Why we need paragraphs

As I mentioned in my last post, I wrote about Professor Brabazon's great post on the paragraph (here; 2020). I have already summarised the key structural points, but there was also useful information on what the job of the paragraph is. I think we ignore this too often.

However, Professor Brabazon has a list of items which detail the work, in writing, that the paragraph does. She named ten elements, but I found a lot of cross-over in some, and feel that there are seven areas in which paragraphs deliver value to writers (2020):

1. Connections. Paragraphs help us "to make connections" (2020, 12:15). We need to ground our ideas in some type of theoretical construct, and create the connections between our ideas through the use of paragraph structure, and through development of a planned structure to lead the reader through the argument; by "sewing together the building blocks of your research to great paragraphs" (13:10). Students who are running into difficulty when writing often have "ideas [that] are fragmented" (12:29). She notes that when difficulty strikes for students, "the ideas are popping all over the place" (12:43) - a great visual! - but that those ideas are "not grounded and there's no structure to the argument" (12:52).
2. Information literacy. Our ability to control information is clearly demonstrated by how well we construct paragraphs: they need to be 'just right' for length. Tara notes that writing "short paragraphs confirm[s] that you haven't read enough so you've got no control of your information" (17:49), and "in the long paragraphs you've read a lot but you [still] can't control the information" (17:55). We need to control and to shape "all that knowledge that you're engaging with, so paragraphing requires intellectual discipline and, yes, information literacy" (18:11)
3. Synthesising & interpretation. Being able to create a coherent whole out of all very complex component parts "confirms your ability to configure something original and understand the difference between the two" (18:32). As writers we synthesise ideas and "shape them into something meaningful" (18:50), but also, "through a paragraph[, we] move from the synthesis to the originality" (19:06). Further, each paragraph shows how our own interpretation adds value to our work. We need to remember that a synthesis "is not one damn fact after another" (23:14); that is chronology. Narrative created using synthesis is interpreting what we have found, to create our version of the 'truth' based on our evidence, forged through the fires of our internal critique and reflection. Our "writing confirms your intellectual discipline" (24:35), and to show that we can "interpret the research of others" (25:06).
4. Knowledge & learning. Tara notes that "great paragraphs transform ideas into knowledge" (14:25). While a PhD must provide an original contribution to knowledge, all paragraphs should be helping someone to learn something from us. Writing paragraphs will teach us to write more clearly. We learn from doing, and each deliberately well-constructed paragraph will help us to write more well-constructed paragraphs: "we learn to write by writing" (15:38)
5. Justification. Writing coherent arguments help us to justify our argument to others. A "well-balanced paragraph shows your ability to take a premise, or an assumption, or an idea and move it beyond opinion into an argument into debate" (19:33). We inject evidence, weight, and logic to create "a seamless case" (19:50)
6. Plotting a path. Well written paragraphs "keep us on track" (20:03) and orient us with the argument being developed. Paragraphs help us to navigate through the chapter, the argument, the research, the thesis. If we find ourselves "in the middle of someone's paragraph going, 'where exactly am I? What is going on here?'" (20:24), then the work is not well mapped, and we cannot see the path the author should have charted for us. We end up with the Hansel and Gretel breadcrumb trail through your argument (25:31).
7. Audience. The purpose of research is to communicate it to others. Well written paragraphs break complex ideas into digestible pieces so that we "are able to make connections between ideas and then take those ideas and ensure that they find an audience" (14:05).

And a happy audience means a happy researcher.

Sam

• Reference: Brabazon, T. (12 March 2020). Vlog 208 - The paragraph. https://youtu.be/rYO_oM_nVqk

read more "Why we need paragraphs"

Synthesing literature review material

A literature review needs to be a synthesis of all the ideas we have been exploring in our secondary research trawl.

It should match our concept map. It should not be a pile of parts, but a blend of themed ideas which collectively support and explore our research question.

Think of our literature review as a smooth, creamy and consistent mix. There are no lumps, no unemulsified areas. It is a complete creation in its own right, with, aside from the references, few hints of its component parts.

Alternatively we could think of each separate aspect of our concept map, or each key expert, as being a different colour. When we have written up our literature well, each colour will merge harmoniously into the next, like the middle of the image above. Our sources - citations - will still point to the underlying resources, but our thinking and writing will shape those ideas into something new.

For those of us who get stuck with blending our literature review seamlessly, we can have a go at some of the suggestions gathered by Chris Deason (2016) in a LinkedIn thread by the posters below.

• Jessica Gordon suggested that we should "Try a Synthesis Matrix. Put your research question at the top. Create a table with 4-8 columns and a row for every source. At the top of each column, write one answer to your research question (one way some sources a answer it). On the left of each row, write the title or author(s) for each source. Now fill in the blanks, showing how each source provides evidence to support each answer. If a source does not address a particular answer, leave it blank. In the end you can visualize/see if you have enough info to substantiate each answer. This works an an outline when writing and makes writing a lot review way faster and easier". A template is available here
.
• Anita Leffel had more to add to this, pointing out that there was a "module on literature matrix assignments: https://youtu.be/mPK6Lnbwrms" available.


