Blog post 3.4: Tell them what they want to hear?

Originally posted to eBridge, 16 February 2013

 

When we write our literature review we are comparing our own mental model to that revealed by other researchers, and showing that there is a purpose to our research. There is always a tension between breadth and depth of coverage, and here our judgement is required to frame the right questions in the first place. Bad literature reviews can easily become an indiscriminate collection of references, gathered to prove that we are well-read but not actually serving any purpose. Newby (2010) particularly warns of some of the bad habits of researchers who set out to prove they are more knowledgeable than others by using overly complex language or excessive volumes of literature. The result is that readers automatically give up, and people assume that the writer is knowledgeable, meaning that research projects have increasingly poor justification as bad habits accrue in institutions made up of researchers who behave this way.

Ultimately we need to show that we are capable members of a community, able to communicate well, both with our peers and to external readers. We should strive to show full awareness of our field, through our ability to describe it concisely but not too elaborately, and clarity of thought through laying out our ideas for others to read, and our ability to stay clear of material that is either irrelevant or suspect. Note that these skills stem from the blend of cognitivist and connectivist skills identified in the previous posting.

Newby notes the need to have a sound framework for writing a literature review for academic audiences, whilst also acknowledging that there are limits to writing this way, in that one cannot expect every researcher to convey charisma in their writing. Acquiring skill in a discipline doesn’t necessarily go hand in hand with imaginative writing, and we shouldn’t dismiss people for not being able to apply imagination to an academic text!

Research needs to consider all of the issues involved – for educational purposes we have to consider a wide variety of angles, many of them political, since most people will have a strong self interest in the outcomes. Even for my context of workplace learning within a specific organisation, there will constantly be a tension between the ‘top down’ interests of management and stakeholders, and the ‘bottom-up’ desires of staff who want autonomy (Shepherd, 2011). I have been involved in both sides of this with recent projects, through a compliance project with strictly defined objectives from upper management, and the implementation of a performance & talent management approach, which is intended to ultimately empower individuals in their roles.

The conduct, organisation and writing of the review need to follow on from the factors identified in the initial stage of defining the issue. If we are trying to introduce an initiative to support staff from a ‘bottom-up’ perspective, then our review needs to focus on how people actually interact and acquire skills, rather purely than on a ‘top-down’ perspective such as cost justification.

References:

• Newby, P. (2010). Research Methods for Education. Pearson Education Limited.
• Shepherd, C. (2011). The New Learning Architect. Onlignment