The process of writing research Radhika Viruru, Ph.D Department of Psychological Sciences Qatar University.

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