• Sarah Caldwell took a metaphorical approach, with "A literature review should be like a funnel. Start with the general work in your field that speaks to your issue. Then become more and more specific as you refer to articles that are more specifically pertinent. Ideally, your research is the logical outcome of all the research that comes before".


• Mirjam Godskesen suggested some theory reading; that we "check out this blog: https://doctoralwriting.wordpress.com/2016/02/23/creating-the-literature-review-research-questions-and-arguments/"


• Scott Schneider proposed that we should "be sure to draw from multiple perspectives - those that support your hypothesis and those that do not. It is important to demonstrate to your reviewers that you have performed an exhaustive review of the literature. Lastly, be sure that your lit review has a logical flow. Write the review in a manner that makes a case for your research plan and insert the reference or references that support your statements. Do not let your literature references dictate the flow."


• Mike Lambert had a paper for us to read, which is brilliant. "See: http://bit.ly/1c1LY7l", which can also be accessed online here.

To see other posts on this topic, go here and here. You can also download an article on writing up your literature review by Lavallée et al. (2014) here.

Finally, Pat Thomson, a great academic, has a blog post on creating direction and meaning here (2017).

These ideas may help us create something that is a true blend of all our material. It takes time, but it is in doing this that we truly create something that adds to the body of knowledge.


Sam

References:

• Deason, C. A. (2016, April). What are your tips for writing a literature review? Retrieved 7 June 2016 https://www.linkedin.com/groups/2774663/2774663-6112679353621979138
• Lavallée, M., Robillard, P.-N. & Mirsalari, R. (2014). Performing systematic literature reviews with novices: An iterative approach. Education, IEEE Transactions on, 57(3), 175-181. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2013.2292570
• Thomson, P. (2017, 17 January). paper not working? try the “what’s the problem?” approach. Retrieved 17 January 2016 from https://patthomson.net/2017/01/16/paper-diagnostics-the-whats-the-problem-approach/

read more "Synthesing literature review material"

A systematic literature review approach

Lavellée, Robillard and Mirsalari wrote a paper in 2014 which aimed to explore, then assist computing students in preparing a systematic academic literature review.

The authors found that there were two sets of expertise required: that of gathering the information to ensure completeness, and creating a literature review that could be repeated by a different person later to yield largely the same information. They wanted to develop a process which became complete and replicable - providing the methodology was consistent (Lavallée et al., 2014).

They developed a process which they have named iterative systematic review (iSR), and have chunked down the approach to the literature review into eight tasks (Lavallée et al., 2014, p. 175-6):

1. "Review planning: Plan the review effort and training activities." This should include drawing up a plan, a tutorial in how to do this, communicating what sets a quality paper apart, how to read statistics and results, and an introduction to research biases.
2. "Question formulation: Define the research questions." The authors suggest a very generic question to begin. For example, “What has already been written on subject X?”, then narrowing down to the research question. Read the article here and here.
3. "Search strategy: Define the review scope and search strings." This section includes how to prepare search key words and Boolean strings for databases, and how to adjust these as material is, or is not, found.
4. "Selection process: Define inclusion and exclusion criteria." In this task, researchers use article titles, abstracts, conclusions and keywords to determine utility.
5. "Strength of the evidence: Define what makes a high quality paper." This section utilised a checklist - sadly not provided - which students could use to work out the significance of a paper. However, students could gain a reasonable idea from citations and journal rankings (albeit rough).
6. "Analysis: Extract the evidence from the selected papers." Students need to be able to extract relevant information here, which is challenging. Careful reading and following of citations will help us here: as will carefully noting context. The authors suggest tables to consolidate evidence, but also remind us that the use of quantitative evidence to evaluate qualitative data is not necessarily useful.
7. "Synthesis: Structure the evidence in order to draw conclusions." Lavallée et al comment on the poor quality of student synthesis in this section. This is something that needs to be paid careful attention to. By first doing a précis, students start to see what is important in the article, which will aid their later write up (see more here).
8. "Process monitoring: Ensure the process is repeatable and complete." Students will learn over time what is 'enough', and what needs repair, when they find that they are unable to transition to the next stage.

While the authors did manage to gain some level of repeatability, they have not yet managed to confirm completeness (Lavallée et al., 2014).

You can download the article by Lavallée et al here.


