Practical Strategies on Writing Up Your Dissertation

This month, we interviewed Sonia Singh, a former grad student. Sonia is currently a research scientist at the Callier Center for Communication Disorders, University of Texas at Dallas and graduated with her PhD from Georgia State University in 2019. During our talk, Sonia shared how stressful it can be when you’re nearing the end and was happy to suggest some insightful tips and practical strategies on navigating through the final stages of your dissertation. Below, we discuss these strategies in some detail and share resources that might come in handy later.

Staying organized

Come up with a plan

  • Goals and subgoals: Creating both broader goals and smaller subgoals can be crucial in helping you stay on track. Sonia suggests that you should do this with your advisor, i.e., both you and your advisor should be on the same page regarding your writing goals and what you need to achieve on a weekly and monthly basis. Having these interactions about goals with your advisor in a written format can sometimes work as a motivator as well as a non-binding contract. When you’re creating goals, it also helps if you work backward. This would mean that you would need to know the final date for when you’d like to submit your work and then decide weekly goals accordingly. Depending on your preference, you could either define goals as the time you spend during one session (e.g., “I will write for two hours today”) or how many words you’d like to write in a day (“I will write 1000 words today”).
  • Ordering the different sections: You do not need to write the different sections in the same order as your final submission. For example, it might make more sense to start with your methods section first (even before you collect your data) and then write your literature review section and finally, once you have collected and analyzed your data you can write up your results and discussion sections.
  • Drafts: When you are writing your dissertation, be prepared to create multiple drafts which can also be organized at different levels. For example, Sonia suggests that at the first level you could create a notes section (on your phone or in a book that you take with you everywhere) and can scribble any thoughts, ideas, or plans you’d like to include that might come to you during the day or when you read something new. At the second level, you can write up a rough draft in a way that is akin to free writing. Last, you can then work on editing your draft and proofread for grammatical or other errors.

Use templates

Most universities will share a template that should be used for your dissertation. To save time and effort at the end, it would make sense to look up the template and use it even before you begin writing your dissertation. Here’s an APA downloadable template shared by Georgia State University. You should, however, look for one that is recommended and shared by your university.

Evidence tables

Evidence tables are great for summarizing your literature review, making it easy to look at later. Dealing with too much text can be stressful. Moreover, it’s possible that you might forget some information from your references especially if you’re going back to working on a literature review weeks or sometimes months after you’ve first looked at it. Sonia recommends, this “short webinar…in which Stephen McQuilliam explains how to create a journal matrix or literature review database. This was absolute GOLD! I currently use this and wish I had seen this during the dissertation writing process.” 

Befriending software

There are tons of reference management and note-taking software that can help you. For writing and editing large documents, “Scrivener, OneNote and EverNote are…pretty awesome.” If you want to engage in mind-mapping, Scapple (works with Scrivener), Lucidchart, MindMeister, and XMind are great options. Highlights is useful for annotating pdfs and has the advantage of saving the annotations as part of the original PDF. Depending on what you need it for, software like Zotero, Mendeley, and Endnote can help you organize your references and cite your sources when you need it! According to Sonia, “Everyone has a preference for this, but I like Zotero the best. Here's a comparison chartFind what works for you - is my mantra.” Sonia recommends that you can also use Excel to make or find a template for monthly/ weekly goal tracking. “Everyone has their own way of doing this and it helped me to stop procrastinating.”

Binge writing vs. writing every day

People might have different styles when it comes to how they approach their work more generally and writing, specifically. Writing consistently every day can help avoid an impending crash-and-burn situation that might result from binge-writing.

Receiving feedback graciously

If you’re sending drafts of your dissertation chapters to your advisor (highly recommended!), be prepared to receive and graciously accept criticism. Sometimes, to do this, you’d need to maintain a level of “healthy detachment” from your work. With the years of effort you’ve put into your dissertation, this can be incredibly hard to do. Just remember that even seasoned writers and well-accomplished scientists revise their work multiple times. Being open and willing to receive critiques on your drafts can help you better your writing and improve your dissertation overall (even if that means going through 15 rounds of feedback).

Find your cheerleaders

It is important to connect with people who provide you with social and emotional support during the last few months of your PhD. Staying connected with close friends and family and hearing words of encouragement can go a long way in motivating you to tackle challenges that you might face.

Make time for physical activity, food, and rest

At this stage in your PhD, it’s common for mundane things like getting adequate nutrition, activity, and rest to take a backseat. However, if you do not pay attention to this, your productivity can decline. Because writing is such a sedentary task, Sonia recommends taking breaks in which you move your body - e.g., walking, stretching, or practicing yoga.

Join writing groups

Writing groups are a great way to motivate yourself to work consistently. They also help by making you feel more accountable. This is especially true if you’re working on your dissertation from home/remotely. SPSP also conducts virtual writing groups each semester that you can keep your eye out for.

SPSP Resources

Other Resources

Acknowledgments: I would like to thank Sonia Singh for her enthusiasm in helping PhD students like me and for sharing these wonderful resources and insights on how grad students can tackle the final stages of their dissertations.

Early Career Corner: Tips and Tools for Productive Writing (Even When You Don’t Want To)

For many early career social/personality psychologists, writingwhether it is publications, grants, or reportsis one of the most important activities for career progression. But, a small minority of writing wizards aside, most academics struggle with finding the time and/or motivation for writing. This can create a lot of stress around writing which can make people feel like they are not meeting the expectations set by themselves, the job market, or the tenure process. 

So what can be done? First, recognize that you are not alone in these struggles. Although it is easy for upward social comparisons to trick us into thinking that everyone is thriving in the writing process, at the end of the day most people need a supportive nudge in one form or another. Here are some of the tips, tricks, and tools that we have used or that have come highly recommended from fellow ECs who know that the writing struggle is real.

Tools for Productivity

For some writers, it’s all about carefully curating your arsenal of writing support tools. 

Note: All of these recommendations are through personal experience or word of mouth; none of the following are paid endorsements. 

Tools for Focusing: If you sometimes find that your writing is being hindered thanks to non-stop distractions, these tools might be for you.

