Reading Research - a guide to Writing Research

1. Reading Research - a guide to Writing Research Prof Claire Woods School of Communication, International Studies and Languages

2. ‘The Paper Trail of my mind’ • Dening on reading • ‘Reading. The erotics of reading for - its moment of trembling pleasure … • ‘The archives of my reading are monumentally high. I can never let these erotic moments go.They are the paper trail of my mind’ ( Greg Dening, Readings/Writings,MUP, 1998)

3. Reading a scholarly research article as a writer • Knowing how to read a scholarly research article helps you as a writer. • Always read an article as a writer. • An effective article or text considers the reader over the researcher’s shoulder. • You need to know what to look for - and therefore what to provide for your reader.

4. Research is: • ‘Research is a disciplined form of inquiry, the process of systematic investigation. Researchers study phenomena in a planned, step-by-step manner and report it so that other inquirers can replicate the process if they choose’.(Frey, Botan, Friedman and Kreps,1992:3)

5. Introduction • Is the purpose of the article and of the research clearly explained? • Was the goal of the research to explore, describe, critique etc? Was the goal appropriate and justified? • Was the significance of the research made clear? How useful and to whom was the research? (The points in these slides are drawn from Frey et al Interpreting Communication Research; A Case Study Approach,Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall:,1992)

6. Review of Literature • Summarise what is known, unknown and perhaps controversial+ theoretical perspective + current research+ gaps. • What theoretical perspectives? Was the theory explained appropriately? • Was the research reviewed adequate to give a good understanding of the topic? ( Enough details? Shows how the studies relate?) • Was the Lit review well organised - chronological, topic based,problem- solution ? • How is this an extension of previous research - does it fill a gap?

7. Research Questions or Hypotheses • Are these clearly expressed and appropriate to the topic? • Do the R Q or Hypotheses emerge logically from the review of literature?

8. Methods • Who or what has been studied and How? • Has the method - methodology and data gathering processes - been justified? • Is it appropriate? Is it systematic? Does it seem credible?reliable?

9. Results/Data/Findings • Straightforward reporting of findings- (little or no interpretation) • Were the data appropriate for answering the research questions? • Were the results presented in a clear and organised way? (Charts?Tables?)

10. Discussion- Conclusion • Interpretation of meaning and significance of the findings. • 4 goals to accomplish in this section - • Summarise and examine the results in light of research questions/theory/findings from previous research; identify problems or limitations;propose the significance of the findings; propose directions for further research.

11. Discussion - evaluating questions • Do the conclusions seem valid/credible?Has the case been argued well? • Have potential problems/limitations been identified/ • Has the significance of the study been explained?How can the findings be used/applied? • Has the research proposed further directions/research?(The heuristic function)

12. Convincing the reader • The researcher must win authority by skillfully reconstructing data, contextual features, and his or her own observing- and experiencing self. The goal is to convince readers that what the study purports to be is in fact what it is. (T Lindlof, Qualitative Communication Research Methods, SAGE Publications, Newbury Park 1995: 250)

13. The Goal = a confident account … how to turn a littered research trail into a confident, authoritative narrative that tells what happened and what it means. (T Lindlof, Qualitative Communication Research Methods, SAGE Publications, Newbury Park 1995: 145)