Sam

References:

• Lavallée, Mathieu, Robillard, Pierre-N. & Mirsalari, Reza (2014). Performing systematic literature reviews with novices: An iterative approach. Education, IEEE Transactions on, August 2014, Volume 57, issue 3 (pp. 175-181).

read more "A systematic literature review approach "

Profiling your Examiners

I have just read a post by the Thesis Whisperer, Inger Mewburn, about how to tackle inter-disciplinary research. This is where undertaking research can be in danger of falling between the silos of knowledge.

Hey - that almost sounds like a Roland the Gunslinger novel!

Inger has a great method for deciding what is in, and what is outside your disciplines: she suggests that we create a 'typical' persona for each discipline, and consider what each person would want to know from our work in order to be satisfied that we know our stuff.

My work is going to straddle the gap between leadership, what it means to be a New Zealander, and career development. So I need to create a typical profile of each type of expert.

That makes total sense.

I have used customer profiling often to explain branding and communication issues to my students: John the rugby fan, Sale the league fan etc. I have also used this for clients, in helping them work through who their ideal customer is.

What is really interesting is that, although a lot of it can be 'seat of the pants' instinct (or, as Shaw James, an NMIT colleague terms it: "wild-assed guesses" - WAGs), it is often pretty on the mark. It also gives us a starting place that we can use to further refining our ideas as we find real data and evidence for our WAG.

Inger profiled two possible examiners for her PhD thesis, where her work looked at the use of gesture in architecture: a comms expert and an architecture professor and historian. She created backgrounds, had snapshots of them, and kept those artefacts visible where she was writing. As she said, when "I wrote I would look at the profile and ask myself: 'what would Jurgen think of this?', 'would Johanna agree with that?'" which helped her write to meet the needs of that possible examiner audience.

Inger also noted that Jurgen "would not need to read a whole lot of stuff that Johanna already knew, so I sign-posted it for her, i.e: 'readers familiar with the history of architectural education can safely skip the next chapter and go straight to chapter four where I sketch out the history of research on gesture'."

However, Inger notes that we still need to come to a clear conclusion in our work, and to own our own viewpoint and conclusion. We must need to find clarity in the intersection between the fields and create a synthesis, not recreate the silos in our own work.

I will try work with my silos, focusing on synthesising them and bringing them together into my own mash-up where they can all talk to each other. 

Build loggias, not moats :-)


Sam

• Reference: Mewburn, Inger (11 September 2013). Is your PhD a monster? Australia: Thesis Whisperer. Retrieved 17 March 2016 from http://thesiswhisperer.com/2013/09/11/help-i-think-i-have-created-a-monster/

read more "Profiling your Examiners"

Literature review methodology

Once we start collecting our own data, I suspect we can become so fixated on our primary data collection methods that we run the risk of failing to consider our literature review methods.

It is important to remember the 'recipe' for all elements of our research, Our method scopes our secondary collection; ensures we are being a careful and systematic researcher; focuses us on what we want to achieve; and so provides the reader with a better reading experience.

We should start by having a clear research question which guides the literature review. This provides scope, context and helps us to avoid plunging down rabbit holes (Fink, 2014, 2019). We document the question.

Following the question development, we then need to determine where we will source materials from, and what the age range of the articles we include should be. If we are dealing with a very new subject, then we may decide to discuss concepts rather than theories, because the field is - as yet - too young for theoretical development (Ang, 2014). We may limit our range to the last five years (common in medicine), or we may throw it wide open (management). We may wish to use one or two databases only, or we may want to search all possible databases (Fink, 2014, 2019). But we document those screening criteria choices, and provide a short rationale for them.

Next we consider what our key search terms will be, so that our literature review pulls in the 'right' source materials to answer our research question. These search terms should spring from our research question, and search terms and question should inform each other.

We read what we have found. We make notes on each item. We search for themes within the literature, and note those. We evaluate the quality of the materials we have found. We look for gaps in the materials, repeating authors, citations, and other quality indicators. We need to explain how we have constructed definitions, authors consulted, authors not consulted, and to document our criteria for importance (Gavlan, 2009). As we progress, we note our methods in search, gap-filling, and how we create critique. All elements get added to our method, and help us to decide what other method choices will need to be made as we progress.

As we start to write, we note what kind of method we use to extract data from the source material, and our rationale for using it (Fink, 2014, 2019).

Once we have all the extracted source material, we can then start the first draft of our literature review synthesis. We note how we ensured we had covered all sides of the argument, and how we put our argument together (Gavlan, 2009).

We ensure, if we are doing primary research, that our epistemology for our secondary materials aligns with our primary data collection. Are we a qualitative or quantitative researcher? If we are a qualitative researcher, should we include quantitative research results in our literature review? Or not?

While I have posted on literature review types before (here), we need to decide what type of literature review will we undertake. Will we do a systematic review? A narrative review? We need to make these choices, and explain why we made them in our method (Aveyard, 2010). Batbaatar et al, in their 2015 patient satisfaction research, clearly detailed what was inside their project scope, and what was outside (see the image accompanying this post for their methodology).

