Document Your Research and Market Yourself!

1. Document Your Research andMarket Yourself! Presentation for Faculty Members AWH Engineering College Kuttikkattoor Calicut Kerala Thursday, February 24, 2011

2. Organization of the Presentation • Introduction • Study or Research • Quantitative or Qualitative • Proposals - Topics, TOR, Time Schedule • Questionnaires, Scenario build up • Documentation • Journals and Conferences • Titles, Abstracts, Introduction • Structured body • Conclusion/Summary • References, Bibliography, Harvard System • Plagiarism • Conclusion

3. Introduction • Ignorance • Lack of exposure • Disinterested • Ill motivated • Dejected and disappointed • Aptitude for writing

4. Proposals for RESEARCH PROJECTS, PAPERS– Surveys and Questionnaires

5. Topics • Selecting a research topic • Producing a research proposal • Producing a proposal for a research paper For additional information see: “How to Research” by Blaxter, Hughes and Tight, Chapter 2

6. Selecting a Research Topic • Remember • Nearly everything will take longer than you expect • There are always some problems • So -  Be realistic • Try and keep things as simple and straightforward as possible Blaxter, Hughes and Tight highlight twelve issues to bear in mind when choosing a research topic: 1. How much choice you have 2. Your motivation 3. Regulations and Expectations 4. Your subject or field of study 5. Previous examples of research projects (papers) 6. The size of the Topic 7. The time, 8. Resources available 9. Cost you have 10.Your need for Support 11.Access issues 12.Methods for Researching

7. Producing a Research Proposal • This will be covered in detail in the sessions that support the project phase of your MSc.  • What you will need to produce for your project is a Terms of Reference

8. Terms of Reference • For our projects these usually consist of four sections that address • Background and Overview • Objectives • Resources • Constraints • Plus you will expected to produce an outline set of plans that detail how you expect to carry out the project. • You will need to detail: • Stages, Order of activities, Deliverables, and Times  • Normally this is done by means of a Schedule and a Gantt chart

9. Producing a Proposal for a Research Paper  • We will consider the use of • EXTENDED ABSTRACTS (Paper proposals) • Often required by conference organisers to: • Help them do some initial planning • Organise reviewing • Provide advance feedback to authors • Some conferences do their paper selection only on extended abstracts • If the extended abstract is accepted, then your paper is guaranteed acceptance • Often all a keynote or invited speaker needs to produce is an extended abstract. (not a full paper!)

10. Extended Abstracts (Paper Proposals) • A promise of what will be delivered • Often written in the future tense – as it describes what will delivered, not what currently exists.  • Should contain information on: • Scene setting (places work in context) • Outline Contents (Structure) • Particular Highlights  • Plus • A good title (can help get attention ) • Initial references (to give an indication of the quality of research and support the proposed contents of the paper)

11. Example extended abstract • Initial references • A good title (can help get attention ) • How the Regulation of Software Engineering and the Texas Licensing Model Will Act as Catalysts for the Greater Professionalism and Higher Software Quality

12. Scene setting • The software industry, when considering quality, has tended to concentrate on two aspects: the product itself (the software) and the processes involved in producing that product. Assessing the quality of the product is fraught with difficulties since not only is the final product - the executing code- intangible, but as many authors have pointed out quality itself is hard to define and almost impossible to measure directly. Thus the industry has tended to concentrate on the production process and argue that: A quality process should lead to the production of a quality product It does not matter how well this argument may apply to traditional production line processes it is not necessarily the “holy grail” with regard to software. However, what is very clear from case study literature is that, whether one is concerned with product or process, a third vital ingredient is people. It is thus people rather than product or process that should be regarded as fundamental to any quality regime. In addition, with the end of the Millennium we are seeing moves to license Software Engineers in parts of the United States (US). This licensing and associated regulation of the Software Engineering profession is likely to lead to major changes relating to computer personnel and the ways in which they work.

