Using the naive inquirer to politely disagree

When we are studying, we tend to assume that our lecturers and supervisors know more than we do. We are in a junior - lower - power position, learning with our 'master', on our way through our journeyman work. However, having more power does not mean that our lecturers or supervisors know everything. We all have limits to knowledge, and are prone to our own biases. Our own egos can get in the way - as either the learner or the learned - of being truly open-minded.

Open-mindedness has been termed having a 'beginner’s mind', which comes from the Zen Buddhist construct, 'shoshin' (Finzi et al., 2019). Those with beginners minds are open, without preconception, and are eager to learn - having a child-like approach - intersecting with the naive inquirer construct. A "naive enquirer is someone who sees the world as a benign place which is full of diverse treasures to be revealed to [them]" (Good, 1986, p. 7), and who "asks simple, basic naive questions to uncover 'taken-for-granted' assumptions and reveal new/different perspectives" (Taket & White, 2000, p. 166). Naive inquirers have a child-like approach to learning.

I was reminded of this when I read: 

"I have [...] experience with a more senior colleague who would not admit they were wrong even after confronted with a lot of evidence. I [...] was intimately familiar with the research problem at hand and they had just some very superficial knowledge of it, which probably led to their mistake. I suspect that at some point they realized they were wrong but were trying to hold the upper ground ('I'm right because I'm the more senior person') and 'win' the argument. [...]  I [...] cannot write a statement on a paper that I know to be wrong just to avoid hurting somebody's ego. [This appears to be] about stubbornly persisting on one's mistake even when confronted with evidence and given the time to think about it" (Miguel, 2017).

Ouch. When we notice that egos may get in the way of learning, taking a truly child-like approach to asking questions - if we are truly open to learning and being persuaded by the arguments of the other person - may allow a real discussion and debate about the actual issues. The discussion is not about the fixed positions that we have taken, but instead allows us to take a growth mindset approach (Dweck, 2006).

Contrasting views should be able to be discussed academically, based on the available scientific evidence. Sometimes multiple views are partially correct, and the naive inquirer stance looks at evidence of all viewpoints and explores all sacred cows on their merits. 

However, if we descend into argument, then we have failed in being the naive inquirer: our ego has arisen with its flaming sword of justice. A real discussion should not be about participants being 'wrong', or about 'admitting their mistakes'. 

Academic papers should be about scientific evidence. I think that Miguel's best bet is to get someone higher up the food chain to discuss the issues with this senior academic - or alternatively, in simply submitting the paper containing the error, and trusting the review process to highlight what is incorrect.

Tricky.

Sam

References:

Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Baltimore Books.

Finzi, B., Lipton, M., Firth, V. (2019, February 4). A beginner’s mindset. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/topics/leadership/beginners-mindset-decision-making-for-leadership.html

Good, M. (1986). The Playback Conductor Or How Many Arrows will I Need? [Psychodrama certification thesis: Centre for Playback Theatre]. http://www.playbacktheatre.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/playbackconduct-good.pdf

Miguel. (2017, March 22). How to deal with a colleague who won't accept they're wrong. Academia. https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/86852/how-to-deal-with-a-colleague-who-wont-accept-theyre-wrong/86854#86854

Stuck, F. (1889). The Guardian of Paradise [Der Wächter des Paradieses]. Munich; Museum Villa Stuck.

Taket, A., & White, L. (2000). Chapter 8: Pluralism in the facilitation process. In Partnership & participation: Decision-making in the Multiagency Setting (pp. 145-182). John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

read more "Using the naive inquirer to politely disagree"

A draft-reviewing lens

When doing higher degrees by research (HDR in Australia) we usually get assigned a supervisor, though more modern programmes now term supervisors an 'advisor'. We can ask our advisor/supervisor for feedback on our ideas, our thinking, our sources, our method, our approaches, and our draft work as we go, and - while the decisions we make are entirely our own - we have them to guide us because they have field and research expertise well above our own. We work under a master so we too can gain mastery in our chosen field.

So when we submit a draft for review, our advisor will - in what is pretty standard review technique - annotate our script and return it to us as part of the on-going, continuous improvement process of refining our journeyman piece of work. We then need to consider our advisor's annotations, and there is a lens through which we can sort each type of annotation (Jibbity jobby, 2017):

1. Correction: "The comment is justified [so] I can [make the change] (≈90%)"
2. Clarification 1: "The comment asks for clarification of the text [of the draft, so I need to write a clarification] (≈4%)"
3. Clarification 2: "The comment is not justified due to them misunderstanding my text, due to my text not having been written in a clear and/or unambiguous enough manner [so I need to write a clarification] (≈3%)"
4. Potential error: "The comment is not justified and the text is clear [so I need to (a) clarify what I may be missing and (b) discuss with my advisor] (≈3%)"

With these advisor annotations, we should only apply those suggestions which we understand. We should be able to have open and curious discussions with our advisor on any points that we are unsure of. We will discover over time when to politely and firmly defend our position: and while we may be sometimes persuaded to shift, a rigorous and objective debate about meaning can be engaging, energising and constructive. We MUST let go of our sacred cows when the evidence is against us... or when there is insufficient evidence.

While the percentages allocated to each lens are not research-based, but are simply a mental estimate - approximately equal to - by the writer, I think this taxonomy of correction types is very useful for us. The overall effect is that an advisor is right 97% of the time in their comments. That is a pretty fair quality standard. And, as the candidate will be seeking their significant original contribution to knowledge (SOCK), it should only be expected that the advisor may find their specific field knowledge lacking.

These need better names, but I am sure someone will give these some more thought. 

Sam

References:

Jibbity jobby. (2017, June 17). Etiquette for dealing with supervisor comments on written work. Academia. https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/90985/etiquette-for-dealing-with-supervisor-comments-on-written-work

read more "A draft-reviewing lens"

When people don't see our efforts

Being a woman sometimes really is crap, and it is not necessarily the dismissiveness of men that side-swipes us: it can equally be the views of other women. Why? Well, I was reading an article in the Guardian a while ago about a woman who is doing her PhD (Gordon-Smith, 2023). The woman - let's call her Mel - is studying her PhD at what sounds like full time at an Australian university. The contract we sign when we start a PhD specifies that we are expected to do a 40 hour week, which ALWAYS ends up being more than that (learning, when it is your passion, just eats the hours).