If we use a diagram, such as the Batbaatar et al (2015) example, we also need to provide the rationale for those choices within the text. However, it is 'normal' to keep the method for the literature brief and considered within the first paragraph or two of the literature review chapter.

Hopefully this list reminds us of the considerations we need to include!

Sam

References:

• Ang, S. H. (2014). Research Design for Business & Management. SAGE Publications Ltd.
• Aveyard, H. (2010). Doing a Literature Review in Health and Social Care: A practical guide (2nd ed.). Open University Press
• Batbaatar, E., Dorjdagva, J., Luvsannyam, A., & Amenta, P. (2015). Conceptualisation of patient satisfaction: a systematic narrative literature review. Perspectives in Public Health, 135(5), 243-250. https://doi.org/10.1177/1757913915594196
• Fink, A. (2014). Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to paper (4th ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
• Fink, A. (2019). Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to paper (5th ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
• Gavlan, J. L. (2009). Writing Literature Review: A guide for students of the social and behavioural sciences (4th ed.). Pyrczak Publishing.
• Kruse, S. D. & Warbel, A. (2009). Developing a Comprehensive Literature Review: An Inquiry into Method. http://learningandteaching.org/Research/Materials/litreview.pdf
• Lavallée, M., Robillard, P.-N. & Mirsalari, R. (2014). Performing systematic literature reviews with novices: An iterative approach. IEEE Transactions on Education, 57(3), 175-181. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2013.2292570
• Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Frels, R. (2016). Seven steps to a comprehensive literature review: A multimodal and cultural approach. Sage Publications Ltd.
• Ridley, D. (2012). The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd.

read more "Literature review methodology"

Should we cite each sentence?

TECHNICALLY, when using APA, we are supposed to cite each sentence. Practically, however, where an entire paragraph is solely based on the work of a single author, we are probably 'safe' to simply cite at the end. Doing so is less repetitive, so is easier to read. An example:

Self-report inventories can "be a form of self-talk", as while we may be reporting "what [we] believe is true about [our] situations [, what we report] are perceptions and may not be reality". We can delude ourselves via our internal narrative. Further, perception becomes our own reality, as "regardless of how real the barrier is, [our] self-talk can have a dramatic impact on how [we] view [our]selves, as well as on [our] options and how [we] make career decisions" (Osborn & Zunker, 2016, p. 133).

However, writing a paragraph from a single author source is not considered 'good' academic writing, nor is using lots of quotes. As academics we need to be careful about encouraging this, because it means that our students are are not being encouraged to create a synthesis of their own ideas evidenced by multiple authors/sources, but are being 'derivative' (McConnachie, 2022). We would be better to construct a paragraph from more sources, trimming quotes, as follows:

Self-talk has been defined as a “dialogue [through which we interpret] feelings and perceptions, regulates and changes evaluations and convictions, and [give ourselves] instructions and reinforcement” (Hackfort & Schwenkmezger, 1993, p. 355). Self-report inventories can be categorised as self-talk (Osborn & Zunker, 2016). When we undertake self-reporting tools, we may think we are reporting who we truly we are, but our perceptions are likely to be skewed through a level of either conscious or unconscious self-delusion (Osborn & Zunker, 2016), reminiscent of the JoHari Window (Luft, 1982). Self-talk as an internal, personal narrative may critique us more heavily than outside voices (Billan, 2022), which can negatively skew our self-view. Our perception IS our own reality; our self-talk impacts how we see ourselves, our choices, and our personal career decision-making processes (Osborn & Zunker, 2016).

Lastly, we also need to remember that we should not give away our power; so we should avoid leading-off a paragraph with the author name, such as "Osborn and Zunker say that self-report inventories are "a form of self talk" (2016, p. 133)"... which places the author at the centre, instead of our own ideas being the primary focus.

Sam

References:

Billan, R. (2022). Keynote Address | Allocution: Redefining Resilience [video]. CANNEXUS22 Virtual Conference 25 January - 5 February. https://cannexus22.gtr.pathable.com/meetings/virtual/prczg7FhBvbNczsYn

Hackfort, D., & Schwenkmezger, P. (1993). Chapter 14: Anxiety. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphey, & L. K. Tennant (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Sport Psychology (pp. 328–364). Macmillan Publishing Company.

Luft, J., & Ingham, H. (1961). The Johari Window: a graphic model of awareness in interpersonal relations. Human Relations Training News, 5(1), 6-7.

McConnachie, J. (26 May 2022). Using quotations effectively. https://rlfconsultants.com/using-quotations-effectively/

Osborn, D. S., & Zunker, V. G. (2016). Using Assessment Results for Career Development (9th ed.). Cengage Learning.

read more "Should we cite each sentence?"

