Originally posted to eBridge, 14 February 2013
Serendipity vs method
Newby (2010) favours rigorous method to ensure that our literature
reviews are accurate, which seems at odds with fact that some of my best
discoveries have been through serendipity! However there is a lot to be said for
a systematic method if you are to ensure full engagement with a community.
Mapping the issue:
- Overview of topic
- Cause and effect
- Influence and consequence
- Occurrence and intensity
- Factors that affect issue
- Factors that influence process or outcome related to issue
- Factors associated with issue
- Actors involved in process
- Actors who are affected by process
- Actors who have a stake
- Effects on individuals, groups & areas
This gives a framework for stimulating our own thinking, and
critically engaging with the work of others – to test the existence of
literature that deals with these dimensions. We also need to frame appropriate
questions, to help us think about and identify cause & effect, appropriate
literature, and ways of analysing the data that we collect.
Gateways, databases, reviews, key journals & texts, are
all good places to start, especially when you don’t have much to go on. Follow-on references can of course be helpful, but we need to make sure that we
have framed the right questions to make sure we don’t get led too far off
course. Also, having framed questions in the first place means we know when we
have got a satisfactory outcome for our literature search.
So on reflection I've formed a distinction between the cognitive skills of framing appropriate questions and
establishing thought processes, and the emergent connectivist skill of being able to form connections with
people who are widely read, and/or have different and challenging viewpoints.
References:
- Newby, P. (2010). Research Methods for Education. Pearson Education Limited.
No comments:
Post a Comment