So Mel had written in to the Guardian 'agony aunt' column, asking for advice about her mum, and her mum's attitude towards her. From what Mel said, her mum seems to have a fixed idea that as Mel 'doesn't work', so Mel will always be available to help out the mum. The mum's expectations of Mel do not appear to be the same as the expectations of Mel's two brothers. The mum also seems to make snide remarks about Mel's lack of attention to housework, how Mel's husband had a 'real' job, and is paid well (Gordon-Smith, 2023). Ouch.

So what do we do when our whānau don't appear to appreciate our mahi? How do we tackle that lack of respect for boundaries, for identity, for carelessness in understanding our feelings? On thinking about Mel's situation, to me it sounds like the Mum is having trouble with emotional and time boundaries... so I think exploring boundaries is a good place to start. There are six areas for boundary setting (physical, emotional, time, sexual, material, intellectual; Taylor Counselling Group, 2022), but I was thinking that the following two might be important:

• Emotional: this is about what we need personally for emotional health, including feeling safe in sharing our feelings and intimate details of our lives, and others having the perception to pick up on our energy (Taylor Counselling Group, 2022).
• Time: about us valuing and prioritising our own time. Once established, our boundaries help others to understand that our personal time has constraints, and will eventually create respect for our commitments (Taylor Counselling Group, 2022).

I also wonder about Mel's mum: I was wondering if she had ever worked? Or perhaps she may have left work when she had a family, and did not return to work? Maybe her husband earached her all the time about not cleaning and she is worried that Mel is failing and doesn't know? Perhaps she came from a family which had strong values about gender-specific roles? Or perhaps she was unable to participate in higher degree by research study? Perhaps there is some unidentified sub-text which Mel's mum is trying - and failing - to convey: "I didn't get to study like you", for example. Or perhaps there are under-currents which Mel's Mum has noticed: "I am worried your husband is growing impatient with this study and is thinking of leaving". 

One answer from the Guardian's correspondent was exactly what I would do: "literally [do] not hear the suggestion that you’re not [busy]" (Gordon-Smith, 2023). Or laugh at Mum when she implies it, with a "Yeah, right!" answer.  I would also explain the Uni 40 hour contract. And continue to explain, regularly and often, until Mum finally hears and absorbs it, and can repeat it back. 

Something else that perhaps Mel might try - if she isn't already - is owning her own feelings when talking to her Mum. What I mean - for example - is: "Mum, I feel that you have a one standard for my brothers, and another standard for me"; and "Mum, I feel that you don't see my study as work". If she can keep owning her own statements, her Mum can't say "you don't feel like that!". Mel can - hopefully - quietly say that she does indeed feel like that. 

I also wondered if Mel might feel brave enough to sit down with her Mum, AND a trusted referee, and ask all the questions to the elements which are currently going unsaid, such as: "do you value higher study, Mum?"; and "why do you seem to have a double standard between my brothers and myself, Mum?"  I think that Mel would need to be quite brave to do this, and having a trusted referee would be ABSOLUTELY essential to keep them both safe.

Sam

References:

Gordon-Smith, M. (9 March 2023). I’m proud of my career but my mum simply cannot take my work seriously. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/mar/10/im-very-proud-of-my-career-however-my-mum-simply-cannot-take-my-work-seriously

Taylor Counselling Group. (3 March 2022). 10 Ways To Set Boundaries With Difficult Family Members. https://taylorcounselinggroup.com/blog/set-boundaries-for-difficult-family-members/

read more "When people don't see our efforts"

The PhD and apprenticeship

A decade ago, two PhD students from Aceh province in Indonesia wrote and presented a paper on their PhD 'apprenticeship' process (Habiburrahim et al., 2012) which I find very interesting.

Using self-narrative as their method, they formalised and flowcharted what they found to be their learning process. Shown accompanying this post (Figure 1: The PhD Learning Journey Model; based on Callaghan, 2009; Habiburrahim et al., 2012, p. 74), the model charts their process: from their beginning in the Australian academic higher degree by research (HDR) programme; to their journey to PhD completion. Along the way, the model shows the importance of PhD supervision with a 'master' and the dialogue around questioning, joint-discovery, and information sharing; concluding with the graduate outcomes of knowledge-creation, critical reflexivity and research.

The model Habibarrahim et al. (2012) formalised draws upon the foreword to a text on what comes after the doctorate (Callaghan, 2009). This discusses the learning process, talking about the "humility in learning", "being vulnerable and open" and the "benefit of the master’s experience being challenged by the apprentice’s fearless questioning" (p. iii). As PhD students we need to learn to be fearless so we can make our original contribution to knowledge; our SOCK (Brabazon, 2018).

It is fascinating to read these two international student views on being fearless: they come from "a culture where teachers are highly respected and students obey their teachers. To say ‘no’ to our teachers is considered rude" (p. 77). Yet they are undertaking HDR education in Australia which "is student-centred with students encouraged to engage in independent learning, to question, criticise, and [to] develop critical thinking" (Habiburrahim et al., 2012, p. 73). What is also very interesting is that these PhD students are teachers in Aceh: they are respected where they come from; they have entered a process where they go back to the beginning, becoming 'children' - apprentices - again in order to make their contribution.

I like the model they have formalised from the work of Callaghan (2009; Habiburrahim et al., 2012). While it could be better graphically designed (for example, showing that supervision begins at candidature not just at the 'conducting research' phase being the main failing), it highlights a relevant aspect of the PhD: that it is a journeyman piece. This is the mahi we do to meet our entrance into an elite club: that of becoming/being accepted as an academic researcher.

We return to our childhood to discover our own mastery.

Sam

References:

Brabazon. T. (2 June 2018). Vlog 115 - SOCK (Significant original contribution to knowledge!) [video]. Office of Graduate Research Flinders University. https://youtu.be/7QnSIE5msx8

Callaghan, P. T. (2009). Foreword. In C. Denholm & T. Evans (Eds.), Beyond doctorates downunder: Maximizing the impact of your doctorate from Australia and New Zealand (pp. iii-iv). ACER Press.

Habiburrahim, H., Fadliadi, F., & Bartholomaeus, P. (2012). Our unique journey in pursuit of a PhD. In the 10th Quality in Postgraduate Research Conference: Narratives of Transition - Perspectives of Research Leaders, Educators and Postgraduates, 17-19 April 2012, Australian National University Centre for Higher Education and Teaching, Adelaide Australia.

read more "The PhD and apprenticeship"

Perfect is the enemy of done or done is better than perfect

I first encountered Inger Mewburn when doing my Masters, and quickly became a big fan. I liked her realism, her ability to talk straight, and they way she made higher degree learning seem accessible to 'ordinary' people.