Location agnostic work

Late last year I heard a term that I had not heard before: that of "location agnostic" work (De Smet et al., 2021). What this means is that our employment does not have to be tied to one specific location - such as an office - but allows us to work from wherever we are. This term - which has been around in IT for over twenty years (Meinert, 2002) - reflects how views are changing on what work is and where it needs to be undertaken.

In today's parlance, location agnostic work does not necessarily mean working from home (aka WFH or "home-shoring"): it might mean that as we move around our region, our nation, or the world, our work can move with us. While many travel writers have been living and bl/vlogging this way in recent times, it has been Covid-19 that has enabled the rest of us with potentially portable work outputs to take advantage of working in a more nomadic way. Although during the pandemic this was necessity, not desire, many of us have really enjoyed the luxury of being able to choose what we come together for, to be more deliberate in how we seek human contact in the workplace. It has also allowed us to ensure we can undertake interruption-free work when we need to by changing location.

Further, most of the time we can decide WHEN we travel into our work's location. This reduces stress, traffic load, consumption of resources, and time spent in advisory or information-only meetings (read more here). Totalling the cost of advisory or information-only meetings in the workplace - average salary by the number of attendees, by the length of the meeting (a fast and dirty calculation by MeetingKing, 2023, here) is worth it. Knowing the costs to the organisation reminds staff to check whether we really need to spend $1k to tell us what is happening, or whether one person writing key elements in an email is better value. Or the boss talking to camera and putting a passworded link on YouTube. We can then be deliberate about going to the pub on Friday night instead for team building.

Why should we do team building? Well, we are in a tight labour market. And a recent global survey shows that the three most significant reasons for employees to leave are that we don't "feel valued by [our] organizations (54 percent) or [our] managers (52 percent) or because [we don't] feel a sense of belonging at work (51 percent)" (De Smet et al., 2021). Work needs to provide us with a sense camaraderie and purpose: not boredom. It is truly time to automate the crap, and focus on adding-value. 

Keep an eye on 'location agnostic' work. I think we are going to see more of it.

Sam

References:

BT. (2011). Phone Home: The Rise of the Homeshored Contact Centre Advisor. British Telecom. https://digitaltransform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Homeshoring.pdf

De Smet, A., Dowling, B., Mugayar-Baldocchi, M., & Schaninger, B. (2021). 'Great attrition’ or ‘Great attraction’? the choice is yours. The McKinsey Quarterly. https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/business%20functions/people%20and%20organizational%20performance/our%20insights/great%20attrition%20or%20great%20attraction%20the%20choice%20is%20yours/great-attrition-or-great-attraction-the-choice-is-yours-vf.pdf?shouldIndex=false

Jain, M. (2020). The Next Normal: Building resilience in the post-COVID-19 workspace. Digital Debates, 2020(3), 23-35. https://www.orfonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Digital-Debates-Journal.pdf#page=23

MeetingKing. (2023). Meeting Cost Calculator. https://meetingking.com/meeting-cost-calculator/

Meinert, K. A. (2002). Subsynth: A generic audio synthesis framework for real-time applications. [Master Thesis, Iowa State University]. https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/49916511/Meinert-Subsynth-MastersThesis-ISU2002-with-cover-page-v2.pdf

Nichols, A. (2022). Digital nomads: a savvy enterprise’s newest HR frontier. Strategic HR Review, 21(6), 185-190. https://doi.org/10.1108/SHR-08-2022-0049

read more "Location agnostic work"

Avoiding opinion in academic writing

Ah: the joys of academic writing. It is quite difficult to clearly show students why it is so important that we avoid using our own opinion, or our experience, as 'evidence' when we write in academia. 

I think that the following example is helpful, however. We can approach "academic writing [like] being [in] a court of law. [Your mark]er is the judge. You [the writer] are the young prosecutor. You call witnesses (sources) to give evidence that helps build your case. You must question and dispute the stories of the witnesses and lawyers for the other side" (Mewburn et al., 2018, p. 28). I think this great explanation helps me a lot to explain the purpose of using evidence - and not opinion - to students. If we imagine a courtroom, it becomes clear why our opinion can be unhelpful, and why we need to use experts (as per the illustration accompanying this post; Newnes, 1891, p. 532). If we have watched TV courtroom dramas, it is clear how third parties are used in the process. 

In academic writing, our courtroom experts are peer-reviewed evidence from journals. This is because academic writing needs to be underpinned by reliable, objective evidence. It is not a political opinion piece: it is reliable, careful, and systematic argument (Bennett, 1991), clearly drawing on sound quality peer-reviewed articles and chapters. We cite to show the bones of our reading, and to make careful, balanced claims by using hedging language (read more on that here).

