Reflecting on writing my first journal article

This assignment was a challenge and eye-opener for me in many ways. I would first like to address those things I realized I could not do, did wrong or had to improve, after which I end with those reconfirming issues that should give me a bit of self-confidence on my journey to become a practicing academic – or least to give me something positive to cling to while I’m doing my thesis proposal…

My first struggle was to select a journal for my article – at first I thought “Why not go for gold and pretend that I’m writing for the Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence – the most prestigious peer-reviewed journal in my field?” I soon realized that it is folly to take such a simple approach: first, I’m not pretending – this is serious stuff and my chance to actually try and get published. Secondly, my data results were actually good and I have something to share with the world. Thirdly, I have spent months on my ART project, and will spend months on my journal article, it must be worthwhile all my blood and tears… So I had to change track and actually look for a journal that might be interested in what I had to say – applying primary research results in a wider context than the ivory towers of this intelligence and security world has previously done. I spent about three weeks researching all the security, intelligence, training and development, organizational development, sociology and education peer-reviewed journals, looking for a suitable home for my first foray into academic publishing. This investigation also forced me to reconsider the angle/s of my article. The data is such that I could really focus on three or four different aspects of my research and present my data in such a way that it would apply to any of the above disciplines. In the end, I had to ask myself: “What do you want to be known for? An intelligence or security specialist? An educationalist or sociologist in the intelligence/security environment? Or a security intelligence specialist that is passionate about improving the profession?” Of course, in the end I decided that my professional identity is the latter and that my chosen journal shares this identity.

My second challenge or mistake was that I allowed myself to be redirected or rather misdirected into a path that wasted a lot of my time and energy. I got so ensnared in the whole idea of professional identity, that my focus became blurred and I saw everything in my data results in this light. But when I started to write the article, I realized that my survey actually only touched on one small aspect of professional identity, and that my data does not support this one-sided focus. My presentation at the workshop reflected this singular focus, and although good for my thinking about my thesis topic, it gave the wrong impression about my article. The focus should be on the analysts’ perception of their profession and how they would like to develop further – professional identity is but one very small snapshot of the whole – apologies to myself… accepted... luckily I passed my presentation!

My third major learning was that I did not think about the end-result of some of the questions I asked in my survey in the ART assignment. Yes, it looked quite impressive in the survey, and I felt damn good about how I covered most of the issues I wanted the respondents’ to reply on. But I never took into consideration that those responses needed to be analyzed and commented on! As a result, I totally underestimated the richness of my data. It took me about two months to analyse, re-categorize and code the data, and when I started to write the article, I realized that I had too many loose strands, too many major points that each deserves a paper on their own! I had to decide not to include some of my findings as it introduces a whole new concept that actually deserves another paper. The lesson I learnt here was that I should start with the end in mind and narrow down my inquiry until there is nothing more to discover before I write up my questions.

My fourth learning is that I’m truly an interpretivist. I learnt that the data speak for itself, and my role is to “listen” and to make sure that I’m not missing a nuance or am deaf to the respondents’ voices. I forced myself to let go of my subjectivity and my cynicism, even my unconscious agenda of proving that the intelligence analysts in Africa don’t care about professional development. When I sat down with the data, and dug further, playing with different pivot tables, the data ‘screamed’ that they actually care – a lot! I started looking at the data from different angles, playing devil’s advocate, playing Cassandra and Pollyanna to make sure that I extract as much meaning as possible from their ‘voices’.

Some of the things I learnt about the process and about myself are more positive. I affirmed that it is worthwhile to stand on the shoulders of giants – learning how other people attempted the same kind of research, whether they succeeded or failed does not matter as those examples were signposts on my journey these last months.  

The biggest surprise was that I could actually learn the basics of statistics, albeit the bare basics! It afforded both my husband (science tutor) and my son (an engineering student) some input and insight into my research. Of course my son guided me to the best YouTube videos to understand ‘standard deviation’, ‘median vs average’ etc., but it created the opportunity for some good discussions.

The main obstacle I overcame was writer’s block. I learnt to free-write anything that came to mind, even when I don’t feel like studying. I learnt that I have some valuable insights in my sub-conscious that just needed a channel to emerge – and a word document without structure or sense or a notebook next to me while I’m reading or writing helps me to stay in touch with the scholar in me. In this way, I learnt to deal with my energy and attention levels in a way that would be beneficial for my journey toward doctorateness.