Inger ran a MOOC in 2015 called "How to Survive your PhD" which I attended, and learned a lot. The material fed into my study, my writing, and my ambitions. One of the many gems that I picked up was "Perfect is the enemy of done" (Mewburn, 2012, p. 12).

However, over time, this has morphed, for me, into "Done is better than perfect". I know what Inger said, but I keep rehashing it, skewing the focus a little to remind us that completion is the key thing to aim for. Then I decided to own my take on Inger's words, and made the poster accompanying this post. 

I say this to my students all the time. Hopefully they get the message that perfectionism can be their enemy - and a submitted piece of work has SOOO much more value than one that is being tinkered with and tinkered with... until its freshness is lost and its meaning blurred. 

What sparked this post was listening to Tara Brabazon last winter, when - in the midst of a training video for the HDR staff at Flinders University, she said exactly the same thing:

"Done is better than perfect" (Brabazon, 2022, p. 9:34)

Now I know I am onto a winner: paraphrasing one guru and citing a second.

Sam

References:

Brabazon, T. (25 August 2022). Steps - Managing student perfectionism [video]. https://youtu.be/0ztpc8tBxW4

Mewburn, I. (2012). How To Tame Your PhD. Thesis Whisperer Books [www.amazon.com ebook]

read more "Perfect is the enemy of done or done is better than perfect"

Ten PhD preparatory tasks

Starting a PhD is scary. It is a huge chunk of our life if we are a young student and able to do this following on from our undergrad degree and a Masters (or undergrad and honours). We effectively double our time investment and go for eight years of overall study to smash out a PhD (and yes, I know many of us will be hoping for three years, but the time usually creeps towards four years and beyond). If we are in a job, we get the grind of a part time PhD where we are not allowed to finish in fewer than six years, but must finish by eight. Both of those scenarios require a long time to commit to one idea and to follow it through. We need endurance to finish, because this race is not a sprint: it is about toughing it out.

I have blogged about Tara Brabazon a number of times (here), and earlier this year she served up yet another pithy dose of excellent advice to those who are about to start their PhD, gleaned from a number of academic and non-academic sources (2021).

View the video (Brabazon, 2021):

To summarise, in the order that I would tackle each of these, what Tara explored (Brabazon, 2021) was as follows:

1. Reflection. In undertaking this PhD project, we need to think deeply about what frightens us; what we are worried about. We need to write about it. We need to dig into it. We need to consider what we think we need be informed about before we begin. This is deep work, and must not be superficial, and shapes the following steps.
2. Personal Outcomes. We need to consider our personal goals. We must understand our own motivations. Tara suggests that we answer the question “What do I want to achieve from this PhD” (2021, 21:50) in writing. We can then use this to remind ourselves, as we get into the project, of what we are aiming for, what skills we need to gather.
3. Literacies. Tara then talked about academic and information literacies, citing Linhart who called information literacy “neglected essential learning” (2021, 14:56; Linhart, 2008, p. 1). We need to get to grips with GoogleScholar, databases, courses in library science, and to understand that we will need to build a good relationship with our librarian. We have to get to grips with the software, and the referencing. From the reading and the writing, we should know who the top authors are in our field, and what our key words are to lead the search for what we need to read.
4. Read. A lot. Methodology. Current articles in our field. Read as much as we can – and set aside time to read every day to build the habit before we apply enter the programme. It takes – as I recall – about 90 days to build a habit. Throwing three months at a project which might last four or eight years is not that big an additional ask. It is pre-training.
5. Write. “Write early, write often, write now” (Brabazon, 2021, 11:35). As we read, take notes. We are reading every day, so write up what we read, every day. This act will not only improve our writing, but it will help us to synthesise our ideas as early as we can. Early on this will help us to understand the shape of the environment we are going into; later it will get our write up done as we go (read my post on how long this takes here).
6. CV. Tara suggests that we create an educational CV including publications etc, if you are looking for academic work around presentation, conference presentations, consultancy, community engagement etc. While this probably feels unnecessary for those who are already in sustainable work, we will need a CV for our PhD application to reassure our prospective institution and intended supervisors that we understand the process and the expectations on completion.
7. Workspace. Determine where we will work, and how we will work – possibly in a shared space. Create space. Be clear about privacy. Be clear about others and our own silence. Have thought through likely distractions, set delimiters, and be clear if a shared space what our signals are.
8. Clarify relationships. We need both professional and personal relationships to get the job done (see item 3 above, too). We need to be clear about what each participant’s rights, responsibilities and expectations are. This includes our significant others, our supervisors, our peers, our whanau, and ourselves as a supervisee. If we have clarified what we each expect from each other - our ‘job descriptions’ so to speak – we are less likely to have problems later.
9. Project Outcomes. Tara started this item with “Start with the end in mind”, citing Stephen Covey (1989, p. 95), suggesting that we start the project aimed at what it will look like when it is completed. We need to design the project so that we stay focused on the outcome. To prepare for this, we need to read successful PhDs in our field, understand construction, read our institute’s regulations for submission so that we understand the processes, and what our outputs and outcomes will be.
10. Learn about teaching and learning. Learning about how to learn will be useful. While I am less convinced about teaching – many PhDs no longer begin or end with the idea of going into teaching – learning how to ‘teach’ when we deliver our candidature presentation and our viva will certainly be useful. This though, in my mind, is the least important item in this list.

I hope you find this list of Tara’s useful: I certainly did.

Sam

References:

• Brabazon, T. (2 July 2021). Vlog 276 - Preparing for a successful PhD programme [video]. https://youtu.be/-ckoeUaqU7w
• Covey. S. R. (1989). The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful lessons in personal change. Franklin Covey.
• Linhart, R. J. (2008). Information Literacy: A Neglected Essential Learning. [Doctoral thesis, University of Tasmania]. https://core.ac.uk/reader/33332338

read more "Ten PhD preparatory tasks"

Research transparency, openness, rigour, and replicability

In the words of Tara Brabazon, "research is based on transparency, openness, rigour, and repeatability" (Brabazon, 2021, 28:50). Wow, now that is a key set of terms to consider research by!

