Writing across disciplines is hard.
Writing is hard, in general. Expressing ideas with out continual feedback that comes from a verbal conversation. Writing well depends on the audience. Writing becomes easier over time when you write for a specific community, you et to know the audience and you begin to better understand things. As you gain familiarity with that audience it gets easier and easier. This is the better thing to do. Is this a better solution.
However, interdisciplinary writing is much harder, largely for that reason exactly. You have to write for an audience that's a community you're not a member of. Style conventions vary. Terminology is different. Length is even different. An understanding between you and your audience is dissolved. You have to think about what these things that you have even accustomed to fro so long mean in a different light. Thinking form new perspectives is really hard, we're not wired for that. We are wired fro using past experience to generate ideas and concepts and to evaluate new experiences. The same words can mean different things. The organization of the content is even different. Conventions for writing titles and headline and section headers all vary.
Writing for a new audicen is hard because its th eopposite of what we are trained to do and it is the opposite of what our braind s are wired for.
It's hard even for senior people, so it's ok to strugle with it as a PhD student. One of the most transformative experiences of my phd trainingn was an interdisciplinary wrriting experience. We had to work across borderlines. None of us knew what the answer was. We didn't now how to understand how this could have worked.
We were a team of engineers and psychologists attempting to write something particularly challenging to begin with. We weree claiming the need for an epistiomological shift, and proposing an optionn for a direction to go. We broke down core problems and were proposing a more computationally rooted option. We would take turns drafting sections of the paper. A psychologist would write it and the engineers would find ti too imprecise and qualitative. We would try to write it and it would be too technicacl, too full equations and not descriptive enough. We weren't making progress. We needed a dramatic interetion.
Thi was a large interdiplinatry progje there were four professors sevearl postdocs and two phd students. nice total people. We were nearing the end so fthe semester as we were stuck and so we decided our solution woudl comem in a few weeks. We found two weeks, were two days each week we could all agree to clear our schedules. Thursday and Friday each weeek. Four total days. We reserved a conference room and didn't tell anyonen else in either lab. No one was welcoem to interrupt or ask questins or ask for signatures from many of the faculty or anything for those four days. We called it a writing seuqester. We stayded in placec. Duing the right thingng we could do.
Duringn those two days we spend the thwol timem and we worked through what twe needed to do. We spend then timem and we worked togheer. We set the paper up from an outline in word into a sharelatex projet. We knew there would be a lot of citations that no one wanted o manage manually and we knew tha tthere was a lot of equationns that we would ned throughout much of th epaper and we needed a cloud based soltuion so tha twe could all work together. We sat around the talbe and started working. We could talkand discuss and sentence by ssentencec s we could compose the paper sectionn by section . We though aout what this can be done.