        Pomodoro timers let you break up your “writing” and “distraction/break” times. Some people use the classic 25 minutes of focused time, 5 minutes of break, while others opt for longer focused time. These can be great when paired with the inbox pausing or recurring meeting times suggested below. Some of the online pomodoros that we have used include Tomato Timers, and Marinara Timer which lets you share a link with others for group writing.  

        The Forest App lets you set a period of “focus time” (similar to pomodoro timers) and also has the added functionality of blocking certain websites to help inhibit distractions during that time. The more you focus, the more your little tree grows.  

Tools for Structuring Your Time: If you find that your biggest struggle is finding the time to dedicate to your writing, think about trying one of these.

        Workflowy is a minimalist nested “to do” list. Some useful tips on how to maximize this tool include using tags and dates and colour coding.  

        Trello is another “to do” list app, with slightly more complex functionality than Workflowy. This includes the ability to create team boards and assign specific sub-tasks or activities to other teammates.  

        Pausing your inbox is another way of blocking out distractions for a dedicated period of time. Many email clients or third party extensions allow you to temporarily pause the receipt of emails, including Boomerang. Boomerang also lets you schedule emails making it possible to dedicate specific “email writing” blocks. Scheduled emails can be updated before they’re sent.

        Blocking off time in your calendar, and treating it like any other appointment or meeting, helps keep precious writing times from getting eaten up by other meetings and requests. Set a recurring “meeting” in your calendar so this block of time (whether 30-60 minutes a day or 1 day a week) is protected. 

Writing Groups

Many of us can appreciate the power of the social environment. Members of the Early Career Committee have personally benefited from writing groups to help increase our writing productivity. This is something you can organize informally with colleagues and friends (e.g., meeting at a pub or cafe; going on a writing retreat together), or via co-ordinating formalized (bi)weekly writing groups like we have done in our own departments. Writing groups can help progress writing goals in a few ways:

First, they force us to reserve a dedicated time in our calendars for our writing goals on a consistent basis. Second, the presence of others holds us accountable to those goals, either by disincentivizing the desire to schedule something in place of the writing group, or by incentivizing the experience by making it a more enjoyable, social activity rather than an isolating one. In one of our departments pre-COVID, we met up fortnightly and shared cookies and tea while we worked through our goals. In the SPSP EC writing groups, we connect with ECs across the world on a weekly basis to share our struggles, ask for advice, and rejoice in one another’s successes. Here is what our EC members have to say about the benefits of these writing groups:

“I've really enjoyed being in a writing group. I like the feeling of working alongside other people and having some external accountability. Most of all, I appreciate the exchange of information, sharing of experiences, words of encouragement, and insight into other early career scholar's lives and research. The honesty and openness of each member has made the writing group feel like a community." - Heidi Vuletich 

“While I've never written a single-author paper, I often find writing to be a solitary experience. I'm a fan of the EC Writing Group for helping me to turn a lonely experience into one that advances my career while fulfilling my need to belong.” - Zachary Baker

“For me, the highlight of the ECR Writing Group has been the opportunity to get to know other ECRs over the course of the semester. We all have different areas of focus, so it’s been interesting to hear everybody’s work, and these are people who I might not normally get a chance to meet. It feels like I now have an expanded support network. They also bring a wealth of advice and perspectives.” - Angela Meadows

“I’ve really enjoyed meeting other EC researchers, and hearing their experiences and thoughts about research and writing. The writing group has also provided some much-needed structure and accountability to my summer!” - Zoë Francis

"When life gets busy work and tasks that don't have an immediate deadline get put off, and often I find what gets moved to "another" day is often my own research. By signing up to a writing group it creates a sense of accountability to show up for that time and dedicate it to your own research - you end up trying to protect that time, and although it's a short period of time, it allows you to keep working away on those projects you never have time for." - Siobhán Griffin

If you are interested in joining the SPSP EC Writing Group over the next academic year, be sure to sign up to the EC listserv on SPSPConnect and keep your eyes peeled for forthcoming updates. You can also email us ([email protected], [email protected]) if you’d like to be on the writing group mailing list or want more information.

The Writing Workshop

Related to the idea of writing groups, one resource that we have found helpful is the book, The Writing Workshop, written by Dr. Barbara Sarnecka, an Associate Professor of Cognitive Sciences at the University of California - Irvine. This book describes how to form a writing community along with strategies for being more productive and happier in your writing. It is available for free as a PDF on OSF or can be purchased as a physical copy. The OSF page also includes templates for the various tools described in the book (e.g., writing logs, individual development plans). Today, we are highlighting two of the strategies that Dr. Sarnecka recommends: rejection parties and reverse outlining. 

Rejection Parties

The idea behind a rejection party is to reframe rejections from shameful to celebratory. Rejections are part of the writing journey and everyone experiences them. In a rejection party, the writing group first chooses a target number of rejections (e.g., 100 for a group of 10 people). Each member of the writing group adds to a rejection log (see examples here) when they receive a rejection, and when the group collectively hits the target number, the group has a party. At the rejection parties that she hosts, Dr. Sarnecka makes three toasts. The first toast is a toast to yourself to celebrate the hard work you put into submitting something. The second toast is a toast to the individuals who rejected you to appreciate the time and effort they put into reviewing your work. The final toast is a toast to the person who got the thing that you wanted to celebrate the other researchers in our scientific community. Taken together, providing an opportunity to normalize and celebrate rejection as part of the writing process seems like a great way to approach writing, particularly for us early career folks.  

Reverse Outlining

The second strategy we are highlighting today is the idea of reverse outlining. Unlike in a traditional outline, you begin the reverse outlining process with a full draft of your paper. Once you have your full draft, you read through the paper and copy the topic sentence of each paragraph into a new document. Then you read over your new document to get a bird’s eye view of the organization of your paper. This strategy is helpful for closely examining your argument structure and whether the flow makes sense. Reverse outlining can also be a useful exercise in the classroom if you are teaching writing at the undergraduate or graduate level and there are many resources online for teaching reverse outlines. For example, if you are working with undergraduates, this handout from Allison Haas of the University of Minnesota Crookston Writing Center, can be a way to introduce the idea to students. 