1. Transparency: is hard to define. There are a number of criteria which have a "cumulative effect on the trustworthiness and replicability of knowledge" (Aguinis & Solarino, 2019, p. 1296), which the authors find equal transparency. These are "practices that increase methodological transparency and thereby increase the replicability of one’s research are essential for trustworthiness" (Pratt et al., 2020, p. 2), and a "means of assessing trustworthy research is via the transparency of its authors" (p. 3).
2. Openness: in order to foster greater transparency, many journals now have openness standards, requiring authors to upload their data, analysis and research plans in advance of their study. This includes "public sharing of materials and data" to hopefully "reduce the number of publications based on poor or even unethical practices" (Pratt et al., 2020, p. 2).
3. Rigour: this refers to the robustness of the data collection methods, analysis and interpretation. Journals are looking for studies to have been carefully planned, with the "key issues involved in designing, conducting, and reporting high quality quantitative [...] research" (Maula & Stam, 2020, p. 1060) well thought through. This equally applies to qualitative research, with the same markers of quality being sought within the paradigm.
4. Repeatability/reproductability/replicability: while the idea of replicability - or repeatability, or reproductability - is a cornerstone of quantitative scientific research, it too should hold true for qualitative research. We should be able to assume that, all other things being equal, the findings of one study - if undertaken following the methodology and methods of a previous study within a similar population group - should be similar to the findings of another. However, a number of high profile papers - all of which have been highly relied upon - have been proven to lack replicability (McVay & Conroy, 2021; Pratt et al., 2020). This is a problem, because if we cannot repeat the study and obtain reasonably similar results, then how much weight can we put on the original findings? The reasons range from post hoc hypothesising, falsification of data, and additional data collection when the findings do not show desired outcomes. Further, journals often won't publish studies which seek similar outcomes to previously published articles, cutting off the ability for academics to publish, and to get grant funding for verification/validation studies. We must note though that "replication does not make sense for qualitative, inductive studies" where 'trustworthiness is a more common measure of quality (Pratt et al., 2020, p. 4).

While these elements fit well with quantitative research, I feel we should at least consider viewing qualitative research through these four lenses as well. While the quantitative research field is not the same as the qualitative, I still think these four characteristics still have something to tell us.

Sam

References:

• Aguinis, H., & Solarino, A. M. (2019). Transparency and replicability in qualitative research: The case of interviews with elite informants. Strategic Management Journal, 40(8), 1291-1315. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3015
• Brabazon, T. (19 March 2021). Vlog 261 - The Porous PhD [video]. Office of Graduate Research Flinders University. https://youtu.be/xPhSjQ7NKXo
• Maula, M., & Stam, W. (2020). Enhancing Rigor in Quantitative Entrepreneurship Research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(6), 1059-1090. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258719891388
• McVay, M. A., & Conroy, D. E. (2021). Transparency and openness in behavioral medicine research. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 11(1), 287-290. https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibz154
• Pratt, M. G., Kaplan, S., & Whittington, R. (2020). Editorial essay: The tumult over transparency: Decoupling transparency from replication in establishing trustworthy qualitative research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839219887663

read more "Research transparency, openness, rigour, and replicability"

How to finish a PhD

I watched an interesting vlog by Tara Brabazon (2016), providing ten tips for finishing a PhD, which I thought were quite a useful summary.

1. Planning is everything: "start with the end in mind" (Covey, 1989); predict and plan to meet likely challenges; have data by the end of the second year; assess your data; understand and explain the dataset including strengths, weaknesses and critique them; ensure there is time to cut away most problematic pieces of the work and therefore strengthen what remains.
2. Have clear priorities: our job is to write a PhD; everything else is secondary. But temper this with the next point...
3. It's ONLY a PhD: determine clear boundaries so we focus on what the job is, and getting it complete. Do not agonise about it not being perfect: done is better than perfect (after Mewburn, 2012). It is the first real piece of research we do, and our academic career starts after it.
4. Discuss feelings: talk about how we feel with partners, supervisors, peers. In particular, supervisors will have solutions that we - and those close to us who have not lived through this many times before - will not have thought of to help; but only if we let them in.
5. Check software, hardware, wetware: ensure the support systems work, regularly. Backup, backup, backup. Email a copy of our work to ourselves every week. Use version control.
6. Read University Regulations: ensure we understand ALL submission and IP requirements. Check that our document will fit those requirements. Ask questions. Ensure that there will be no surprises at submission. Treble-check dates.
7. Prioritise health: fitness, food, sleep. Use a diary to carve out time for health activities, use software, technology, relationships to ensure that the wetware does not fail.
8. Career planning: think past the end of the PhD programme. Talk to your supervisor about post-PhD publications, and next steps.
9. Build relationships: Again, take advice from our supervisors, our colleagues, our peers and our networks to ensure that we keep networking, building research partnerships, and keep connecting. Remember that only 30% of jobs are advertised.
10. Endings matter: finish our supervisory relationships well, so we have a long-term, professional academic relationship. Finish the PhD well, so we have a document we can be proud of. Finish the University relationship well, so they would have us back.

All good advice.

Sam

References:

• Brabazon, T. (9 September 2016). Vlog 24 - How to complete your PhD. https://youtu.be/yWT5z02zWgI
• Covey. S. (1989). The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. Franklin Covey [www.amazon.com ebook]
• Mewburn, I. (2012). How To Tame Your PhD. Thesis Whisperer Books [www.amazon.com ebook]

read more "How to finish a PhD"

Confirmation of candidature

Tara Brabazon from Flinders University in Adelaide runs a weekly video blog, which has been running for four and a half years, packed full of tips, hints and PhD tricks for post-graduate students and lecturers at the University. Over time her audience has grown outside the university, as her posts have great utility. One post struck me as being particularly useful.

For those of you who are not familiar with the Australian PhD system when starting your PhD, there are three stages: the 'confirmation document' (research proposal), the confirmation presentation, and the discussion. A couple of years ago, Tara posted a clip providing some great tips to meet the Confirmation of Candidature for an Australian PhD programme. Tara walked through the requirements, and I felt that her vlog provided advice in two halves: questions; and evidence. The first half provided questions about whether we are able to take on a PhD, as follows:

1. Can we identify a research problem (or a series of research questions)? Do we know the point of our research? Do we know if we can get the job done?
2. What is our original contribution to knowledge? Can we complete the sentence “my original contribution to knowledge is…”?
3. Do we have the ability to write, and configure, and sustain an argument? Do we have the vocabulary to sustain that heightened level of scholarship required?
4. Do we know what is methodology and what is methods? Do we understand and are we able to demonstrate the mechanics?
5. Do we have the time-management skills needed? Do we have the capacity for planning and delivering? Do we have the commitment, energy and motivation? Can we put in place the planning and are we able to make it flexible enough to ensure that all tasks are done?
6. Can we develop competent oral presentation skills which clearly communicates our research?
7. Are we aware of any exportability or third party agreements which may limit the transferability and the IP consequences of our research?