13. Outline Contents (Structure) Within the paper the following will be considered: 1.Regulation and Certification Developments and the Facts covering Software Engineering Licensing in Texas, US. 2.Formal Requirements of Professionalism 3.Examples of how non professional attitudes impinge on Quality 4.Approaches that will improve the current state of the industry

14. Particular Highlights • Particular attention will be paid to: • Rules of the Texas initiative to give Software Engineers a license to practice. Reference will be made to the different levels of Software Engineering expertise and the potential for professional development. The case will be made that there could be extra incentives and long term rewards for top grade Licensed Software Engineers. This could be especially true for those working in the areas of speciality, safety critical, trust-worthy, or real time systems. • Finally conclusions will be presented regarding the essential components and requirements that relate to the teaching of principles of value and ethics to computer personnel. This should help to move ethical training forward with the aim of producing professional software engineers and computer scientists in the future who will both be ethically aware and astute and capable of making socially responsible decisions.

15. References • Initial references (to give an indication of quality of research) (note this abstract was written in 1999) • Selected references • Bellinger, B (1998) Debate Weighs Licenses for Software Engineers. Electronic Engineering. Times. 09/21/98, Issue 1026, (152), CMP Media Inc. pp.1-3. • Clegg, C et al. (199), The Performance of Information Technology and the Role of Human and Organisational Factors. Report to the Economic and Social Research Council, Swindon, UK. • IEEE (1998) Software Engineering Standards Committee - Computer Society Standards Impact 1999!. IEEE, US. On-line. Available from: http://computer.org/standard/impact/Program.html [January 15. 1999]. • Martin, D, C. Martin, D, H. (1990) Professional Codes of Conduct and Computer Ethics Education. Social Science Computer Review. 8. (1) pp. 96.

16. References • Mead, N, R. (1997) Issues in Licensing and Certification. 10th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training. IEEE. USA. pp. 150-160. • Speed, J, R. (1998a) Software Engineering An Examination of the Actions Taken by the Texas Board of Professional Engineers. Online. US. Texas Board of Professional Engineers. Available from: http://www.main.org/peboard/softw.htm. [December 21, 1998]. • Speed, J. R. (1998b) Ethics and the professional engineer. Online. US, Texas Professional Engineer, February 1998 Volume 2, Issue 1, Sections I-VIII, October 12, 1998. NCEES, Available from: http://www.ncees.org/licensure_ exchange/feb/engineerethics.htr. [December 1, 1998] • Texas Board of Professional Engineers. (1998) Board Establishes Software Engineering Discipline - The Texas Board's Software Engineering Statement dated 10/12/98. Online. US. Texas Board of Professional Engineers. Available from: www.main.org/peboard/sofupdt.ht [December 16, 1998].

17. Your Proposal • Your Proposal (worth 10% of module assessment) • You will be marked on: • Your proposal (approximately one side of A4) • Initial references (5 to 8 should be sufficient) • Grading Scheme Used: • NA NOT ATTEMPTED • US UNACCEPTABLE STANDARD (FAIL). • S- BELOW STANDARD EXPECTED OF HONOURS GRADUATES STUDYING A MASTERS LEVEL COURSE (MINIMAL PASS). • S STANDARD EXPECTED OF HONOURS GRADUATES STUDYING A MASTERS LEVEL COURSE (SOUND PASS). • S+ ABOVE STANDARD EXPECTED OF HONOURS GRADUATES STUDYING A MASTERS LEVEL (DISTINCTIVE PASS). • E NO IMPROVEMENTS CAN BE IDENTIFIED (FULL MARKS).

18. Surveys and Questionnaires Data Collection and Information Gathering Skills • Being able to undertake a Literature Survey • Being able to design and conduct interviews • Being able to design and analyse questionnaires associated with undertaking a survey

19. Program Contents • How to choose between various methods of administering questionnaires • The difference between open and closed questions • Constructing a questionnaire • How to ensure validity and reliability

20. Administering Questionnaires • Questionnaires can be administered and responses collected in a number of ways - • questions can be read to the subject and verbal responses recorded by the researcher • respondent can be given a list of questions and the questionnaire completed at that time • subjects can respond in their own time and the questionnaire returned at a later date

21. Types of Questions • Questions asked may be of two types • Open questions allow the respondent to answer in their own words • Closed questions supply the respondent with two or more answers from which they must choose one

22. Open or Closed Questions? • It is important to consider - • the level of information the respondent needs to know about the topic • the ease with which the content of the answer can be communicated • how motivated the respondents may have to be • the level of language skills of the respondents