Being OK with a “Lack” of Productivity

As mentioned earlier, there can be a lot of stress and anxiety that can build up around writing and our writing progress (or lack thereof). There is no denying that there can be a lot of unrelenting demands on early career scientists and scholars and the demoralization or worry that you are not being “productive enough” can begin to take a serious toll. 

One of our favourite pieces of advice about productivity came from an early career workshop. In this session, the panelists spent a lot of time giving advice on how to be productive, which were promptly followed by a series of questions on how to not be so lazy all the time. One panelist called us out -- can the people who were really so preoccupied and concerned about maximizing their productivity really be as lazy as they are now claiming to be? What she suggested instead is that we were not lazy, but instead so preoccupied with reaching our goals that we felt lazy whenever we weren’t moving towards them quickly enough. In these moments, we need to be kinder with ourselves. Setting smaller goals that let you feel a sense of achievement on a daily basis (e.g., crossing off our daily to-do lists) can help sustain us and highlight just how productive we are being, accepting that some things take longer than others, and perhaps identify strategies to tackle those tasks that really are getting sidelined too often without minimizing everything else you are managing to get done. 

As anyone who has experienced burnout can tell you, prioritizing productivity over all else can be a recipe for disaster. Even though the work seems endless, setting strict “end of workday” cutoffs can really help you force yourself to take the breaks we need to keep ourselves energized and motivated for the next days and weeks ahead. From our personal experience, and conversation with colleagues, many people who have forced themselves to stick to a “9-5”, Monday-to-Friday work structure-or block off 1-2 days a week as “no work” days--actually say that they have seen their productivity increase rather than decrease despite spending “fewer hours” working. The reason being? Instead of beginning to feel like every day is a non-stop sea of tasks they are able to turn off and focus on something else (friends, family, hobbies). This step back from work makes them look forward to the tasks they have set up for the next day and leaves them with enough energy to tackle those tasks. So if you are looking for a sign or permission to cut back on your work hours, here it is!

More broadly, if you find yourself struggling with writing and productivity more generally, it might also be a time to take a step back and see if you should reach out for some help. This could be a chat with a friend, trusted colleague, or mentor for social support and/or practical advice. If you have been participating in a writing group, you can also try sending a message to someone in that group. We aren’t able to conquer all writing blocks by sheer will alone and sometimes we might struggle to be productive because our bodies and brains need a break or some care. It might also be a good time to look into the mental and physical health resources available at your institution or available locally or virtually. 

For more about writing, check out the SPSP chat on academic writing and the APA book “How to Write A Lot” for more tips.

Share your tips, tricks and tools with the SPSP community. What works for you? What is something you have wanted to try? Share your thoughts and follow the conversation on Twitter with #SPSPWrites.

Tips for Reaching Your Summer Writing Goals

Writing is an important part of graduate school, but sometimes writing projects can fall by the wayside as other responsibilities take precedence. Therefore, the summer months can be a great time to focus on writing projects because students often have a reduced course load, teach or assist with smaller classes, or run fewer participants in the lab. But how can students make the most of the months ahead? Below are some suggestions to help accomplish one’s writing goals.

Outline all your writing goals for the summer

At the beginning of the summer, create a list of the writing projects you want to work on. This might include papers you’re planning to submit for publication as well as departmental milestones (e.g., a qualifying thesis or a dissertation prospectus). Make note of the status of each paper—what you’ve accomplished so far and what still needs to be done. This will allow for a comprehensive view into where you are starting the summer. From there, it may be helpful to input this information into a calendar or strategic plan while planning out what specific goals you want to accomplish each week for each project. This may allow you to see what weeks will be busier than others and if any goals are unrealistic in terms of a timeline. An example of what a strategic plan could look like is below:

Image of a writing plan

Set a weekly schedule of writing times or “blocks”

Much like you would schedule meetings or classes, it can be helpful to block out chunks of time in your schedule where you will be solely focused on your writing projects. The amount of time you spend on your writing each week may vary depending on the stage of your graduate school career or the projects you want to accomplish. Similarly, how long each of these blocks last will depend on your schedule. If you’re not sure where to begin in terms of scheduling writing time, SPSP can help! Each semester (summers included), the SPSP Student Committee organizes writing groups held virtually via Zoom. Undergraduate and graduate SPSP student members can sign up to participate in a weekly three-hour writing session with their peers throughout the semester. These groups are a great way to build community and create a dedicated time to work on your projects.

Within each writing block, list your goals for that session

Before you sit down to write, take a few minutes to list out what you want to accomplish during that session and how long each task will take. This can help you stay on track and keep you accountable as you work through your writing session. This is where SPSP’s summer writing groups can help again! Group moderators create a spreadsheet for the group to use each week to list their goals for that session, At the beginning of each group session, members share what they’ll be working on that day, and at the end of the session, members share how their writing time went.

Embrace the “sloppy copy”

In other words, write first, and edit later. It can be tempting to try to write the perfect sentence when creating an initial draft, but this often results in frustration and limited overall progress. Focus on getting your thoughts onto paper, knowing you can always come back later and make the edits needed to polish your writing.

Celebrate your successes and make adjustments as needed

Writing can be a slow process, so celebrating both the small and large successes can be worthwhile, whether it be writing a difficult paragraph, submitting a paper, or having a manuscript accepted for publication. It’s also okay to make adjustments to your strategic plan or your writing goals based on how you progress through the summer. Graduate students can sometimes be overly ambitious in what they hope to accomplish, but they can also sell themselves short. Flexibility and patience throughout the writing process are necessary.

What Makes an Excellent Review?

In the Fall 2006 issue of Dialogue—the original print version of the SPSP member newsletter—the editors reached out to the editors of its journals at the time, along with a group of former journal editors, to ask them to write in their own words, what makes for good (and bad) practice in peer-review writing. As demonstrated in the depth and breadth of the responses submitted by the editors who participated (including Harry Reis, John Cacioppo, Brenda Major, Chet Insko, Cindy Pickett, John Jost, and Sonja Lyubomirsky), there was much to be shared in terms of insights and suggestions for the benefit of both future and current reviewers, but also for the paper authors who aspire to have their research elevated and shared through the publication process.