Our written work should be a synthesis of the views of experts; those with whom we agree; those with whom we do not agree and we may critique by calling "in the ‘opposition’; witnesses [we] can cross-examine who might disagree with" the argument we have are building, politely questioning their views (Mewburn et al., 2018, p. 28). We ensure that we have our systematic and careful researcher hat on (Bennett, 1991) when selecting appropriate, credible, and balanced sources to form our argument. We don't call on the discredited voices in our field; we call on those with credibility.  

Then, like a necklace of beads, our job is simply (!) to string together our argument in a cogent way, making sense of the components for those who view it... and - hopefully - those who admire it. And those whom we can persuade by our elegant argument to agree with it.

We must remember that all the citations we embed  and the references they arise from "are magic [...] little nuggets, hidden in brackets and footnotes, that confer power and protection to researchers" (Mewburn et al., 2018, p. 30). They aid us, who use those magic nuggets in our writing. They show that we have drawn on experts; they show what has shaped our thinking; they show the breadth of the field that we have covered; they show we have cast our net widely; they show that we are current in our thinking. "Names, names, names", darling (Plowman, 1992). 

Students often ask me why they can't use their own experience. It is largely because we haven't built up our own experience in a structured, objective and measured way; our learning is rarely accumulated in the organised way we that would conduct a scholarly research project. Because of that, we will see our experience through our own biases. Some biases will be unconscious - it is likely that we do not see 'all' of ourselves, as per the JoHari window (Luft, 1963; Luft & Ingham, 1955). Our 'blind area' is only evident to others, and two areas - the area we avoid, and the area of completely unknown activity - can be seen by no one; a serious limitation in trying to objectively assess patterns from memory (Luft, 1963). While we might use our own experience to shape our introduction (a "why I am interested in this" statement), our personal research expertise is simply not a strong enough foundation on which to build academic argument.

And, by drawing on real research experts, we show our growing understanding of our field.

Sam

References:

Bennett, R. (1991). Chapter 5: What is Management Research? in N. Smith, P. Dainty (Eds.), The Management Research Handbook (pp. 67-77). Routledge.

Mewburn, I., Firth, K., & Lehmann, S. (2018). How to Fix Your Academic Writing Trouble: A Practical Guide. Open University Press.

Luft, J. (1963). Group processes: An introduction to group dynamics. National Press.

Luft, J., & Ingham, H. (1955). The Johari Window: A Graphic Model for Interpersonal Relations. Western Training Laboratory in Group Development. University of California at Los Angeles, Extension Office.

Newnes, G. (1891). The Strand Magazine (Vol 1., p. 532). George Newnes & Co Ltd.

Plowman, J. (Producer). (1993). Fashion [TV programme]. Absolutely Fabulous, 1(1). BBC.

read more "Avoiding opinion in academic writing"

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"

What data goes in which chapters

I seem to be starting a series, exploring what goes where in the research write up, which we will continue by briefly summarising the data source of each of the research report chapters. So let's great straight into it!

As we can see by the image accompanying this post, there are two sources of data in our work: the blue data, which is where we draw on the work of others; and the green data where we collect our own data within parameters to answer our own questions. Each of these generally belong in different chapters, as each chapter has a specific job to do (see here for more on that).

1. Literature Review. Secondary, expert data. Our literature review work is our synthesis of the views of experts. This chapter contains little of our opinion really: only the opinion of experts. I say 'really', as the elements which we select to go into our literature review are self-selected, so our stamp is here. We must ensure that we have our systematic and careful researcher hat on (Bennett, 1991) when selecting appropriate, credible, and balanced sources to form the foundation of our literature review, but we use only the views of experts in the creation of it.
2. Method. A mixture. Our personal opinion begins to show in the methods chapter, as can be seen by the green showing above. While the methodology work of experts will shape the 'recipe' we use to find our own data, the exact method is our own individual creation for this particular application. Our methodology will be based on the views of expert researchers, but it will be what we are going to do. This is likely to include textbooks and studies which we have looked at in our literature review, where we are lucky enough to have come across studies containing methodologies which are close to ours; adding validity, reliability, and trustworthiness to our project.
3. Findings. Our primary data. Our findings is likely to contain ONLY our work. What we found. This is a descriptive section, not evaluative. There will be few, if any, expert references in this section. Our method itself should have been properly explained in our methodology section. However, we may create a way to reference where in our research data that things have come from, so that we, or others, can refer back to our source data.
4. Discussion. A mixture. Our discussion is where we bring together the views of experts - our literature review - with the information we have analysed from our own, primary data. We compare the experts’ views from our literature review with our findings, and start to develop our own opinion as to what the results mean.

I hope that helps!

Sam

References:

Bennett, R. (1991). Chapter 5: What is Management Research? in N. Smith & P. Dainty (Eds) The Management Research Handbook (pp. 67-78). Routledge.

Jones, I. (2015). Research Methods for Sports Studies (3rd ed.). Routledge.