Tara spoke about originality being the defining characteristic of a PhD, whereas synthesis is the defining characteristic of a Masters. That is a very good point. Then Tara moved onto what I felt formed the second half; the evidence that we would need to display through our confirmation of candidature, to prove to our assessors that we can deliver. This includes:

1. A document containing the following: Title; the summary of the research; the rationale for the research; research objectives, research questions; methodology; how the research contributes to a discipline or disciplines – eg, “my research contributes to x in y way” (show we understand how the work sits in the broader context of the field); theoretical perspectives; literature review; and a PERFECT reference list.
2. Demonstrating a clear - compelling - vision
3. Showing that we are a self-starter, including that we have undertaken PD to learn what is required and to expand our horizons; and that we have planned PD into our PhD schedule to learn what future requirements are there
4. Listing any required resources (which should match the pre-proposal; if it does not, communicated to our supervisor what additional resourcing is needed before the document is finalised, because it may affect departmental budgets)
5. Having a clear plan for the work that needs to be done over the coming year, including specifying the chapters that we want to complete, and any issues that we would like discussion on or help with. This should also include us listing our research outputs - conferences and papers - that we will deliver on in the coming year.

These are two very useful lists. Professor Brabazon has a clear view of what is required which will help us all to be successful. Even better, she can convey it to us, so that we can learn from it.



Sam

• Reference: Brabazon, T. (7 January 2018). Vlog 94 - Confirmation of Candidature (Milestone One). https://youtu.be/t4EiK9YAqis

read more "Confirmation of candidature"

Ten Questions to Circumvent Over-Thinking

Ruminating too much on things can catch us all at times, usually when we are feeling vulnerability due to a change of some sort. To compensate we can over-plan: focusing too much on details, trying to control too many uncontrollable elements, or attempting to factor for all emergencies.

We forget about allowing for likely risk factors, and we can also dwell on the risks until they assume too much significance. The risks get so close in our line of vision that we can't see that the likelihood is infinitesimally small.

Worse, once we are in this kind of space, it can be difficult to get out of it. We have to recognise that we are in this space, then take steps to get ourselves out of it. So, if we think we might be ruminating too much, we can try some of the following techniques and see if they make us feel differently.

We can:

1. Ask: what good things will happen to me today? Start the day positively and get up in plenty of time. Don't watch the news, but read or listen to something uplifting on our commute. Start with some exercise and the endorphins can give us a lift right from the get-go.
2. Ask ourselves the magic question: will this matter in five minutes? In five days? In five months? In five years? Usually it won't matter in five days, so we can let it go a bit now, and step back from it.
3. Ask: how important is this? Set priorities for decisions. For low priorities, set a five minute timer to make the decision, or learn and practice a new decision-making technique and use it when making these minor decisions. Higher priority decisions will make time. Plan the process and diarise a few blocks of 15 minutes to take the time to think about it before the deadline. Put actions into each of the blocks so you know you are taking actual steps towards completion.
4. Ask ourselves: are we trying to make this perfect? If so, we know perfection is impossible, unrealistic and stressful. "Done" is better than perfect (after Mewburn, 2012).
5. Ask: what are we afraid of? This is an interesting question. Sometimes we can be afraid if something won't work out; sometimes we can be afraid if it does work out. We can be afraid of our own history, or of our uncertain future. Trying to remain present and enjoy the now will help us to put fear aside, but first we need to identify where fear is getting hold of us.
6. Ask: what can go wrong? We can set a timer and have a free-for-all listing all the things that could go wrong. Then when the timer stops, screw the paper up into a tight ball, and throw it away. A friend of mine gives what he calls the "Meh, meh, meh" voice time every morning from 8.00 to 8.05 to whine as much as it likes. Then it has to shut up for the rest of the day.
7. Ask: is it time for a break? Sometimes we throw too much time at one thing, or stare at the same problem in the same way for too long. Removing ourselves from a problem can sometimes make us see it in a new light.
8. Ask: who could solve this? Sometimes simply talking - or even imagining talking - to someone else can change our perspective, and we can see a solution that was not visible before.
9. Ask: do I have too much data? Sometimes in an effort to gather all the information which may be useful we overload ourselves and induce "analysis paralysis". We could choose our top ten inputs and see how much of a decision we could make with just those.
10. Ask: what good things happened to me today? I write a daily journal and work out what went well as well as what can be improved. Cataloguing the good things really ends the day on a good note.

Some of those questions may get us moving. However, if we are feeling really stuck, we should talk to a counsellor. Sometimes we can't do it alone: we need a professional to help us to move forward.


Sam

References:

• Boyes, A. (13 July 2015). Make anxiety work for you: How to use 'overthinking to your advantage. Retrieved from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/11731837/Make-anxiety-work-for-you-How-to-use-overthinking-to-your-advantage.html
• Daskal, L. (4 January 2016). 10 Simple Ways You Can Stop Yourself From Overthinking: Here are 10 simple ideas to help overthinkers stop spinning their wheels. Retrieved from https://www.inc.com/lolly-daskal/10-simple-ways-you-can-stop-yourself-from-overthinking.html
• Edberg, H. (9 August 2017). How to Stop Overthinking Everything: 12 Simple Habits. Retrieved from https://www.positivityblog.com/how-to-stop-overthinking/
• Mewburn, I. (2012). How To Tame Your PhD. Thesis Whisperer Books [www.amazon.com ebook]
• Raman, R. (14 July 2017). 11 Simple Ways To Stop Overthinking Everything And Take Control Of Your Life. Retrieved from https://medium.com/the-mission/11-simple-ways-to-stop-overthinking-everything-and-take-control-of-your-life-cf6de0b8d83f

read more "Ten Questions to Circumvent Over-Thinking"

Five PhD Tips

What follows is the commentary of an email conversation with - nearly Dr - Val O’Reilly, who, despite currently replying to examiner comments, is brimming with ideas on how to get the most out of post-grad research projects.