It's been nearly 15 years since Dialogue posed that question to its journal experts, so eDialogue wanted to see how much had changed and how much had stayed the same. eDialogue reached out to a group of current and recent journal editors and asked them to answer the same question in 2021—what makes an excellent review

Tessa West

Past Co-Editor (2017 – 2020), Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

The best reviews are the ones that hit on a few main themes: What is the contribution, how solid is the method, and is there a disconnect between what the authors say they are testing, and what they actually test? In my experience as an editor, papers usually get rejected for one of these three reasons. Maybe the method is solid but the contribution is incremental. Or perhaps the ideas are grand and exciting, but the method doesn't actually test them. Broad strokes comments are fine, but as an editor and an author I love detail. And if the authors are leaving out a big important chunk of the literature, references help too! 

Chris Crandall

Past Editor (2016 – 2020), Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

What makes an excellent review? Is it different in the “era of open science?” It certainly depends upon who’s doing the judging of excellence.  Authors are biased evaluators of the quality of a review, and vary in their receptivity to negative decisions. The editor's decision communicates clearly to the author, explain/justifies the decision, and helps improve the author(s) manuscripts. The reviewer’s job is to help them. What makes the editor think a review is “excellent?”

1. Editors want good judgment—there are no simple recipes for an excellent review. At PSPB I’ve read hundreds of reviews in the last four years. So many of them were excellent! But most of them were merely good or adequate. Keep in mind that a handful of good/adequate reviews, and a good independent reading by the editor and their synthesis can make for an “excellent” decision process even if the individual contributions are not excellent in themselves.  An insufficient review was actually rare, but they did happen. If an editor gets two insufficient reviews, they are in trouble.

2. A good review must be readable, clear. It should state what the reviewer thinks is in the paper. It should make clear what they think is good about the manuscript, and what they think needs improvement. A good reviewer states their standards, and compares the manuscript to these standards. It is often good to state whether the manuscript can be improved to the standard of publication, and what that might look like.

2a. Go ahead and number your main points. Indicate which are main issues, and which are minor issues.

3. A good review is not a decision letter. In our field, the action editor has near complete authority in making acceptance/rejection/revision decisions. At PSPB, in four years and over 2,500 manuscripts, I think we changed decision on two papers (after resubmission and re-review and re-revision). The reviewer has two audiences—one writes directly to the action editor, but one knows the author will be “reading over the editor’s shoulder.”

4. Should a reviewer sign the review? It’s an open question, and some people are committed to the practice. If the reviewer might edit themselves, worry about what the author(s) will think of them, soften their tone, or shade their recommendations, then they should feel free to review anonymously. A reviewer should never be a jerk, and never be insulting; it undermines their legitimacy to the author, and it’s never necessary.  A strongly negative review can be written kindly, and should be done virtually every time.  

5. Judge a manuscript on its own merits—does it do what it sets out to do? Then judge whether such a task is worthwhile. No one really cares if the manuscript isn’t the one you would have written.

6. What’s different in the era of open science? Not very much. There is now more information, and a reviewer can read a preregistration and compare it to the finished manuscript. The discrepancies are far more common than the explicit acknowledgment of them. Reviewers sometimes re-analyze data, or check code—this is very, very uncommon at the moment; it is certainly welcome. It is hard to require this burden of time, effort and skill—until we pay such reviewers or make it their specific role it is too much to expect, even as a standard of excellence. The largest change I’ve observed so far is for the open science registration of manuscripts, data, and code, is to undo the double-blind nature of the review, which increases biased evaluation due to gender, age, institutional status, reputation, and so on. I cannot say that this is A Good Thing.

Colin Wayne Leach

Past Co-Editor and Associate Editor, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin; Editor, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Peer review is yet another cardinal skill—like ethics, writing, and teaching—that most of us are expected to intuit or learn on the job. This is likely why there is so much idiosyncrasy in the style and content of peer reviews. Of course, it is now all the more clear that our field’s continuing lack of consensual standards for the conduct, reporting, and interpretation of research further fuels idiosyncrasy in peer reviews. The ongoing discussion of best practice for open science has likely introduced new, and perhaps greater, idiosyncrasy in the standards by which peers review research.

Until we can all agree on basic standards for conducting, reporting, and interpreting research, we must all agree on how to productively discuss our (idiosyncratic) views.  Thus, as a journal editor, my main wish is that reviews engage in principled and civil evaluation grounded in standards that the reviewer makes explicit with specific details and supporting references (see Leach, 2020).  Making explicit one’s standards of evaluation in a review empowers all involved to cooperate in informed exchange regarding the legitimacy of those standards and whether those standards have been met by the argument and evidence presented.

Firstly, principled and civil evaluation based in explicit standards empowers the handling editor to more appropriately weight a review and to adjudge whether the evaluation is line with that of other reviewers and with the stated aims and standards of the journal.  Reviews that offer a great deal of (idiosyncratic) evaluation with little explicit statement of the standards behind the evaluation amount to statements of liking.  Liking is a poor basis of principled and civil scholarly discourse and can instead invite distrust and rancor. 

Secondly, principled and civil evaluation based in explicit standards empowers the author(s) to better understand reviewer’s evaluations.  This can ultimately translate into more honest self-reflection and improvement by the author(s).  It can also disseminate information to all involved and thus is a step in moving us toward more consensual standards.  Importantly, principled and civil evaluation also conveys greater procedural justice to authors, which can make it easier for authors to accept reviews and to gain from them. 

Lastly, principled and civil evaluation based in explicit standards empowers the reviewer themselves to be more self-reflective regarding their evaluation, especially as it concerns its legitimacy and its importance to the evaluation.  Having to substantiate one’s evaluation by making one’s standards explicit should make reviewers more accountable to all involved, and thus make them more careful and conscientious.  I am sure that many of us would withdraw at least some of our most damming evaluations if we had to root them in explicit standards to voice them.

