,
14 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
1/ I've been talking to our psych MSc students this week about writing up their dissertations, so wanted to share some thoughts on writing up qual psych M level research (our dissertations are 8K max so keep this in mind when reading this thread). Let's start with the intro
2/ We often refer to the 'lit review' but I think it's better to use the term introduction for qual research & view it as a contextualisation & rationale for the research rather than simply a lit review, discussion of lit yes of course, but an intro is broader than a lit review
3/ Contextualisation & rationale helps to focus our minds on the task of the intro -2 provide a context for the research & explain why it's important, necessary etc. I was taught about the 'inverted triangle' structure of a lit review as an u/grad, start broad & get more specific
4/ But this structure doesn't always work - if you're struggling with yr inverted triangle this might be why! Sometimes the lit u want to discuss is like a big pile of boxes & there isn't an obvious hierarchy, so how do you stack the boxes & structure the lit review? There may...
5/ not be an obvious structure, in which case try writing each section heading on individual bits of paper & play around until y have something that works, & start with an overview para - signposting essentially. Imagine yr reader, take them by the hand & tell them where this...
6/ journey will take them. Use linking sentences to transition between sections, we've been here, now we're going there... You don't want the reader wondering 'why are you telling me about this?' 'I don't understand how this relates to yr research, to yr argument'... The reader
7/ always needs to know why they're being told about something. Discussions of lit should centre on synthesis (much easier to type than say for someone with a lisp!) & overview. What questions have been asked, what type of research has been conducted, what do we know, what hasn't
8/ been addressed... Have the confidence to tell the reader about yr interpretation of the research, policy etc Draw out overall findings across relevant studies, highlight any competing or contradictory findings... Don't fall into the trap of discussion of lit as list... Jones
9/ et al. said this, Brown found that... Smith reported this... it's pretty dull & doesn't give the reader a meaningful sense of the research area etc. as a whole, & how your research fits into it. This unsynthesised discussion of individual studies is only really useful when the
10/ research is limited to a handful of studies each with a different focus. Don't ignore or play down the most relevant research! I think there can be a fear that this detracts from the 'originality' of yr research - but yr research will be different! Yr conducted it, in a diff
11/ context with diff participants (most likely), so spend some time with the most relevant research - it will help U in the discussion 2 explain the contributions of yr research with precision & detail. If yr intro 'works' yr research questions/aims will make sense to the reader
12/ U don't want them thinking 'after reading that I was expecting a quant study'! Your aims shouldn't come as a surprise. Also think about your footing in relation to quant/mainstream research & theory - R U aligning with it, or simply describing what's out there for the reader?
13/ Think about whether it's important to discuss key terminology early on, or explain how your using certain terms. If terminology is fraught & contested this might be important. My collaborative research on childfree or childless, non-parent, non-mother, voluntary childless
14/ women is a good example of this. We explained what term we were using & why, highlighted the critiques of/problems with other terms, discussed why our term was still fraught & that we'd use the terms other scholars used when describing their research/writing
