I've just had a meeting with my sup, and he's really pleased with the chapter half I wrote - says he likes what I'm doing with the material and how I'm handling the 'issues' therein, however, there are some things wrong with my writing, I tend to repeat stuff without really knowing I'm doing it- saying the same thing in different ways, and my sentences can be a bit round the houses. I've worked pretty hard on my writing, my grammar is good, and style has got better, but it's like I can't see this stuff at the time, although a break from writing a piece does allow me to see its faults more readily. I just wonder, do you think style is something you can nurture past a certain point, or is it something some of us are just born with? I'd like it to come more readily and 'naturally' I suppose, so I don't have to wait a week before seeing it properly.

Your thoughts would be appreciated.

I think that top academics do mould a certain style of writing and then stick to it. I notice my sups publications all have the same types of phrases - if not the extact phrases - throughout. And I know her papers are broadly structured the same - i.e. paragraph 1 intro, paragraph 2 backoground stats, paragraph 3 blah blah blah. So I guess you mould a 'template' and then stick with it.

My sup doesn't critique my writing at all. She has spent 3 years saying "you're a fantastic writer Sneaks" but when I actually give her 'final copies' she then goes and literally changes everything I write - I mean EVERYTHING. If track changes are in blue, there is NOTHING that is not blue on every page.

I would prefer to be critiqued personally.

Interesting. From my personal experience, I spent a long time feeling like my undergraduate dissertation was the best thing I had written so far in terms of style. I was trying so hard with PhD stuff that it all felt very stilted and I couldn't get the sense across that I was actually excited about anything I was saying. Eventually, I have started to feel like my writing has progressed and is better than UG. Maybe it's because I'm more comfortable with my subject, maybe because I've focused so hard on writing techniques and it's eventually started to seem natural? I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I think a 'natural' style of writing needs to be nurtured. Not that I'm saying I'm there yet, by any stretch of the imagination :-)

Based on m own experience I definitely think it's something you can work on. My supervisor had huge problems with my writing style when I started to write PhD chapters, even though I'd sailed through the Masters and no problems had shown up then. I had to work very very hard to deal with his criticisms and overcome them, but I managed it, and got my PhD. And I didn't have to rewrite anything of substance after my viva, just fix tiny typos.

I tend to think it's a bit of both...one of my sups does have a certain style and it's a bit difficult to get sometimes. I def have a style, sometimes it's great for writing things like lit reviews and wordy stuff where I get to go off exploring ideas and things, although I do always need a break too Eska before I can edit. Also helps to edit somewhere neutral, like not anywhere near my desk for some reason.
However, I'm pretty bad at technical writing, I hate having to get bogged down by every little detail and it comes across. Although I have been working on it, but unless I;m interested in what I'm writing it's bad!

Definately a bit of both. My problem at the moment is I'm too concise, which is generally a good skill but "in a phd every point has to be meticulously documented" (Slizor's Sup, 2010). Also, I'm in love with the hanging this.

Plus, however good of a writer you are, it is all about how people read it and so there will always be corrections....not all of them necessary positive changes.