The APA Publication Manual is an under-utilized source of basic standards for the conduct and reporting of research.  The related, and publicly accessible, APA reporting standards are another under-utilized source: Journal Article Reporting Standards for Quantitative Research in Psychology; Journal Article Reporting Standards for Qualitative Primary, Qualitative Meta-Analytic, and Mixed Methods Research in Psychology.  I’ve listed some helpful guides to reviewing below.

Nature

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03394-y
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06991-0

APA

https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/resources/how-to-review-manuscripts

JPSP: IRGP

https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/psp-pspi0000226.pdf
https://www.apa.org/pubs/highlights/editor-spotlight/psp-irgp-leach

Tackling the Dissertation


Preparing to defend your thesis is the final step of the doctoral program. Although this might be an exciting time, it may also be intimidating and stressful. To assuage some of the anxiety and to enhance transparency relating to this process, in this month’s article, we interviewed three SPSP members about their experience.

Dr. Heidi Vuletich received her doctoral degree in 2020 from University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dr. Kori Krueger completed her doctoral degree in 2020 at the University of Pittsburgh. Julian Scheffer, from Pennsylvania State University, will be defending his thesis in 2021. We asked them the following questions.

How long did you spend on the written dissertation? 

  • Heidi: About 5 months.
  • Kori: A long time, but I spent a lot of time writing the introduction of my dissertation proposal so that I wouldn’t have to be stressed about it for the final dissertation. That’s always one option or you could write a shorter introduction in the proposal document and do an overhaul for the final document. I hoped (and achieved) to do a lot of the work upfront so that my committee could see the introduction before the proposal meeting and it would just take small changes to get it ready for the final document. I probably spent 4-5 months writing up the proposal (which is probably more time than most but again, I put more effort in upfront than later) and then 2 months finalizing the final document.
  • Julian: I would invest typically one or two hours per weekday as I could, and on some days, I might invest slightly more time if there was something that would benefit from more investment time to finalizing (e.g., data cleaning and analyses). The writing process took me roughly 4-5 months, but this varied in time per day as well as whether I continued to write on weekends.

How long did you spend preparing for the oral dissertation?

  • Heidi: I maybe spent three weeks in total preparing my slides, writing the talk, incorporating feedback, and practicing.
  • Kori: After putting together my presentation, I probably spent 2-3 hours brainstorming possible questions the committee might ask and getting supplemental resources together. I also ran through my presentation several times which took several hours.
  • Julian: The oral presentation is still to come, but I imagine I will spend roughly two weeks readying a brief presentation and considering potential questions that I may be asked during the defense. In terms of day-to-day, I could imagine this taking up maybe an hour or two each day depending on how much I need to ready for visualizations and reviewing my submitted document to my committee.

Did you have a specific plan / process when you wrote your dissertation?

  • Heidi: The introduction for my dissertation was mostly derived from my proposal. I made edits, but it remained largely the same. The same was true of the method section. For the results and discussion, I wrote them as I would a manuscript for publication.
  • Kori: Yes. I wrote the method/results of all the studies included in the dissertation first because I think those are the easiest parts of a paper to write. I wrote a small discussion for each study and made a note of the most important points from those that I wanted to reiterate in general discussion. Then, I tackled the introduction. This was the most time consuming and required the most back-and-forth with my advisor. I like to outline the introduction with major sections first and begin to write each section. I tried to write every day or spend time finding additional articles necessary to cite with the goal of working on my dissertation 3 out of 5 days of the week. After I made significant progress in the introduction, I would again make an outline of it with specific paragraph purposes to make sure that the structure was still the way that I wanted it and that it flowed nicely. I ended up changing the structure several times. Outlining really helped improve clarity, especially since the introduction was so long and included so many different literatures. Once the introduction was mostly finalized, I wrote the general discussion. I also kept a running file of ideas/notes for the project as I would think of or talk about with my advisor regarding future directions, limitations, implications, etc. that was quite helpful as I wrote.
  • Julian: Yes, I was aiming to invest roughly one or two hours per day into the write-up of my dissertation. The proposal provided the bulk of my introduction, but I did need to invest time carefully writing up my methods and results for my studies, consulting with my committee for any deviations from my proposal (e.g., mixed data showing partial support of hypotheses), and consulting with my advisor to ensure I could efficiently collect and analyze studies.

What was the most difficult part of the writing process for you and why?

  • Heidi: The most difficult aspect of the writing process was the time pressure, intensiveness, and feeling a little bit isolated while doing it. I would have liked to have joined a dissertation writing group, but virtual groups were not a thing at the time, and I had recently moved to a different city. Now, I feel like there are many options for writing groups.
  • Kori: I think the most difficult process is just getting started. The dissertation process feels overwhelming because it is such a huge milestone. For me, carving out time designated for writing and tackling one subsection of a paper section made it much more manageable. Then I would go back to create transitions between subsections and make a new outline to check the structure.
  • Julian: Though the dissertation is important, I did have conflicting priorities that would require my attention week-to-week, such as ensuring I met my teaching priorities, making meetings, mentoring my undergraduates, being a good collaborator on other projects, and keeping on top of service commitments for which others were relying on me for. I was also facing the COVID-19 pandemic, so I was mostly writing from my home office without much change of scenery. I used to enjoy writing from coffee shops, my department office, or other locations. However, all my writing has been done at home which can be a bit stale. Further, I was unable to take too many fun breaks as I was working to abide by public health measures, so I had to be creative with my breaks and try to get outside my apartment safely when I could (e.g., early morning walks).

How did you prepare for the oral defense?