Val told me "I must say I really did enjoy my first year of the PhD (possibly naive about the hard work ahead) and just threw myself into a vast treasure trove of literature, much of which didn’t end up in the thesis". She noted that the wide range of her reading helped to keep her engaged in understanding the key elements of her research - the notion of identity - which then led to her investigation into professional identity for school career development practitioners.

Val's key tips are: two 2B5 journals (perhaps a third for miscellany), Skype recording, and the power of summaries to track progress, and regular supervisor meetings.

Firstly, she kept an old fashioned hard copy 2B5 journal of the readings as she went, which meant she could sit in the sun some days with hard copies of books or articles. She made structured notes using a very useful set of questions one of her supervisors had suggested:
• What are the themes?
• What did the authors do?
• How did they do it?
• What did they find?

Secondly, another 2B5 journal she kept was a reflexive journal. This included all her notes and impressions from Skype sessions with supervisors, notes on participant interview audio recordings, and her own progress from time to time. This journal served her well as an audit trail in relation to her qualitative methodology.

Thirdly, she found it very useful to record all her supervisor Skype sessions. She asked permission each time, as well (excellent ethics!). Her recordings ensured that she could check that she had heard, and enabled her to be sure that she had understood clearly. She would review the recording then write up session reflection in her 2B5 reflexive journal within 24 hours or so. She found summarising her Skype session notes the same day - or as soon as possible afterwards - was the most helpful. Longer than that and you lose connection to the event. She would often email these notes along with what she was planning to do next to her supervisors.

Fourthly, the summaries meant that both she and her supervisors had an action and audit trail that they could follow. Additionally, as sometimes only one of her supervisors was available, the summary was useful as a catch-up mechanism to keep the absentee in the loop.

Fifthly, as Val and her supervisors finished their Skype meetings each time, she booked in the next Skype session. Having meeting times always scheduled ahead in the lives of busy people is a very, very good idea.

Val's third 2B5 "ended up being a slightly messy 'everything else' journal where I noted career and education policy initiatives and developments, possible chapter sections, signal words for paragraphs etc etc." It is certainly not a bad idea to create a catch-all space for everything else.

While Val's PhD journey is nearly over, she feels that these tools helped her to get through the higher degree by research process and to enjoy it.

Val also tells me that what she will "miss the most is access to the [Uni] library"… but she has found that alumni can pay a little each year to retain their library card. She is currently investigating that... because there is always more research to be done!


Sam

read more "Five PhD Tips "

Taking Time Out

Recently I read a post on Thesis Whisperer by Phillipa Bellemore called "The tale of 23 Overdue Books". It was a great post to read, as it was about the personal tragedies which had struck Phillipa as she was undertaking her PhD.

I posted a brief reply on the blog, saying "Thanks so much for sharing your story. Boy, did it resonate with me! I have just had the most god-awful year, and am not even at confirmation of candidature. I too have just taken a brief leave to try to get my head back into PhD-Space (similar to, but different from Terry Pratchett's L-Space ;-D). This is due to a whole series of events that left my life reading like a soap opera: and one of those really unbelievable ones that most of us would roll our eyes at and say "Pshaw, what a load of cobblers! No one has a life like that!"."

It was after I had posted my reply that I got thinking: I had not really talked publicly about the full horrors of the past year for me, and that I had to take time out because the world had got too much. So I decided that there was no time like the present.

My Father died last April, unexpectedly, after a week in a hospice. We knew he was not long for this world, but we had all fully expected him to bounce back several times yet. He didn't. I was his executor, so spent some time winding up his affairs. My husband, who has congenital arthritis, had a hip replacement already booked for the end of April and was then pretty much incapacitated for three weeks of his six week recovery time. So as my husband was recuperating in May, my Uncle - my Godfather - had some bad falls, got hospitalised, and the hospital said that he needed to go into a nursing home (rightly so. He was no longer safe alone at home). My brother, my Mother and I had to pack up his house and store all his effects, get all his paperwork sorted out including powers of attorney and so forth, get him moved, and arrange a visiting roster.

Then, just as my husband went back to work in June, my Mother had a bout of pneumonia, and upon visiting her in hospital, found that she had been diagnosed with congestive heart failure. Without my Father to support her, I became her support person, ensuring that she received appropriate and timely medical diagnoses and care through the health system (which is quite a time consuming process), all the while keeping an eye on my Uncle in the rest home. Just as my mother was recovering, my husband went in for his second hip replacement. My Uncle then had developed some ulcers in the nursing home, and got sick as well, ending up in hospital. We live 45 minutes away from the hospital, and with my Mother, husband and Uncle all in hospital, all in different locations, all I seemed to be doing was hospital visits and driving. Showering? Eating? Pah, who needs that rubbish, eh?!

Eight weeks past that, at the very beginning of September, my Uncle died. As with my Father, I was also my Uncle’s executor. The winding up of his estate is still ongoing. I am still trying to sort out bank accounts, trust arrangements, and transfers.

Then, in December, my sister-in-law was found to have grade 3 breast cancer. She was told that she would need to undergo very intensive chemotherapy, and that the prognosis was uncertain. Everything seemed to take a long time to organise, and it almost seemed like the Australian health system was more convoluted, arcane and ambiguous than on this side of the ditch.

I was at the screaming "ENOUGH, ENOUGH ALREADY" point. But no, just as I was hoping that the year was over and things would improve, my lovely old dog died of cancer in January; and we have now heard that my sister-in-law’s cancer is not responding to treatment, along with a previously undetected lump being found in her other breast.

Of course, all amongst this I have been working - I teach year three management papers on two undergraduate degrees - and have tried to finish off one review article, one research project/article and push on with my PhD proposal.

Luckily - am I crazy?! - we got a new puppy in January as well. He had been on order for the past year... and has taken a lot of time and training to get his behaviour where I would like it. I also have two new supervisors who I am training for one of the papers - a capstone management project paper - that I co-ordinate. Overwhelmed? Not at all...!!!!!!

After all that lot, I have just bitten the bullet and talked to my supervisors about taking three months out. My supervisors are great, and were very supportive of a leave. While I know that three months won't won't be long enough, I am hoping it will buy me a brief breathing space so I can at get my Proposal completed enough to get my PhD project underway.

I feel like there is a wall keeping me out of my project at the moment. Here's hoping it is like Jericho and will come tumbling down... without any more casualties.

