Revising and rereading

Of late, I've been revising a chapter from my Ph.D. dissertation to transform that chapter into a paper suitable for submission to a peer-reviewed journal. The revisions that I have made (and continue to make) range from minor rewording for clarity to completely rewriting sections. Because that dissertation is now over a year old, I've been able to look at the chapter with fresh eyes. In some cases, that perspective has proved revelatory!

For example, I've found a new and deeper appreciation for a body of papers, written by a single author, despite having read those papers many times before. When I first encountered this body of work, I recall that it struck me as technical and instructive, perhaps something akin to a user's manual. On later readings, and as I discovered more of that body of work, I came to see the undertones that I'd missed on the first reading. The author wasn't only describing best practices for a particular form of analysis, but also highlighting what he saw as fundamental limitations for the method. In later papers, the author goes further and seems to be arguing that the method is fundamentally flawed and ought to be discarded.

As I've reread this body of work (or at least those portions most relevant to the paper I'm preparing), my appreciation has changed yet again. The author is no longer (only) a scientist recommending best practices who is also on a crusade to convince his colleagues of the flaws of a particular method. Beyond that, he's also a scientist who appreciated those flaws more deeply than others, who sees their extent and their potential to obscure the exact insights that the method is designed to provide. It's humbling to realize, for the first time, that another scientist has tromped the same well-worn corners of this particular forest that I have. It's worth of a little reflection, perhaps in a blog.

Of course, I haven't merely "reinvented the wheel". Rather, I've added to this conversation, as any scientist should in a paper. I've addressed some of the concerns raised by this particular scientist, and by others. I've even realized the potential of changes to this technique that others--including this particular scientist--had recommended but not explored. In the process, I've reframed how the results of this analysis should be interpreted, and what insights it can provide, under what constraints.