Upload
derrick-lamberth
View
213
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Experimental Pathology
research report structure
Research worlds
Research approaches: Empirical: (e.g., scientific search for explanations.
Quantitive. The researcher is independent of the object of research, looking at an external world). Implications for language?
Interpretive: (Hums/Soc Sci: investigation of competing interpretations of phenomena. The researcher is not independent of object of research. Qual/quant). Implications for language?
Research types
Research types: Discovery: Highest status, (ref), new knowledge and
understanding Applied: Application of existing knowledge to solving
problems Integrative: Synthesising knowledge and
understanding, e.g., textbooks. Can be cross-discipline.
(Scholarship of teaching and learning):
CARS
Sections of a research report
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Rhetorical shape of a research report
Introduction
(general --- specific)
Methods and materials
Results
Discussion
(specific --- general)
Adapted from Swales and Feak 2004
Purpose of each section - introduction
IntroductionRationale for the paper, hypothesis
Moves from general discussion of topic to specific research questions
Attracts interest in the topic
Adapted from Swales and Feak 2004
How does the literature inform research?
Knowing the field
Understanding the problems
Identifying the gaps
Positioning your research within the field
Levels of critical engagement 1
1. Non-critical approach. Reader engages with material ‘on its own terms’, not commenting, challenging or drawing comparison with other sources. The emphasis is on describing and explaining what the material says. The knowledge is not treated as contestable. Knowledge claims are treated as descriptive (positive), and make claims about the nature, state of a process or system in the past, present or future).
Levels of critical engagement 2
2. Weakly critical approach. Attention to soundness of reasoning, strength of conclusions drawn: e.g., in a research report you check ‘methods’ are thorough, results accurate, looking for weaknesses in the account given and conclusions drawn.
You probably wouldn’t step back from the reasoning being presented and look at/name the assumptions, premises or values on which it is based (usually tacitly). Nor would you declare a position/interest that might affect the way you read and comments you might make. Weakly critical approaches take place from assumed shared positions within paradigms.
Levels of critical engagement 3
3. Strongly Critical Approach. You consider how material is constructed: what assumptions, whose values, which historical, intellectual and political frames (paradigms)? The content shifts from representing simply ‘knowledge’ to more of the status of ‘knowledge claim’.
Knowledge claims: normative or prescriptive, and thus grounded in evaluative/value-laden judgments.
Knowledge claims are not contestable just on the basis of flawed reasoning but also on the basis of contextual and critical awareness of how and why claims are being made in the first place. A strongly critical stance involves explicit recognition of one’s own position, values and assumptions; not simply a ‘personal’ position but one aligned with a collective viewpoint, that is itself open to scrutiny (e.g., a realist or Marxist or neo-liberal position….).
Purpose of each section - methods
Describes methods, materials, subjects etc.
Narrowest part of the RP
Adapted from Swales and Feak 2004
Purpose of each section - results
Describes findings
Provides some commentary on the processed ‘typical’ results
Adapted from Swales and Feak 2004
Purpose of each section - discussion
Moves from specific to general
Discusses the findings – moves to generalisations
Relates findings to the literature
Adapted from Swales and Feak 2004
Links between sections in a research report
ResultsResultsMethodsMethods DiscussionDiscussionIntroductionIntroduction