Sam

References:

• Bellemore, P. (4 April 2018). The tale of 23 Overdue Books. Retrieved 4 April 2018 from https://thesiswhisperer.com/2018/04/04/the-tale-of-23-overdue-books/
• Pratchett, T. (1992). Small Gods. Bury St Edmunds, UK: Victor Gollancz Ltd.

read more "Taking Time Out"

PhD Antidote - what's your athelas?

Kanuka? or Athelas (Kingsfoil)

A recent post from a guest writer on the Thesis Whisperer caught my attention. Genevieve Simpson used the Gilmore Girls Netflix specials as an analogy to her PhD: the glowing spring of potential - the original 7 seasons - fast-forwarded to a disappointment with how it all turns out in autumn rather differently to what was 'promised' - the Netflix, ten-years-on thing.

Expectations may differ from reality in all walks of life :-)

I have never watched the Gilmore Girls, so following reading the post, I pootled off to YouTube and watched a few short clips, but it seemed pretty empty and air-headed. From that, I guessed I was not the target demographic. I did however, then watch a clip at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWzXSyE-4g8 from a guy's perspective which roundly enlightened me. The show seemed indeed empty and air-headed. No need to waste more time here.

However, what really interested me about Genevieve's post on Thesis Whisperer was the need for an empty and airheaded thing. I think this is a necessary antidote - an Athelas (Tolkien, 1954) - for the full-on, thoughtful and focused nature of PhD writing. Genevieve reminded me that I need to schedule in my own athelas to repair my 'wounds'; to recover.

And on reflection, I think that my athelas is a listening fix of murder mysteries & espionage thrillers: Jo Nesbo, Felix Francis, Daniel Silva, Ruth Rendell, Georges Simenon, Louise Penny, Adrian McKinty, Chris Brookmyre, Aline Templeton. I seem to remember a great fondness for Shortland Street - taped, to watch as a reward at the close of day - while doing my undergraduate degree.

My mechanism is different to Genevieve's, but the outcome will be - I hope - the same: providing a counter-foil - Kings Foil - so that balance is kept until the PhD process is complete.


Sam

References:

• McConnell, A. (16 December 2016). Gilmore Girls explained by a guy who only saw the first episode of the new Netflix show. Retrieved 22 November 2017 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWzXSyE-4g8 .
• Simpson, G. (22 November 2017). Gilmore girls, myself. Retrieved 22 November 2017 from https://thesiswhisperer.com/2017/11/22/gilmore-girls-myself/
• Tolkien, J. R. R. (1954). Lord of the Rings 1: The Fellowship of the Ring. UK: Unwin & Unwin.

read more "PhD Antidote - what's your athelas?"

The Slough of Despond... and new beginnings

In February of this year, I was ready to push the "Submit" button on my PhD application for pre-candidature.

All I was waiting on was confirmation from my supervisor that the pre-proposal changes we had discussed, and that I had written up, had hit the mark.

That day, while waiting for this confirmation, I got a phone call. It was my supervisor. "I can't supervise you. I don't have capacity".

"What if we push it back a year?"

"Won't make a difference".

Worse, my secondary supervisor couldn't supervise me, as she was offshore, and Uni regs wouldn't allow a non-resident supervisor. My advisor hadn't finished her own PhD. To say I was pole-axed was an understatement.

Pole-axed because my intended supervisor had heard that I had come up a PhD idea, and had approached me and asked me to develop a different PhD project in answer to a question they posed me. Their Uni would pay my fees, plus a small amount of expenses. I would be the inaugural PhD scholar on their programme. I had been head-hunted.

I felt a bit special: silly, may be, but I had been asked. In return, I felt a duty to do the best for my 'client'. I started by doing lots of thinking and reading.

And after six months of hard work, planning and writing to get to that point, it was ripped away in one five minute phone call.

The aftermath of this left me in limbo for probably a month, processing what this meant. I had some conversations with academics, fellow-travellers, and after a while, decided to go back to my original PhD idea.

Then I had a conversation with my Master's thesis supervisor, telling him the story. Who immediately said "dump the original idea. It's not exciting" and "do the sports governance thing. It's really topical".

He even suggested a Uni to apply to.

After a fortnight of thinking about it, I did as he had suggested. I now have two supervisors on my team at that Uni. After some sensible edits, rethinking, refining and clarifications, I pushed the "Submit" button on my pre-proposal.

I am now waiting to hear if the Uni will accept my pre-proposal as it was submitted, or if their Academic Committee will suggest some more edits.

Into the Slough of Despond (Alcott, 1869, p. 11), again. And apparently out. I will wait and see.


Sam

• Reference: Alcott, Louisa May (1869). Little Women: or Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy (Fourth Edition, 1915). USA: Orchard House

read more "The Slough of Despond... and new beginnings"

Meta-analysis write up versus the literature review

My students get a bit confused between literature reviews and meta-analyses.

A literature review is a "Detailed and justified analysis and commentary of the merits and faults of the literature within a chosen area, which demonstrates familiarity with what is already known about your research topic" (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2007, p. 595), "to uncover new insights on a topic by reviewing the literature in a systematic way" (Aveyard, 2007, p. 18).

Meta-analysis has its roots in medicine, and is generally empirical in nature. Crombie and Davies outline it by first exploring systematic review:

"Systematic review methodology is at the heart of meta-analysis. This stresses the need to take great care to find all the relevant studies (published and unpublished), and to assess the methodological quality of the design and execution of each study. The objective of systematic reviews is to present a balanced and impartial summary of the existing research, enabling decisions on effectiveness to be based on all relevant studies of adequate quality. Frequently, such systematic reviews provide a quantitative (statistical) estimate of net benefit aggregated over all the included studies. Such an approach is termed meta-analysis" (2009, p. 2).

Further, The Himmelfarb Health Sciences Library (2011) proposed it is:

"A subset of systematic reviews; a method for systematically combining pertinent qualitative and quantitative study data from several selected studies to develop a single conclusion that has greater statistical power. This conclusion is statistically stronger than the analysis of any single study, due to increased numbers of subjects, greater diversity among subjects, or accumulated effects and results."

Dr Heather Gray posed an interesting question on the LinkedIn Higher Education Teaching and Learning group recently: "A meta analysis of the literature or a literature review. What is the difference? What do you prefer for your PhD candidates?".

While many posters did not realise the difference in approach between the two methods, there was a general consensus that (a) a literature review was the most useful for a PhD thesis: the 'normal' approach, and (b) a meta-analysis was a lot more work, so a method better left for post-doctoral researchers.