23. Staged Approach A STAGED APPROACH TO PRODUCING A VALID QUESTIONNAIRE • Stage 1 • decide whether your research idea is really suitable for conducting a survey by means of a questionnaire • Stage 2 • Identify which areas uncovered in the literature survey are the most important and ensure the questionnaire addresses all the pertinent issues • Stage 3 • decide exactly who the questionnaire is aimed at • Stage 4 • translate the research objectives into specific questions and check that the answers will provide the necessary data

24. Validity • Within the context of a quantitative study there are 2 types of validity - • Internal • External • Internal validity can be checked by - • cross checks • respondents to postal questionnaires being interviewed • having a good rapport between respondents and researcher

25. Reliability • Is concerned with measurement, and seeks to establish that a reliable and repeatable result has been achieved • Reliability can be checked by - • asking the same questions twice (test-retest) • internal checks (similar questions are asked without being repeated) • logical tests of consistency

26. Titles, Abstracts and Introductions

27. Titles, Abstracts and Introductions • Why these need special attention: • Each of them help to sell your paper • Title - your initial "sales pitch“ • Abstract - your "advert" for your work • Introduction - the reader's first impression of your work is formed here. Get this wrong and there is a chance they may not bother to read the rest.

28. Titles, Abstracts and Introductions • Titles • Some Guidelines: • Describe the paper • Include key words • Short (there may be a limit) • Most of all - make sure it gets attention for your work. Possibly more important for a conference paper than a journal paper. • A provocative title may help get people to your session at a conference

29. Titles, Abstracts and Introductions • Abstracts:Guidelines • Intended to be read separately • Not an Introduction • A summary • An advert • Avoid future tense - the paper exists • Avoid “This paper” • No cross references • Usual style is present tense, passive voice • Most importantly – • An abstract is a summary of your work. • It is intended to be read in ISOLATION from the rest of the paper. • See it as a sales pitch and an advert for your work

30. Titles, Abstracts and Introductions • This paper re-examines the work of Thompson and Edwards (1997) showing that much of what they had claimed may not actually be true………. • Why should the writer have avoided – • “This paper” or “The Paper”? • Cross References?

31. Titles, Abstracts and Introductions • Introductions • Guidelines: • Place the paper in context • Set the scene • Introduce major concepts • Outline any Hypothesis • Make clear what is coming next  • Introduction should answer the questions: • Why am I reading it? • What is it all about?

32. Titles, Abstracts and Introductions • Introductions • Guidelines: • Place the paper in context • Set the scene • Introduce major concepts • Outline any Hypothesis • Make clear what is coming next • Introduction should answer the questions: • Why am I reading it? • What is it all about? • Most importantly, ensure that the introduction sets the scene AND introduces the rest of the report

33. Titles, Abstracts and Introductions • Example(First it sets the scene and introduces the major concepts. Finally it tells the reader what they will find in the rest of the report): • 1. Introduction • The software industry, when considering quality, has tended to concentrate on two aspects: the product itself (the software) and the processes involved in producing that product. The international standards ISO 9126 and 12119 provide for software product quality (ISO 9126: Information Technology- Software Product Evaluation - Quality Characteristics and Guidelines for their Use, and ISO 12119: Information Technology - Software Packages - Quality Requirements and Testing). However, organisations have in general directed their efforts to consideration of tangible processes rather than the more intangible products. They have relied on arguments to support this type of approach along the lines of (Thompson et al, 1996): “a quality process should lead to the production of a quality product”

34. Titles, Abstracts and Introductions • Note that the latter part of the introduction tells the reader what they will find in the rest of the report i.e. • ……… In section two of the paper we consider formal aspects of professionalism with regard to regulation and certification developments and facts covering Software Engineering Licensing in Texas. Then in section three we highlight how non-professional attitudes really do impinge on quality and we discuss approaches, especially with regard to education, that will improve matters. Finally in section four we present our overall conclusions regarding the future of the industry.

36. Writing Academic Papers

37. Overview • Presentation of Information • Style • Format • Structure of a paper • Title • Introduction • Structured body • Conclusion/Summary • References • Abstract • Abstract: example

38. Presentation of Information • Writing can vary in two ways: • style of writing • formatting of text • There is often a formula for writing • structure of the document

39. Style & Format • FORMAT • Requirements • - Length • - Font • - Layout • - Diagrams • - References • - Sections • Keywords • - Theme • - Topic STYLE Audience • Their experience • What they want to get from it Different Media require different styles • Journal, • Conference, • Dissertation, • Report

40. Structure of a paper • What needs to be in any paper • Title • Introduction • Structured Body • References • What should be left out of your paper • Footnotes • What may be required • Abstract (normally there) • Figures/tables • Dissertation or long reports over 20 pages ONLY • Table of Contents • Chapters (dissertation only) • Bibliography (treat with caution) • Appendices.