Veal, A. J. (2005). Business Research Methods – A Managerial Approach (2nd ed.). Pearson Education Australia.

read more "What data goes in which chapters"

Citing, paraphrasing, and quoting

I had a student recently ask about when they should cite and when they should quote. What they really meant was when should they paraphrase, and when should they quote... I think. So I wrote a short post on the differences between the three.

Citing happens all the time, regardless of whether we are quoting or paraphrasing.

Whenever we draw on an expert's view in our own words (i.e. paraphrasing), we cite without quote marks and include an in text citation: (Author, date). This allows us to draw on many experts at once. We can create a synthesis. We put a normal APA reference for each author in our reference list. For example:

Perceptions are how we make sense of the world, by selecting, organising, and interpreting what goes on around us. We can easily make judgement and attribution errors that feed our assumptions false information, as well as projecting onto others what we feel ourselves. Both can lead to biases and defensiveness (Daft, 2008; Hellriegel, Jackson & Slocum, 1999; Grant, 2013).

Whenever we use an expert's actual words, we put the words in quote marks, and include an in text citation plus a page number, because a quote comes from an exact place in a numbered document: (Author, date, p. x). With regard to the page number, we treat any exact 'thing' from an exact place as a quote: models, images, words, graphs, diagrams. We can't put these objects in quote marks, but we do provide the page number so the reader can find it. This format tends to limit synthesising, so we limit quoting. As with paraphrasing, we include a normal APA reference in our reference list. For example:

The University of Michigan’s call centre were underperforming with their alumni fund-raising. Adam Grant's (2013) research found that funds raised were largely applied to scholarships. He had staff each meet with a scholarship recipient for five minutes, clearly showing call-centre staff the results of their efforts. This shifted the staff mindset from 'begging' to focusing on WHY they were raising money. This shift in mental model doubled the "calls per hour and minutes on the phone per week". "Revenue quintupled: callers averaged $412 [per week] before meeting the scholarship recipient and more than $2000 afterward" (Grant, 2013, p. 207).

When it comes to quoting, we should keep our quotes as short as possible, because each expert will have their own narrative 'voice'. It is tiring for the reader to be constantly switching between different rhythms and tones in the writing. Think of quotes as seasoning on the writing. A little to add piquancy, but not so much as to overpower the dish.

Almost all the time - perhaps 95% or more - we will paraphrase what the original author has said as per point 1. With some writers, this will be closer to 100%.

A little clarification goes a long way.

Sam

References

• Daft, R. L. (2008). The Leadership Experience (4th ed.). Thomson-South Western.
• Grant, A. (2013). Give and Take: A revolutionary approach to success. Penguin
• Hellriegel, D., Jackson, S., & Slocum, J. (1999). Management. International Thomson Publishing.
• Young, S. (2017). Mental Models. http://www.samyoung.co.nz/2017/02/mental-models.html

read more "Citing, paraphrasing, and quoting"

The characteristics of a 'just right' paragraph

Ah, the paragraph. I have made a few posts on this topic (here), but there is always a bit more to do, especially when someone as guru-like as Tara Brabazon creates a vlog on the topic. While Tara writes and supervises PhDs, there is always something we can learn - at any level - from such an expert.

A key issue which Tara identifies about the paragraph is that each one needs to be 'just' the right length; a Goldilocks length. Interestingly, "the overwhelming majority of students start writing very, very short paragraphs; one sentence, two sentences, three sentences, and what that does is [...] fragments your argument" (Brabazon, 2024, 3:09). We chop up our thoughts into unconnected pieces... a bit like loose Lego blocks. Our ideas have the shadow of something, but we have not yet done the work to bring our writing into sharper focus. In addition, at the other spectrum end we may have written too much, not chunking our prose into ideas; instead gushing a deluge of text for two pages in a single paragraph. Neither the fragments nor the gush helps our reader to understand what we are trying to convey. What is even more interesting; Tara thinks there is a similar cause for both the fragments and the gush: and that is reading.

• Not enough quality input. In the fragmented paragraphs, it seems that we may not have "done [enough...] reading and that means [we] just can't extend the ideas. [We] don't [yet] have enough to say" (3:59). We fix this by taking in more good quality materials (Brabazon, 2024). However, I think there are two other roadblocks in this area:
• In note-taking mode: this is where we are still information-gathering. We are not yet ready to write, because our ideas lack form. While yes, we may we need to read more, needing to read more niche research so we can better connect our ideas; or not yet reading enough may not be the problem. It might be that the field itself is unclear as to an appropriate way forward. If so, this is hard for a junior researcher: we need to leap into the unknown.
• Lack confidence to interpret/critique. In addition/alternatively, perhaps we lack the depth of understanding to accurately interpret what the literature days, nailing our colours to the mast with a "And what this means is...". Or we might lack confidence in critiquing what other authors say. We might have a dose of the "I am not worthys". This too is hard: and again, we need to make the leap.
• Too much input. Whereas in the gush, the writer has read too much, but has held back writing to this point, so what has been thought about then pours forth in a vast synthesis without pause to consider structure. We can fix this by creating - for example - a fishbone diagram of the topics to be covered before we begin, which will then guide our writing process (Brabazon, 2024).

