The process of writing research Radhika Viruru, Ph.D Department of Psychological Sciences Qatar University.
Post on 18-Dec-2015
215 Views
Preview:
Transcript
The process of writing research
Radhika Viruru, Ph.D
Department of Psychological Sciences
Qatar University
The importance of writing
• Writing is our “academic currency” yet few of us have received formal instruction in it.
• Often left to “figure it out”
• Ideas to be expressed are complex: yet not supposed to “use too many big words”
Roadblocks to writing
• Writer’s block
• Fear of permanence
• Writing in the age of computers
• ???
Writing as inquiry
• We often think of writing “as a mechanical activity used to document what we already know” (Olson, 1996).
• “Writing is not simply what we “do,” but also how we become better writers and scholars”
• Writing is a symbolic system which articulates what we know, but it is also a tool whereby we come to these understandings; in other words, writing is product and process, noun and verb.
(Colyar 2009)
Writing as inquiry (contd).
• Styles of writing are neither fixed nor neutral (Richardson & St. Pierre, 2005).
• Meaning is not “portable property” (Spivak, 1974). Words themselves are not inherently meaningful.
• Postmodern qualitative research asks questions such as “what else might writing do except mean?” (Richardson & St. Pierre, 2005).
Writing as inquiry (contd).
• Writing employs three kinds of learning:– Learning by doing– Visual learning– Symbolic learning
• Provides access to one’s own thoughts
Exercise
In five minutes:
• Describe what you see in this photo. Describe what you don't see-- the interior. Describe the person who comes out of the place. What does the person do?
Writing and research
• The written word is THE symbolic tool of research
• Writing encourages self-reflexivity which makes us better researchers
• Can help in “producing different knowledge and producing knowledge differently” (St. Pierre, 1997)
Writing as research method
• Writing as a method of data collection: the writing of thoughts.
• Writing as data analysis: using writing to think, as opposed to thinking first and then writing.
Writing a literature review
• Writing a good review is often seen as a “precondition” for doing good research.
• Cannot do good research without knowing what has been done previously and how it was done.
• Can be easier is well defined research communities.
Objectives of literature reviews
• Sets the broad context of the study, clearly demarcates what is and what is not within the scope of the investigation, and justifies those decisions.
• Not only reports existing literature but also examine critically the research methods used to better understand whether the claims are warranted.
Objectives of literature reviews
• Can identify what has been learned and accomplished and what still needs to be learned and accomplished.
• Allows author to synthesize ways that permit a new perspective which improves the quality and usefulness of subsequent research.
• Source: Boote & Baile, 2005.
Criterion for evaluating a literature review• Coverage:
– Finding and including relevant works– How search was conducted– Clear criteria for how works were included.
• Synthesis:– distinguished what has been done in the field from what
needs to be done– placed the research in the historical context of the field,– acquired and enhanced the subject vocabulary, – synthesized and gained a new perspective on the
literature.
Criterion for evaluating a literature review• Methodology: How well has the author identified
methodologies and research techniques that have been used in the field, and analyzed their advantages and disadvantages
• Significance: what is the practical and scholarly significance of the problem analysed
• Rhetoric: does the lit. review have a clear and coherent structure.
*Based on Hart (1999) and Boote and Baile (2005)
When to write a literature review for publication• “There are two points in a scholar’s life that lend
themselves naturally to writing a literature review. First, those who have completed or made substantial progress on a stream of research are well positioned to tell their colleagues what they have learned and where the field can most fruitfully direct its attention.
• Second, scholars who have completed a literature review prior to embarking on a project and have developed some theoretical models derived from this review are also potential authors”
*Webster & Watson, 2002
Organization: Introduction
• Clear introduction that defines the boundaries of the topic
• State the scope of your review
• Any implicit assumptions
Search tips• The major contributions are likely to be in
the leading journals. It makes sense, therefore, to start with them. Also examine selected conference proceedings.
• (2) Go backward by reviewing the citations for the articles identified in step 1 to determine prior articles you should consider.
• (3) Go forward to identify articles citing the key articles
Ways of organization
Concept centric Author centric
Concept X (Author A, B…) Author A: Concept X, Concept Y
Concept Y (Author A, B…) Author B: Concept X, Concept Y
Concept Matrix
Article Concept A Concept B Concept C
1 * *
2 * *
3 * * *
4 *
Other writing guidelines
• Tone: avoid being overly critical. All research has flaws.
• Tense: recommended to use the present tense, except when there are a longitudinal set of articles.
• Identify knowledge gaps and relationships between sources.
• Present conclusions
References• Boote, D.N. & Baile, P. (2005) Scholars Before Researchers: On the Centrality
of the Dissertation Literature Review in Research Preparation Educational Researcher, Vol. 34, No. 6, pp. 3–15
• Colyar, J. (2009). Becoming Writing, Becoming Writers. Qualitative Inquiry Volume 15 Number 2 February 2009 421-436.
• Hart, C. (1999). Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. London: SAGE.
• Olson, D. R. (1996). Towards a psychology of literacy: On the relations between speech and writing. Cognition, 60, 83-104.
• Richardson, L. & St. Pierre, E. (2005). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research (Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Spivak, G. C. (1974) Translator’s preface. In J. Derrida, Of grammatology. (G.C. Spivak, Trans., pp. ix-xc). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• St. Pierre, E. (1997). Circling the text: nomadic writing practices. Qualitative Inquiry, 3, 403-417
• Webster, J. & Watson, R.T (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. xiii-xxiii
top related