional work increased—and being in a heightened state of self-concept accessibility decreased—participants’ levels of experience-taking and subsequent incorporation of a character’s personality trait into their self-concepts. Study 4 revealed that a first-person narrative depicting an ingroup character elicited the highest levels of experience-taking and produced the greatest change in participants’ behavior, compared with versions of the narrative written in 3rd-person voice and/or depicting an outgroup protagonist. The final 2 studies demonstrated that whereas revealing a character’s outgroup membership as a homosexual or African American early in a narrative inhibited experience- taking, delaying the revelation of the character’s outgroup identity until later in the story produced higher levels of experience-taking, lower levels of stereotype application in participants’ evaluation of the character, and more favorable attitudes toward the character’s group.”
There are a couple of things about this study I find interesting and potentially useful, and a great many more I have reservations about. First of all, this being social psychology, the terminology is significantly different than what I would tend to use. The authors focus on “experience-taking,” which they define as follows: “We propose that when experience-taking occurs, readers simulate the events of a narrative as though they were a particular character in the story world, adopting the character’s mindset and perspective as the story progresses rather than orienting themselves as an observer or evaluator of the character.” That definition has some implicit genre-limitations, since any number of fictional modes attempt to intentionally disrupt the reader’s ability to adopt a character’s mindset. But that aside, “experience-taking” seems to be very similar to Kenneth Burke’s idea of identification or consubstantiality, a definition I lean heavily on when I talk about fiction, identification, and reading here and here. According to Burke, “In being identified with B, A is ‘substantially one’ with a person other than himself. Yet at the same time he remains unique, and individual locus of motives. Thus he is both joined and separate, at once a distinct substance and consubstantial with another.”
Literature and Latte has a nicely informative update on the status of Scrivener for iPad. Most exciting is the explicit commitment to formatting, including footnotes. Obviously, footnotes are important to me since I do academic writing, but I’m also hoping to see support for commenting. My writing and revision process relies heavily on making notes for myself through the comment feature, and I’d lose both a lot of actual content and an important part of the way I interact with my drafts if comments weren’t supported on the iPad.