  • Heidi: I practiced a lot. I was nervous for the question and answer period, but one of my strategies was to ask many questions myself and have prepared answers. For example, a committee member would ask a question, and I would respond plus add, “I have also wondered why X,Y,Z (related topic). One explanation is…” This allowed me to feel more in control, and it made the defense feel more like a stimulating intellectual conversation in which I was partaking as a peer.
  • Kori: I prepared for the oral defense by practicing my presentation many times with other people so that I could see the kinds of questions that arose from those practice talks. I also met with my advisor to discuss the kinds of questions that were likely to come up with the committee and come up with thoughtful responses. It was also helpful to run some supplemental analyses about things I thought might come up as questions and to have some “secret slides” ready to address topics I thought might arise. I think the best tip that worked for me is just remembering that you are the expert in the room and that you have so much knowledge about this topic. You don’t have to answer as fast as possible to questions that are asked of you. Take a breath and answer as best as you can. If you don’t know the answer, don’t pretend to, but use your knowledge to give a thoughtful response and start a conversation about it.
  • Julian: I am aiming to prepare slides that will have all my data in presentable formats that my committee would hopefully follow along with. I will also be prepared to lay out my proposal, my deviations from my proposal with justifications, and future directions for my dissertation line of research. I think coming in knowing what your data is, what it shows, the strength of your methods and practices, and any implications and important takeaways of your project and your data is important. Additionally, coming in knowing the strength of your research, being open about any shortcomings of your methods or data, and any thoughts about how to improve these are all important.

Did you encounter any unexpected challenges during this process? If so, what were they and how did you overcome them?

  • Heidi: My biggest challenge was that I wasn’t expecting it to be a challenge. I had thought about the dissertation as a last-step formality and was surprised when suddenly I found myself stressed and somewhat insecure. I relied a lot on my awesome cohort for moral support and would frequently text them cries for help, which they would graciously always respond to with lots of encouragement. I also found it helpful to find a place where I could work uninterrupted and comfortably. Certain coffee shops became my designated “dissertation only” workplaces where I didn’t allow myself to check email, social media, or any other dissertation unrelated work.
  • Kori: I think the hardest thing was to choose the topic. For me, it was really helpful to draw a map of my existing projects and links between projects and to highlight keywords that were commonly used across projects. Then, I evaluated those keywords against what research identity I wanted to have going forward if I were to have my own lab. Another challenge is staying motivated. The dissertation process is quite long from beginning to end so make sure that you don’t burn yourself out—it’s a marathon, not a sprint. Pace yourself, make a timeline, and make sure that you don’t solely focus on the dissertation for the entirety of that time. Put effort into other projects as well and keep as much balance in your life with friends, family, hobbies, etc.
  • Julian: Yes, the COVID-19 pandemic was a big one, and not really having the in-person access of my mentors was a bit harder. Though mentors made themselves available for me when I needed them, it did feel isolating to write from my home office and try to keep engaged. I think making as much of a routine, amongst the chaos, was helpful. I also think taking good breaks is important, whether that be finding time to take walks outside, be in nature, and remain physically active, is important. I also ensured I provided myself with plenty of time to collect data, write, and then revise my dissertation document. Also, my data did not always support all my hypotheses to maintain progressing in my original proposed study sequence (Studies 1-3), so I had to be ready to shift my planned progression in the sequence and present those changes to my committee along the way. Obtaining data that comes out mixed can be a bit demoralizing but finding ways to regroup and maintain focus on important takeaways is a crucial part of this process. 

Finally, do you have any general tips for those who are preparing their dissertation?

  • Heidi: Join a dissertation writing group, find supportive colleagues or friends who can provide moral support throughout the process, keep a stash of healthy snacks and take regular walking breaks, and remember that you are capable, you’ve gotten this far, and you can do it!
  • Kori: Pitt recently changed the structure of the dissertation process and suggests that students collect initial data before the proposal and the build on that data for their dissertation (hopefully increasing the likelihood that dissertation data works as expected). I really appreciate that I did this because it made the process much less stressful because I was able to plan out a series of studies in my proposal based on promising initial data and could build my full argument for my idea out in the proposal stage which allowed me to get really detailed feedback from my committee early in the dissertation process.
  • Julian: I would say invest in a project that you are genuinely curious to explore. I was excited about my dissertation, and though the results may be mixed at times, the findings are still noteworthy for me personally. I can also take time to really interrogate my findings further to see if they can motivate any follow-ups. But honestly, take this as a time to really carve out your research identity, and do something unique that also meshes well with directions of your lab and your graduate mentor. Make sure you and your mentor are on the same page and hopefully both of you are excited about the project and collecting data. Additionally, look out for dissertation grants or awards that could help supplement your participant recruitment. Lastly, consider good samples and recruitment tools to help you with your project. I was able to collect political data around the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election, and though I could not obtain in-person voting data due to COVID-19 similar to some of my prior work, I had to adapt and find representative data around the election online as best as possible.

Acknowledgements

We thank Julian Scheffer and Drs. Heidi Vuletich and Kori Krueger for their contribution to this article.

Psychological Scholars Share their "Unofficial" Bios

Impostor syndrome, burnout, and rejection are common in academia. Often, though, students and early career researchers can feel like they are the only ones who struggle. Experiencing obstacles can be particularly isolating if scholars are embedded in a culture that only highlights successes and not failures. It is easy to build a false impression that others are more capable because their careers appear to have proceeded without setbacks. Academic bios and CVs often trace neat, linear trajectories. The role of random chance and structural inequalities placing scholars at the right place and time, with the right people, hides behind lists of accolades, publications, and academic appointments. The consequences of this biased portrayal range anywhere from attrition to poor mental health.

What if the academy was not so intent on displaying only the highlight reel, but sometimes offered glimpses of the raw behind-the-scenes? The SPSP Student Committee was inspired by the "Growing up in Science" project, which publishes the unofficial bios of scientists. These are the "messy" versions of someone's career path and include biographical elements. The committee reached out to psychological scholars and asked them to share their “unofficial bio” and many graciously responded with their stories. As you will see, their “unofficial” narratives reveal that, among successes, awards, publications, and academic appointments, there is a lot of happenstance, exploration, unearned privilege, trial-and-error, rejection, failure, and emotional struggle.

The Student Committee encourages you to browse through these bios and find inspiration in them. However, this project is not just a display of unofficial stories. It is a call to action to psychology departments, programs, and individual faculty. The stories that we tell have an impact. Gently ask yourself when you are introducing speakers in colloquiums or other events attended by students, what is the message you want to convey? Establishing the speaker’s expertise and credibility can certainly be one goal. Honoring the speaker by highlighting their accomplishments can be another. But also consider each introduction as an opportunity to foster a healthier culture in academia and to inspire others to do the same. Ask speakers if they would feel comfortable sharing unofficial aspects of their bio showcasing obstacles, failures, and rejections, particularly if they are tenured and well-established.

