Reading for research + Critical lit rev workshop

This notes are my reflections of the reading of the little book: Reading and making notes by Jeanne Godfrey

One thing important to understand in general terms is to understand the assignment, for that understand the concept, words or phrases -words related to the concept of the topic; the understand the function words (is it asking you to describe, to analyse, argue, or some of those things together)  and finally look at the scope of the assigment (what are yo asked to cover and not to cover.
Example: To what extent is there a correlation: Is about finding correlation and how strong is it? Are there any exceptions to such a correlation? what are the problems in trying to find such a correlation?

Image taken from the book Reading and Making Notes ( Godfrey, Jeanne)

Make predictions:

At the beginning of reading make your predictions. What are you expecting to find in the text?  Expectations and predictions help to engage the brain

Build a scaffold:

Try to found out how what you are reading relates to your prior knowledge and to your own life experience. A scaffold in your mind where to attach new knowledge is important. THE IDEA IS TO FIT NEW INFORMATION INTO WHAT YOU ALREADY KNOW.
Have the confidence that you are going to develop scaffold and build new knowledge

Challenge the author:
Have a conversation with the author, ask him/she questions:

  • why is she(he) saying this?
  • What is the evidence for that?
  • Is the data supporting the argument?
  • How primary data and other research have been used in secondary sources is very important.
  • Check if there can be other explanations for the correlations and conclusions?
  • Phrases as: surely/we have to remember/it is perfectly clear that/is obvious that/it is a fact that/one can’t fail to recognise that  are sometimes used to persuade the reader.
  • Emotive phrases like completely/absolutely/merely/hardly/only are also sometimes used as ’empty persuaders’
  • Is the argument coherent with the findings? Identifying flaws is important but for that you need to understand the the authors point of view.  What assumptions is the authors’ argument based on and do you think they are correct? If not why, argue, question the work in order to address your own idea or to show that you have a point to make with other experts.

Clues in certain words:

  • I suggest/propose [setting out their argument]
  • I haven proven/shown/established/demonstrated [summarising the point]
  • I question/query/challenge/dispute/reject [disagreeing with someone else]
  • The claim that/fail to [about to disagree with someone else]
  • Be aware of the use of: may/might/possibly/tends to [it indicates how strong is the author with the argument or how strong a correlation is]

Adding to this ideas I will put in the outcome of my workshop @ Bath Spa research development program: Critical literature review

Lit Rev Map

Notes are still to edit. This is a copy from my notes today (Nov, 11)

to critically synthesis new and complex information form diverse sources
To assess the quality, integrity and authenticity of primary and secondary sources
A2.2 and A2.4 elements in RDF

Evaluating research

1) kinds of lit review:
Systematic and narrative

why do it?
Provide an opinion
background and context
looking for gap
knowledge and resources to join
show that you are critically engaged
Futures agendas as it tells you where to go with your research
to look at the state of the art

Type of literature:
data sets
conference paper
Conferences help the researcher to be current. But they have not acadenmic rigour as they are not still published

What makes it good
The links you make with all your sources and ideas
argument–> Good narrative
Exhaustive but relevant
Transparent–> Your approach. We shall say how did we select our sources

What is my current approach to the  lit rev?
Read and read, take some uncritically notes, just get to know what is happening in the field
What process do I employ? none
How do I ensure I keep track?

Subject and key words
Setting limits (time, country, Peer review)

It is not my opinion it is about what is happening

Types of reviews
critical rev: an argument assessing theories or hypothesis bu critically examining methods or data
conceptual rev: synthesis areas of conceptual knowledge that contribute to a better understanding of issues
State-of-the-art where you are adding the original contribution
expert rev: written by an acknowledge expert
Scoping rev: sets the scene for a future agenda of research. The review doc what is already known and opens up gaps in knowledge, often resulting in a clear research  (initial review, starting and it will lead you into where you are going to extend your lit rev)
Setting out the basic principles that guides your research –> Am I a phenomenologist?

Systematic lit rev
requires knowledge in the field
includes various sources
it uses a rigorous methodology

Scope+ map—–>plan+protocol——> document——> inclusion-exclusion criteria ——-> search+screen ——> quality ——— > data extraction ————>synthesis

Map your review
What type of review will you use
What are the different areas for review
key words and terms
key sources of information
how will you make your process transparent
Scan, skim, understand

1) In this reading relevant? is the inf appropriate to my research?
2) Does the reading add to my argument or data

Meta analysis? Umbrella review? narrative review?
reading, note taking and writing as iterative process

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s