Pattern recognition is an interesting thing...

What else can we say about the concept of reactivity, as discussed by Espeland and Sauder? Is it the same thing as engagement, as with audiences, or is that something different? What about engaging with key influencers, like Gladwell's mavens? And is this different from systems of rankings and measures?

These are the questions I'm wrestling with at the moment, as I work through another revise and resubmit, AKA, the bane of academic research life. In this case, I have been extremely fortunate, with very positive comments. That's no guarantee, of course, but I have learned some thing along the way about carefully listening to reviewer comments. In fact, my strategy now is not only to prepare exact quotes from each of the reviewers' points made, but to also rewrite those comments so that I can make sure that I understand them, a task which I can accomplish in several stages, which over time gets me closer to understanding.

Burham's plan for Chicago (wikipedia)

This is not to say that I don't go through the normal stages of getting back a revise and resubmit, which for me include the familiar rollercoaster of positive joy at the decision, including the ego crash at actually reading through the insightful but critical points, then setting things down for a while to cool off, and finally coming back in a more positive mindset. Apparently women are statistically less likely to pursue a revise and resubmit decision, which is unfortunate (link: sorry, you'll have to google it). Yet another thing to keep in mind about the nature of the game requiring sheer stubbornness and grit.

At any rate, after those stages I can start to progressively write and rewrite those comments, digging deeper into understanding as I go. Of course it also helps to break things up into smaller points, so as to avoid being overwhelmed by a sea of changes needed all at once. Other people like to group similar comments together, which I do by flagging the key issues and keywords. Gradually, I rewrite these comments and start to gently make changes on the manuscript, picking off easier issues until I've gotten enough ground under my feet so as to be able to stomach the bigger changes called for, e.g. reanalysis of ethnographic data, restructuring of the literature review and discussion together.

I'll also own up to my own mistakes, because maybe not everyone learns the hard way like I do. What I can say is that when you do get a revise and resubmit, it is a terrible idea to take that in a completely orthogonal direction. The reviewers... will not appreciate it. Stick close to the comments and write a new paper later if you've got a new set of ideas that are not tightly linked with the reviewer suggestions. The urge to completely reframe the thing in a new way that isn't liked to the reviewer comments is in the same family as the procrastination genie that wants you to think it's tots fine to skip your daily writing practice "just this once." Don't listen to it - this is a stage in the process that just has to be borne, and you'll feel better once you get through to the other side.

As for me, I'm getting toward productive, though with a brief interlude for the annual ASA meeting in Chicago. We'll see how the daily writing holds up against old friends, blues dancing and the city of big hearts, broad shoulders and Daniel Burnham.