Consider also leading by example. You can share elements of your unofficial bio when you are invited to speak somewhere, display it on your website, or list rejections on your CV. Acknowledging areas in which you have benefited from unearned privilege is also important. Your courage might lead to structural change or mean the difference between whether or not a bright undergraduate student decides to pursue a Ph.D. or a graduate student chooses to complete theirs.

Let’s honor not just each other’s academic legacies, but our trials as well.  At the very least, this approach makes us all seem more human. At best, it lessens the burden of the challenges we all experience, inspires us to persevere and advocate for change, and builds a sense of connection among us.   

read the bios

Announcing the Book Prize and Excellence in Science Journalism Award Winners

Congratulations to the recipients of the Book Prize & Excellence in Science Journalism Award. SPSP will be honoring these award recipients at the Awards Ceremony during the Annual Convention in New Orleans.

Book Prize

The Book Prize for the Promotion of Social and Personality Science is a prize for a single outstanding contribution that honors a book written by a psychologist that makes a distinctive and important contribution to the field by promoting an understanding of the science of social and personality psychology to the general public. 

William von Hippel 

"The Social Leap"

William is an evolutionary social psychologist at the University of Queensland. His research activities are primarily in the cognitive, motivational, and social factors that facilitate social success, but he admits to having wide-ranging (i.e., scattered) interests. The Social Leap is an outgrowth and reflection of his inability to focus.  

Excellence in Science Journalism Award

The Excellence in Science Journalism Award is a service award that honors a member of the media for excellence in coverage of the personality and social psychology field. 

Maria Konnikova

Maria is a New York Times best-selling author, journalist, and professional poker player for PokerStars Team Pro. She is a contributing writer for The New Yorker and hosts the podcast "The Grift" from Panoply Media. Maria's writing has been featured in Best American Science and Nature Writing and has been translated into over twenty languages. Her podcasting work earned her a National Magazine Award nomination in 2019. She graduated from Harvard University and received her PhD in psychology from Columbia University.

Writing Like Your Life Depends on It

Despite the fact that most academics’ careers (or professional lives) depend on writing and publishing prolifically, many new faculty would rather do almost anything but write. Natalie Sabik, who researches social identity and health, and has created a writing accountability group, jokes that some days she would rather fold laundry than start writing. Sabik’s writing accountability group, which serves as a supportive online community for tracking research and writing goals, and keeping each other accountable has been operating for about 2 years, with three members, each at different institutions.

Sabik explained that a writing accountability group is a sustainable way to stay on track with your writing goals because the group can be tailored to the members’ needs and preferences. Sabik clarified that her group is process, not outcome-focused: they track their goals and reflections on the writing process, but do not necessarily share or provide feedback on the products of their writing.

“You have to state your goals out loud to others in order to be accountable to them”, explains Sabik. The group not only ensures that each member stays on track with their goals, but it also serves as a way of learning how much time writing actually takes. Diana Betz, who studies stereotyping and prejudice, and is one of the members of Sabik’s writing group, explained that “the writing accountability group has made me a better collaborator”, as she now knows how long various tasks take, and can create more realistic deadlines. As Sabik explained, often we have a warped conception of how long writing can take and how much time we spend on different stages of the research process.

To actually create their writing accountability group, Sabik explained, one of the first steps was to decide who they wanted in their group: a supportive, non-competitive group of colleagues is key. In her writing group, Sabik explains they have a shared spreadsheet (with tabs for each individual member) where they track their goals, schedules, and reflections.

Betz emphasized that though the group provides feedback on each other’s reflections and goals, they do not share their writing with one another. For them, this provides an environment that is more focused on supporting than pushing each other. Betz noted that regular check-ins with fellow group members can be useful, as it provides an opportunity to gracefully bow out of the group if the fit is not right.

At a time when publishing regularly is critical to tenure and promotion, finding a group that can keep you on track can be a lifesaver.


Written By Aviva Philipp-Muller
 
Symposium: Creating and Running an Online Writing Accountability Group held Friday, March 2nd
 
Speakers:
 
Natalie Sabik, Assistant Professor of Health Studies, University of Rhode Island
 
Diana Betz, Assistant Professor of psychology, Loyola University, Maryland

Meet the 2023–2024 Early Career Committee

Navigating the years post-PhD is a unique journey filled with transitions and challenges. That's why our committee is here: to support Early Career (EC) Scholars like you by providing opportunities for networking, professional development, and finding your community within SPSP. We recognize that our members are the future, and we strive to ensure that this future is bright.

What We Do

Building Community

Building community is at the core of what we do. We endeavor to create a community both virtually and in person to foster a sense of belonging.

  • SPSP Connect!: This online community allows EC members to share ideas, collaborate, and create networking opportunities.
  • Virtual Writing Groups: Ever popular, we hold twice-weekly writing groups throughout the year on Zoom where scholars can find accountability in a group setting, brainstorm through questions and challenges, and meet others in their early career community. Indicate your time preferences for Fall 2023 here.
  • EC Social Hour: Held during the SPSP Annual Convention, the social hour is always a blast and a great opportunity to reconnect with or meet other early career scholars attending the conference!

Recognition

Recognizing the hard work of early career scholars is crucial. Our expanded awards system ensures that both very early scholars and more senior early career scholars receive fair recognition, with accolades for excellence in teaching, service, and research.

Professional Development

We aim to ensure EC members are equipped to face the unique challenges of transitioning between jobs in the critical phase of less than seven years post-PhD.

  • BECOME Mentoring Program: EC members are matched with a mentor tailored to their needs. This program is halfway through its second successful year, and we look forward to announcing the third round soon.
  • Annual Convention Programming: At the SPSP Annual Convention, find our professional development sessions tailored to EC members and their needs.
  • Early Career Mentor Tables: A popular roundtable event at the Annual Convention where you can sit down and get guidance on publishing, grant writing, succeeding in your first faculty position, and more.
  • Online Resources: We continue to collect useful materials for career planning and guidance, including navigating postdocs, the academic and non-academic job markets, and links to EC-focused grants.

