What is This Talk About Anyway?Some of the practicalities of documenting research
Theoretical insight
Attention shaping
Inspiration
Kill two birds with one stone
Please do not take it too seriously!
What is This Talk About Anyway?
Some of the practicalities of documenting research
Theoretical insight
Attention shaping
Inspiration
Kill two birds with one stone
Please do not take it too seriously!
Designing & Writing a Report
• The science of writing scientific papers
• The craft of scientific writing • Variations between disciplines
• Differences in personal style • Writing and reviewing • Theoretical insight
• Practical exercises
• Attention shaping
• Inspiration
What is Research? .... well, ahmmm???
Documented activity
One should be held accountable
Peer review
Accumulation of results
Theses I do not want to read
(Sørensen, 1994) Great idea: “I have just had this great idea! I do not know if anyone else has ever had the same idea, because I’ve not checked, and I’m rather new in this field. Anyway, my idea is brilliant, so I really would like to share it with you all.”
Other peoples ideas: “I have just read this great book that I really like a lot. I’ll just give you a short resume of the interesting points in the book.”
Software hacker: “I have just built this great computer system. It is not based on previous theories or empirical findings. I am not very theoretical myself, but the system has a lot of fantastic features, and the interface is really neat.”
Theory hacker: “I have come up with this theory; conceptual framework; model. It is not related to other theories; conceptual frameworks; models, or any empirical data for that matter. Most of the concepts have been defined differently by all the big shots in the field, but I just do not like their categories so I have invented my own.”
Deserve your Place on the Soap-Box
Theoretical
approach Empirical
approach Analytical result Constructive result State-of-the-art survey, theory assessment Empirically based method, guidelines, framework, taxonomy, model, or prototype Case study, questionnaire survey, experiment Theoretically based method, guidelines, framework, taxonomy, model, or prototype (Sørensen, 1994)
The Life of an Article
Working paper Workshop/seminar Refereed conference Journal Technical report New article: new title and at least 30–50% “new stuff”
Submitting Articles
There are lots of places to publish
It is a very long and difficult process to get an article published
Make sure to match intentions and capablities
Take reviewer comments serious, but don't panic!
Enclose response to editor when resubmitting
If at first you don't succeed, try again
Five Important Questions
(Sørensen, 1994) (1) What is the problem domain?
(2) What is the problem?
(3) What is the research approach?
(4) What have others done?
(5) What are the results?
Reasoning From Experiments
(Mason 1989)
Rigor Versus Relevance
Rigor Relevance Relevance=
Richness of worldly realism Rigor=
Tightness of control Iso-Epistme Curve B A Knowledge domain defined by theory and conceptual variables (Mason 1989)
Budgets Limit
Rigor Relevance A Amount of worldly realism purchable with "X" resources Budgets limit the amount of knowledge yielded by any experiment Amount of control purchable with "X" resources (Mason 1989)
Say Something Interesting...But Do It Properly!
Rigor Relevance Threshold for trade journals Threshold for discipline journals
Triangulation
Rigor Relevance A1 A2 Improved controls increase the amount of reliable knowledge generated by experiment A (Mason 1989)
1 You need to do something in order to deserve to take the stand
2 It is a good idea to copy others when you begin writing articles
3 Keep to the standard format for papers, what ever the standard is
4 Aim at a top-down writing process and plan the process carefully
5 Focus focus focus focus .........
6 Only one point per paper
7 Only stick your neck into one guillotine
8 Use a lot of time on the "packaging", i.e. title, abstract, introduction, and conclusion 9 Acknowledgements are crucial (friends and finance)
10 Be open about who are authors and the sequence of authors
11 If English is not your first language, spend a LOT of time on linguistic improvements
12 Start out accumulating a bibliographic database. This way you avoid the tedious work of writing reference lists every time you write an article
13 Writing and rewiewing are two sides of the same coin
14 Get your papers reviewed in order to get others to comment
15 Be ready to kill your darlings
Extended IMRAD Template
Title: Funny or informative?
Author(s): Alphabetic ordering or not?
Affiliation
Abstract: Contents-based or summary
5 Introduction: The five important questions. "Sell" the point
Method
(Section)*: Results
Discussion
Conclusion: Problem setting, summary, conclude, further research
10 Acknowledgments: Funding, help, reviewers, etc.
11 (Appendix)
12 References
Where To Find More
Some of the basic arguments presented in this talk are outlined in This is not an Article (handout) . A discussion of rigor and relevance can be found in (Mason 1989).
Day’s (1977) article provides initial input to a discussion on writing scientific articles. Gopen & Swan (1990) discuss how to improve the line of argumentation in articles. Smith (1990) and Parberry (1990) describe the task of refereeing articles. Those who are interested in how to write mathematics should consult the two classics Steenrod et al. (1962) and Steenrod et al. (1973).
Robert Day (1991) has also written a very good book which outlines important aspects of how to write a paper and subsequently getting it published, plus a lot of other relevant issues. Weston (1987) provides a very inspiring fundament for how to build a line of argumentation, and the classic by Strunk and White (1979) will teach you most of what is worth knowing about style in the English language. Finally, Beer (1992) contains a collection of useful and provoking papers on writing and speaking in the technology profession.
References
Beer, David F., ed. (1992): Writing & Speaking in the Technology Professions — A Practical Guide. New York: IEEE Press.
Benbasat, Izak, ed. (1989): The Information Systems Research Challenge: Experimental Research Methods, vol. 2. Boston Massachusetts: Harward Business School Research Colloquium Harward Business School.
Cash, James I. and Paul R. Lawrence, ed. (1989): The Information Systems research Challenge: Qualitative Research Methods, vol. 1. Boston Massachusetts: Harward Business School Research Colloquium Harward Business School.
Cook, Claire Kehrwald (1985): Line By Line — How to Improve Your Own Writing. Boston, USA: Modern Language Association.
Dahlbom, Bo and Lars Mathiassen (1993): Computers in Context — The Philosophy and Practice of Systems Design. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.
Day, Robert A. (1977): How to Write a Scientific Paper. IEEE Transactions on Proffessional Communication, vol. PC-20, no. 1, pp. 32–37.
Day, Robert A. (1991): How to Write & Publish a Scientific Paper. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gopen, George D. and Judith A. Swan (1990): The Science of Scientific Writing — If the reader is to grasp what the writer means, the writer must understand what the reader needs. American Scientist, vol. 78, November-December, pp. 550–558.
Kraemer, Kenneth L., ed. (1991): The Information Systems Research Challenge: Survey Research Methods, vol. 3. Boston Massachusetts: Harward Business School Research Colloquium. Harward Business ...
Comments