These are two interesting problems, but both are solvable.

Paragraphs are fascinating tools. I suspect that we don't teach paragraph writing deliberately enough... which means all of us have poorer writing than we could have.

Sam

Reference:

Brabazon, T. (2024, May 17). Outrider 55 - The Paragraph [video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/af_-RikKZmA

read more "The characteristics of a 'just right' paragraph"

Career Webinars & Podcasts

A colleague posted a question on the CDANZ LinkedIn group recently, asking for career development podcast ideas. That got me thinking!

Our CDANZ branch as used the Symposium keynote speaker videos each year to watch and discuss. I think they have been useful - and enjoyed - by those members who didn't get to attend. Some of the sessions too are recorded. They are all worth a look. Past CDANZ presentations can be found here.

I attended the first CDANZ webinar which explored Holden's process in shutting down their Australian manufacturing operation, which was very interesting. I have also done a couple of CERIC webinars (here) and US NCDA ones (here). Just be aware that the timing can be quite rough, depending on the North American coast the webinar is based on (I have attended a few webinars which started at 4am NZT). CERIC also have some Vimeo clips that you can watch (here).

There are some very good quality MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) including short and medium courses from edX (MIT/Harvard), Coursera (Case Western), FutureLearn (UK's Open University), Udemy (privately owned by teachers Eren Bali, Oktay Caglar and Gagan Biyani) and Lynda (owned by Microsoft and often quite expensive - unless your employer has an account you can tap into). Unfortunately there are very few courses available specifically on career development.

The first three platforms - edX, Coursera and FutureLearn - are all university-driven, and have largely free courses if you wish to simply audit the materials. You are usually limited in some way with time, or locked out of some of the quizzes and/or some of the answers. If you want certification these courses are likely to cost between NZD$50-$100. Not significant costs, and in general I have found them to be of good quality.

It is also worth mentioning that all three of these platforms have multiple partners around the world. For example the University of Auckland publishes their short online courses via FutureLearn, while Australia National University uses edX.

Udemy are mostly paid courses, ranging between NZD$12-$500, from a range of providers. I have completed a number of these, including a Richard Bolles Parachute course.

Additionally, once you have signed up with Udemy, you will be offered discounted courses which can mean significant savings. I completed many courses by having a wishlist and then waiting for sales. There is currently a coaching course available here: I have no idea as to the quality, but it could be good if you are looking for new material (and if you sign up and find the course material is bad, you can simply ask for a refund).

While a short online course is not going to solve the problems of the world, they have their place to sharpen up our practices and to introduce us to new material. Even bad courses can provide self-development by our synthesis of a rebuttal to a poorly informed or outdated perspective.

However, when it comes to podcasts, there are very few New Zealand resources. Radio NZ have some excellent podcasts, and it is worth keeping an eye out for discussions and interviews as they are broadcast (a couple of interesting links are provided in the resource list below). Internationally, PlayerFM have a category of Career Counselling podcasts available here.

If any of you come across any other online resources, I would be MOST interested to hear!


Sam

A list of online resources:

• CDANZ (n.d.). Presentations. Retrieved from http://www.cdanz.org.nz/professional-learning/presentations/
• CDANZ (n.d.). Upcoming Webinars. Retrieved from http://www.cdanz.org.nz/professional-learning/webinars/
• CERIC (n.d.). Webinars. Retrieved from http://ceric.ca/webinars/
• CERIC (12 January 2017). Redirection Project: Career Development and Job Shifts for the 50+. Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/199222052
• edX (21 March 2018). Shaping the Future of Work. Retrieved from https://www.edx.org/course/shaping-the-future-of-work
• NDCA (n.d.). NCDA Webinar Series. Retrieved from https://www.ncda.org/aws/NCDA/pt/sp/webinars
• PlayerFM (n.d.). Career Counseling Podcasts. Retrieved from https://player.fm/podcasts/career-counseling
• Radio NZ (10 Dec 2017). Damon Salesa: our Pacific future. Retrieved from https://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=2018624048
• Radio NZ (4 December 2017). Why career planning in sciences doesn't make sense. Retrieved from https://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=2018624048
• Udemy (n.d.-a). Career Coach Certificate: Complete Coaching System. Retrieved from https://www.udemy.com/career-development-career-planning-for-best-career-changes/
• Udemy (n.d.-b). The eParachute Introduction to Your Career and Job Search. Retrieved from https://www.udemy.com/the-eparachute-introduction-to-your-career-and-job-search/

read more "Career Webinars & Podcasts"