Who We Are

Gili FreedmanGili Freedman

  • Assistant Prof., St. Mary's College of Maryland, U.S.
  • Area of Expertise: Social rejection, gender biases, and game interventions
  • Committee Role: Co-chair

"My hope is that the ECC can help early career members form a community and feel a sense of belonging within our field."  

Veronica LamarcheVeronica Lamarche

  • Senior Lecturer/Associate Prof., University of Essex, UK
  • Area of Expertise: Balancing trust, dependence, and uncertainty in close relationships
  • Committee Role: Co-chair and Director of the BECOME mentoring program

"I want to help support our global and diverse community of early career scholars as they embark on their unique careers that will shape the future of social-personality psychology.  I see the ECC as a resource offering community, professional development, and a voice for our EC members."

Jessie SunJessie Sun

  • Assistant Prof., Washington University in St. Louis, U.S.
  • Area of Expertise: Examines well-being and morality
  • Role: Overseeing the Emerging Scholar and Early Career Awards

"The ECC helps to build community, promote the interests of EC members, and advocate for change within SPSP."

Alison Jane MartinganoAlison Jane Martingano

  • Assistant Prof., University of Wisconsin - Green Bay, U.S.
  • Area of Expertise: Explores empathy and designs strategies to enhance it
  • Role: Newsletter writer, event coordination

"The ECC has a great opportunity to break down barriers to success, particularly for first-generation academics, by sharing the unwritten rules and norms no one likes to say out loud."

Ben BlankenshipBen Blankenship

  • Assistant Prof., James Madison University, U.S.
  • Area of Expertise: Social identity, context attachment, and political engagement
  • Role: Leading writing group meetings, conference planning, facilitating BECOME

"I want to help scholars from marginalized backgrounds and/or less research-focused institutions find community at SPSP, especially as many of us started our careers at a very difficult time (during the pandemic)!"

Marjorie ProkoschMarjorie Prokosch

  • Assistant Prof., Rochester Institute of Technology, U.S.
  • Area of Expertise: Environmental impacts on perception and decision-making
  • Role: Hosting writing groups, organizing events

"I'm especially interested in incorporating feedback from members that can help us to increase the reach and inclusivity of our committee's initiatives."

Together, we focus on supporting the EC community within SPSP. From professional development, mentoring, and recognition, we pave the way for a more inclusive future in personality and social psychology. Feel free to reach out to us via SPSP Connect! And join us in making a lasting impact on our community.

Welcoming the New Character & Context Editorial Team

As of July 1, a new editorial team has taken the reins of SPSP's flagship blog—Character & Context. SPSP is excited to welcome new Editor-in-Chief Jennifer Crocker and her Associate Editors, Andy Luttrell and Julie Garcia!

Character & Context explores the latest findings from research in personality and social psychology. The blog's topics span the full range of human experience, such as aggression, romantic attraction, prejudice, emotions, morality, persuasion, friendship, helping, conformity, decision-making, and group interaction, to name just a few. The editorial team will be reviewing and refining new submissions, guiding authors through the editing process.

We would also like to thank outgoing Editor-in-Chief Judith Hall and her Associate Editors H. Colleen Sinclair and Leah Dickens for dedicating their time and energy to ensuring the success of Character & Context. SPSP is excited to build on that momentum with the new editorial team.

Meet the new editorial team below and please reach out to [email protected] or Jennifer Crocker at [email protected]. If you are interested in submitting a post for Character & Context, please contact Dr. Crocker directly at the email address listed above.

Editor-in-Chief

Jennifer Crocker

Jennifer Crocker headshotJennifer Crocker is a Professor and Ohio Eminent Scholar in Social Psychology, Emerita, at the Ohio State University. Dr. Crocker has made seminal contributions in two distinct research fields within social psychology: Social Stigma and work on Self and Identity. These areas are linked by Dr. Crocker's focus on how people strive to gain and maintain self-esteem and the ensuing consequences of these strivings. Currently, Dr. Crocker studies self-esteem, contingencies of self-worth, and the costs of pursuing self-esteem as a goal.

Dr. Crocker has served in a variety of leadership roles at SPSP, including her tenure on the Executive Committee and her term as president of the Society. She has also served as president of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (SPSSI), the International Society for Self and Identity, and Divisions 8 and 9 of APA. Dr. Crocker is also highlighted on SPSP's Heritage Wall of Fame, which honors those who have made a significant impact in personality and social psychology.

Associate Editors

Julie Garcia

Julia Garcia headshotJulie Garcia is a Professor in the Psychology and Child Development Department, and Faculty Director of Program Improvement in Academic Programs and Planning at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. Her research focuses on the situational cues that inform social identity meanings, and how people cope when these cues suggest possible devaluation. As a whole, Dr. Garcia's research aims to improve the lives of others by finding solutions that could improve intergroup dynamics, enhance representation in STEM, and foster adaptive negotiation between multiple social identities.

In addition to her role on the Character & Context Editorial team, Dr. Garcia serves on SPSP's Board of Directors as Member at Large, Outreach and Advocacy.

Andy Luttrell

Andy Luttrell headshotAndy Luttrell is an Associate Professor of Psychological Science at Ball State University. His research centers on people's opinions, including when and how those attitudes change. Dr. Luttrell is especially interested in what happens when people moralize their attitudes and how moral persuasive rhetoric can sometimes be compelling and sometimes backfire. He also studies the feeling of ambivalence and the stability of people's opinions over time. This research has looked at many different opinions, including attitudes toward social, environmental, political, and consumer issues.

Dr. Luttrell is also the host of Opinion Science, a podcast that explores the science behind our opinions, where they come from, and how they change.

--

Please join SPSP in welcoming the new editorial team of Character & Context! SPSP looks forward to working with Drs. Crocker, Garcia, and Luttrell to raise awareness of new and compelling research in personality and social psychology.