Last week I shared a post that followed from a comment made by a colleague share some ideas on research. She began her presentation saying “I offer this to you…”, which I thought was a wonderful way of sharing her thoughts. Here are the notes I took during the session.
Research is not linear, clean or tidy. Research is iterative. Research is private, personal, individual. It is about exploring a “personal trouble” that we ultimately make public. It is about something that ignites a passion within us, something that can sustain the research. If there is no passion, the process cannot be sustained.
“Teaching students” is different to “producing knowledge”
As teachers, we are often perceived to have the “answers” (or, this is something that we believe ourselves). When you come in with the answers, you close yourself off to the possibility that you may be wrong. When you have the answer, you are not open to new things. Not open to learning.
When conducting research, resist the temptation to create the title first. How can you have a title when you don’t yet know what the research will find?
Grey literature (media, reports, policy) is normative and not about the production of new knowledge. It belongs in the Background. Other people’s research belongs in the Literature review. Journals are where the debates take place. This may have been true in the past. Maybe now we can say that this is where formal debate takes place?
The canon is a key text that frames the literature review.
The method is the framework you will use to connect the different parts of the study.
“Paradigm”: How will your values influence your interpretation of the study?
How will you present your data in relation to the question? It is reasonable to change your question (within limits) after analysing and interpreting the results.
Think of the reference list as an “engagement with other authors”. Use the reference list as a way to conceptualise the conversation you’re having with other researchers.
Try to think of writing your research as a story – a structured narrative that has a plot, the unfolding of a story.
Come to the abstract at the end. Think of it as a “lifting out”. The ideas are there in the paper, waiting to be lifted out. The abstract is often written as a descriptive summary – which is acceptable – but is it ideal? How else could it be written?
The research process is not about meeting the bureaucratic needs of the system because this doesn’t allow for an organic evolution and growth.