Digital resources in the Social Sciences and Humanities OpenEdition Our platforms OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypotheses Calenda Libraries OpenEdition Freemium Follow us

Final session Wednesday + office hours through deadline

Quick reminder: Our final session is Wednesday, January 14, 10:30-11:30 (haha, that wasn’t intentional, it was supposed to be the normal 10:15… but no worries)

Since we last met in December, you’ve had time to write. Some of you came to December office hours, many didn’t (that’s fine). Now we’re in the final stretch.

For Wednesday’s session, bring:

  1. Your draft (whatever state—messy is expected)
  2. One specific question or problem you’re actually stuck on

Not “I need feedback on my draft.” That’s too general. More like:

  • “My introduction explains my whole argument—should it?”
  • “I have three possible readers and it’s making everything muddy”
  • “This section just lists what scholars say—what should it actually do?”
  • “I think I have two different papers here—how do I decide?”

The session will be:

  • Small groups: troubleshoot one specific problem each (30 min)
  • Whole group: discuss what you learned from the experiments you tried (20 min)
  • Quick individual check-ins: your plan for the final two weeks (10 min)

Continued support after Wednesday:

If you want to talk through a specific problem or decision point in your draft, I’m offering individual consultations online in my personal webex room on:

  • Wednesday, January 21, 10:30-11:30
  • Wednesday, January 28, 10:30-11:30 (deadline day—last-minute questions)

Ideally 10-15 minutes per person or in small groups. To sign up, just email me with one sentence about what you want to discuss.

Your deadline: Wednesday, January 28, 2026 (5000 words)

You have two weeks after our session. Use them. Write messy, then clean up. Ask for help when you’re stuck. Don’t wait until January 27 to discover a problem.

See you Wednesday.


Part 1: Individual Diagnostic (15 minutes)

Setup: Everyone works silently on their own draft.

Task: “Find the sentence in your draft you believe most and the sentence you believe least. Mark them.”

Then write (just for yourself):

  • Why do you believe the first one?
  • Why don’t you believe the second one?
  • Is the sentence you don’t believe doing necessary work? Or is it there because you think you’re “supposed” to say it?

The point: Often our problems are sentences we included because they sound “academic” but we don’t actually stand behind them. This helps them locate their real voice vs. their performed voice.


Part 2: Test Your Necessary Parts (30 minutes)

Setup: Pairs. Each person takes 15 minutes, then switch.

Task: “Tell your partner: What is your paper trying to do in the world? Not ‘what is it about’ – what work is it trying to do?”

Then: “Look at your outline or table of contents. For each section, ask: Is this section actually necessary for that work? Or is it there because papers are ‘supposed’ to have it?”

Partner’s job: Push back. “Are you sure you need that section? What happens if you cut it?” “What would you lose if it wasn’t there?”

Last 5 minutes together: Each person names one section they might cut or drastically shorten.

The point: Often we include sections (literature review, theory section, context chapter) because they’re conventional, not because they’re necessary. This helps them see what’s actually load-bearing vs. what’s scaffolding they can remove.


Part 3: Whole Class Provocation (15 minutes)

Setup: Everyone back together in a circle.

Prompt: “You have two weeks. Your paper will not be perfect. So let’s talk about: What are you giving yourself permission to NOT do?

Go around. Everyone shares ONE thing they’re explicitly deciding not to do/fix/perfect:

  • “I’m not going to make my theory section longer”
  • “I’m not going to find three more sources”
  • “I’m not going to fix the conclusion”
  • “I’m not going to rewrite the whole thing in third person”
  • “I’m not going to smooth out the contradiction in my argument”

After everyone shares, discuss:

  • What’s the difference between “good enough” and “giving up”?
  • What assumptions about academic writing are you still carrying that you need to drop?
  • What if finishing “badly” is actually finishing honestly?

The point: Permission to not be perfect. Permission to make strategic choices about what matters. Reframing “finishing” as making decisions, not achieving perfection.


Nur der Text ist unter der Lizenz Creative Commons Namensnennung 4.0 International nutzbar. Alle anderen Elemente (Abbildungen, importierte Anhänge) sind „Alle Rechte vorbehalten“, sofern nicht anders angegeben.


OpenEdition schlägt Ihnen vor, diesen Beitrag wie folgt zu zitieren:
Victoria Mummelthei (13. Januar 2026). Final session Wednesday + office hours through deadline. Keine Disziplin – No Discipline. Abgerufen am 8. März 2026 von https://doi.org/10.58079/15hoe


Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.