41. Title & Introduction • INTRODUCTION • IMPORTANT • Place the paper in context • Set the scene • Introduce major concepts • Hypothesis • What is coming next • Should answer • Why am I reading it? • What is it all about? TITLE • Short • Describe the paper • Include all key words

42. Structured body • Hierarchical decomposition • sections, subsections • Cohesion, Coupling • Compare/contrast • Description is NOT enough • Balanced argument, Make a decision • Critical appraisal • Positive and negative • Question sources, Interpret their findings your way - with justification • Referencing • Should come across as your work • Read, Think, Decide, Argue

43. Conclusion/Summary • Conclude or Summarize • What are the key decisions reached? • Do not introduce new important arguments at this point. • No research is complete • Future work • Limitations of current work

44. References • Referencing in the body of the text (citation) • The university uses the Harvard System • e.g. (Smith, 1999), (Smith and Jones, 1967), (Smith et al, 1990) • e.g. (Smith, 1999; Lincoln and Washington, 1845). • The Reference section • See information on the Harvard system (in programme handbook, and on web) • e.g. • Smith, A (1999). A very important book. Publishing press, Anytown. • Smith, A and Jones, B (1967). A seminal journal paper. The International Journal of Very Important Things, Vol 134, No 3, pp66-84. • Smith A, Jones, B and Black, C. (1990). What we did in the summer. Proceeding of the Fourth International Conference on Places to See, Thomson and Sons, Hetton-le-Hole, pp33-56.

45. Abstract • Often comes at the front - probably written last • Should be read separately • Not an Introduction • A summary • An advert • Avoid future tense - the paper exists • Avoid “This paper” - the paper may not be there. • No references - references may not be there. • (Usually in italics - given in format).

46. Abstract: an example A critical appraisal of software engineering practices and approaches to the assessment of software quality is presented. Sources of information are identified, examples of changes that have taken place are presented and a view of the current state of the industry is given. Suggestions are also made regarding actions that need to be taken now and in the future.

47. BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES: THE HARVARD SYSTEM

48. BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES: THE HARVARD SYSTEM • 1. Value of the Harvard System • The Harvard system is widely used in academic writing because it combines three features very efficiently: • Any reader wishing to follow up an author's sources is provided with a very full reference for each of those sources, conveniently organised as an alphabetic list by author. It is this list we ask you to call 'Bibliographic References‘ • Each full reference is simply typed in a prescribed sequence, avoiding the need for tabulation and other possibly complicated lay-outs • The different elements of each full reference are identified by consistent sequence, punctuation and emphasis (underlined, italic or bold type). In the examples below, italic type has been chosen throughout • References in the body of the author's text can be given in one of several (depending on the grammatical context) very brief forms, which still clearly indicate, in the alphabetic list, which full bibliographic reference is intended

49. BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES: THE HARVARD SYSTEM • 2. Full Reference in the list of Bibliographic References • 2.1 In deciding in which conventional form to give a full reference, you need to distinguish between: • Authored book. Books solely or effectively by one author, or by collaborating authors where separate authorship of chapters or sections of the book is not identified • Edited book. Book which is a collection of chapters, sections, or articles collected, organised and probably introduced and commented on by an editor • Article in a periodical, i.e., a publication which appears at regular intervals under the same title (e.g., The Sun, British Journal of Sociology, Mind, Times Higher Education Supplement) and contains articles by differing authors

50. BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES: THE HARVARD SYSTEM • 2. Full Reference in the list of Bibliographic References • 2.1 In deciding in which conventional form to give a full reference, you need to distinguish between: • Chapter or section in an edited book, where a named editor or editors have collected together sections or chapters by other named authors • Chapter or section in an edited book, where there is no named editor, but instead a number of collaborating authors, who have provided sections or chapters bearing their name • Pamphlets, reports, tracts, etc., where no author is named, but where the publication has been commissioned by an identifiable committee or organisation, or sometimes has not • Oddities: publications that present real referencing difficulties.