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