Elton J. Crim preferred the "literature review albeit a robust one which demonstrates [students'] ability to synthesize. A meta analysis is a great skill and project for a paper or book. Most likely undertaken either with their professor/advisor or later in their career".

However, we need to be aware that the literature itself will shape the method. While Vishwanath Baba would normally "ask for a traditional literature review of my doctoral students in preparation of the thesis. I encourage a meta-analysis if a specific relationship is hypothesized and there is some ambiguity in the empirical literature about the relationship. I encourage it further if it is going to lead to some theorizing about the relationship among the variables."

Jennifer Gerow further defined the difference between the two approaches: "Traditional, narrative literature reviews are important because they should capture all the relevant literature (not just empirical studies from the meta-analysis), but they may be limited by human information processing since it is difficult to address conflicting findings across many studies (Hunter and Schmidt 2004)", whereas "A meta-analysis is a statistical technique for systematically combining the results from empirical studies on the same construct/topic (Gerow et al. 2014; Glass 1981; Hunter and Schmidt 2004; Lipsey and Wilson 2001)."

I think that clarifies things nicely :-)


Sam

References:

• Aveyard, Helen (2007). Doing a Literature Review in Heath and Social Care: A practical guide. UK: Open University Press.
• Borenstein, Michael, Hedges, Larry V., Higgins, Julian P. T. & Rothstein, Hannah R. (2009). Introduction to Meta-Analysis. UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
• Crombie, Iain K. & Davies, Huw T.O. (2009). What is a Meta-Analysis. Retrieved 27 April 2016 from http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/painres/download/whatis/meta-an.pdf
• Gray, Dr Heather (12 April 2016). A meta analysis of the literature or a literature review. Retrieved 24 April 2016 from https://www.linkedin.com/groups/2774663/2774663-6123303560869400577
• Saunders, Mark, Lewis, Philip & Thornhill, Adrian (2007). Research Methods for Business Students (Fourth Edition). UK: Pearson Education Limited
• The Himmelfarb Health Sciences Library (2011). Study Design 101: Meta-Analysis. Retrieved 27 April 2016 from https://himmelfarb.gwu.edu/tutorials/studydesign101/metaanalyses.html

read more "Meta-analysis write up versus the literature review"

Literature Review Tips

A couple of months ago Chris Deason posted a question in the LinkedIn higher education training and learning group, calling for hints and tips for the literature review.

Within that material, there was a link to a ten point "A Beginner’s Guide to Doing Your Education Research Project", kindly shared on academia.edu by Mike Lambert from the University of Wolverhampton. 

I have summarised Mike's work below, also adding my own interpretation:

1. How the literature review links to your research questions
   Our literature review must be closely tied to our project research question, and focused on answering our aims. It should follow on logically from our introduction, and prepare our reader for the methodology to come.
   It should outline all the background so that the reader understands why we were undertaking the research we are undertaking, and explain our underlying scaffolding theories.


2. The ‘swimming-pool’ approach to literature review
   Mike proposes an alternative approach to the literature review, where we plan and build our entire literature review en masse, rather like filling a swimming pool.
   Mike's idea is that, based on our reading, we will get indicators on what the key concepts are within our topic area, and cluster our materials as we read and write notes.
   Eventually we will have created a framework that enables us to encapsulate the literature that we have read and can make sense of the material; dividing up with subtitles, and further exploring our research question.
   Once we are relatively well satisfied with our exploration, we then formally write up our notes, using our subtitles to direct our progression.


3. How to take notes when reading
   Mike suggests the following strategies for notes-taking:
   "Note down concise, specific details of research you read about – numbers of those taking part, national context of the research, etc. Include these in your literature-review text. For example: ‘In interview research with 30 teachers in five schools in Scotland, Smith (2012) found that …’. This kind of detail strengthens the depth and credibility of your writing". In addition, Mike suggests that we seek statistical evidence that these readings spark within us - so we need to keep notes indicating what additional data we may require as we go through.
   "Identify contrasts and similarities in ideas – where do writers agree, disagree, or have differing perspectives? This process allows you to show ‘criticality’ – not just describing what people have written, but analyzing what one says against what others say to produce a composite picture of the issue under scrutiny".
   "Jot down your own thoughts: the strengths of the literature you are reading; gaps you notice in an author’s thinking; the nature of ‘discourse’ (how people talk or write about an idea). These notes will help you to analyse and interpret ideas, both in the literature review itself and when you relate the findings of your research back to your literature review towards the end of your written project".


4. Recording background
   Sometimes it is not just the facts that we need to record for our literature review, but the development of ideas, trends, or exploration of history.
   We must remember to add colour - richness - to the literature, and to interpret what has happened, and what the fashions appear to be within our topic area. This can enable us to predict what is likely to come in the future.


5. Data sources
   Our literature review will be more reliable, generalisable, and valid if it draws on a range of sources. We need to include books, journals, university publications, government sources, and well-qualified researchers who are publishing through more populist channels (such as documentaries, good quality magazines, conferences, and long-form articles).
   This latter allows us to tap into current and newly-forming ideas.
   Amongst the University publications, we mustn't neglect exploring PhD theses. In this way we get much more up-to-date research. Additionally, we need to seek those who disagree with our point of view: it enables us to test our ideas.


6. Testing your ideas
   In order to critically evaluate the materials we use in our literature review, Mike suggests:
   "Compare research studies: To what extent is the area of focus in the investigations similar or different? How do the methodologies used compare? What conclusions are reached? – how do these inform the issue being examined?"
   "Compare perspectives: How do authors’ own views on a topic compare? Do different authors see things from different angles? Do they argue in similar or different ways?"
   "Evaluate the literature: To what extent is a text you examine reliable and comprehensive? Are ideas well argued? persuasive? unconvincing? over-stated? Why is this so?"


7. Prepare the reader for the next section
   Our literature review should conclude with what we have done, and what our next steps are.
   We should lead our reader seamlessly into our methodology, without any unanswered questions or surprises.

Sam

References:

• Deason, Chris (March 2016). What are your tips for writing a literature review?  Retrieved 29 March 2016 from https://www.linkedin.com/groups/2774663/2774663-6112679353621979138
• Lambert, Mike (2013). Top Tips on Writing a Literature Review for Your Education Research Project. Retrieved 29 March 2016 from https://www.academia.edu/5195702/Top_Tips_on_Writing_a_Literature_Review_for_Your_Education_Research_Project

read more "Literature Review Tips "