I have found the process of making ‘minor modifications’ to Document 3 considerably harder than originally writing it. Initially I welcomed the request for changes, as it gave me the opportunity to go through the document improving the English in the interests of clarity – in particular by describing the research study in the past tense and by using the first person rather than the passive in some sections. Knowing that I would also need to alter the structure of the document generally, I began by identifying modifications to the text by using a different colour rather than immediately commencing ‘track-changes’ (I was anxious to avoid revising track changes once they’d been made). I found plenty of instances where text revisions seemed appropriate, and – knowing that additional information was required in respect of both analysis and conclusions – I endeavoured to reduce my word-count wherever possible (in particular, by omitting discussion of the least relevant of my seven ‘case-studies’, and by relegating secondary comments to footnotes).
When I turned my attention to the need to modify the overall structure of this document, I was embarrassed to find what a disorganized text I had produced – with excessive repetition, illogical sequence, and highly idiosyncratic organization (awkwardly based upon the four humours). Moving large sections of text from one part of the document to another proved a nightmare – both in keeping note of where they had come from and even more in ensuring that the revised sequences of (already altered) paragraphs continued to flow smoothly from one to the next. With so many paragraphs and sentences relocated, and substantial additions to (and omissions from) the text, it became clear that track-changes would have rendered the document totally unreadable. In this modified submission, therefore, altered or new wording is in red, original wording is in blue, and omitted text has simply been deleted.
I found that I had written an excessive amount justifying my preparation for the research exercise, and a hopelessly inadequate amount evaluating my findings. In retrospect, I can attribute these defects partly to the piecemeal way in which the document had been assembled (with multiple breaks between flurries of writing and re-writing), but mainly to the long time spent justifying my approach in advance of commencing actual research activities.
The modified document has five sections rather than four, with headings referring to the sequence of research activities undertaken rather than to a series of different attitudes adopted through the progress of the exercise. In order to ensure the overall word-count was better balanced between the different sections, at the same time as providing dramatic continuity, the text was organized as three ‘acts’ (roughly modelled upon Blake Snyder’s ‘Save the Cat’ screen-writing formula) – the first two sections being concerned with the contextualization of data, the second two with the development of information, and the final one generalizing my findings in the form of knowledge with potential consequences for the future.
My outstanding concern now is whether such comprehensive re-casting of the document really constitutes ‘minor modifications.’ The revised text has nevertheless been offered in the confident belief that it represents a substantial improvement upon that previously submitted.