Prof Lennart Nacke, PhD Profile picture
Sep 3, 2022 8 tweets 29 min read Read on X
Sure, IMRaD is a scientist's ballgame, but have you heard of IRMReDiLiFuConcR?

That's how we roll at #chi2023.

Here's what's in that tongue-twisting paper structure:
🧵↓
Introduction:

→ What is known?
→ What is unknown?
→ How and why should we fill the gap?
→ Why should people care?

Use @Grammarly @HemingwayApp @languagetool @Writefullapp @TheQuillBot @ReadableHQ @whoisjenniai when editing this section (and the rest of your paper) to rock.
@Grammarly @HemingwayApp @languagetool @Writefullapp @TheQuillBot @ReadableHQ @whoisjenniai Related work:

→ Prepare the state-of-the-art you will talk about later in your discussion.

Use tools like @paperpile, @pure_suggest, @ConnectedPapers, @RsrchRabbit, @scite, @scholarcy, @elicitorg, @LitmapsApp, @sci_hub_, @Science_Open to make this easy for yourself.
@Grammarly @HemingwayApp @languagetool @Writefullapp @TheQuillBot @ReadableHQ @whoisjenniai @paperpile @pure_suggest @ConnectedPapers @RsrchRabbit @scite @scholarcy @elicitorg @LitmapsApp @sci_hub_ @Science_Open Methods:

→ What did you do?

→ Present all specifics.

Write this first!

Nothing like @NotionHQ to keep track of things while you run your experiments.
@Grammarly @HemingwayApp @languagetool @Writefullapp @TheQuillBot @ReadableHQ @whoisjenniai @paperpile @pure_suggest @ConnectedPapers @RsrchRabbit @scite @scholarcy @elicitorg @LitmapsApp @sci_hub_ @Science_Open @NotionHQ @rstudio @jamovistats @JASPStats @figma @inkscape Discussion, Limitations, Future Work:

→ Meaning and implications of this research.
→ How do the results fill the gap?
→ Where do your results not apply?
→ What should we do next?

Check my last thread for an in-depth dive into how to write a discussion section.
@Grammarly @HemingwayApp @languagetool @Writefullapp @TheQuillBot @ReadableHQ @whoisjenniai @paperpile @pure_suggest @ConnectedPapers @RsrchRabbit @scite @scholarcy @elicitorg @LitmapsApp @sci_hub_ @Science_Open @NotionHQ @rstudio @jamovistats @JASPStats @figma @inkscape Conclusion: 5Cs

→ Why did your advancement matter?

1. Close the loop.

2. Conclude. Show what your final position is.

3. Clarify. Why it's relevant.

4. Concern. For whom does it matter?

5. Consequences. End by noting in one final sentence why this is of such importance.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Prof Lennart Nacke, PhD

Prof Lennart Nacke, PhD Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @acagamic

Apr 25
Struggling to find a unique angle for your research?

The key to groundbreaking research is in its gaps

7 types of research gaps every scholar should know A table showing the research gaps and their definitions: Evidence Gap. Results from studies allow for conclusions in their own right, but are contradictory when examined from a more abstract point of view. Knowledge Gap. Desired research findings do not exist. Practical-Knowledge Gap. Professional behaviour or practices deviate from research findings or are not covered by research. Methodological Gap. A variation of research methods is necessary to generate new insights or to avoid distorted findings. Empirical Gap. Research findings or propositions must be evaluated or empirically verified...
1. Contradictory Evidence Gap

When studies yield conflicting conclusions.
It's clear in isolation.
But murky in the bigger picture.

Uncover the truth in the contradictions.
2. Knowledge Void Gap

This territory remains unexplored.
The stuff that's unexplored by anyone so far.
When the research you need simply doesn't exist.

Pioneer the pathway and bridge the gap.
Read 10 tweets
Apr 18
Steal my evidence check-up toolkit for systematic reviews!

A systematic review is only as good as its appraisal tools.

11 check-up tools every systematic reviewer should know:
1. Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool

The gold standard for bias assessment in RCTs.

RoB2 builds on the original tool.
More structured.
Use it instead.

Covers:

• Reporting bias
• Performance
• Detection
• Selection
• Attrition

Essential for any review, especially RCTs.
2. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale

Popular tool for assessing non-randomized study quality.

Covers studies like:
• Cohorts
• Case-control

Evaluates:

• Comparability
• Selection
• Outcome

A must-have for your appraisal toolkit.
Read 14 tweets
Apr 16
My systematic literature reviews used to lack credibility.

But this all changed when I started doing this...

Critical strategies for transparent lit review reporting:
1. Use Reporting Checklists

Tailor your reporting to the review type.

PRISMA for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
MOOSE for meta-analyses of observational studies.
CONSORT for randomized controlled trials.

These checklists are your transparency roadmap.
2. Document Your Protocol

Clearly outline your review protocol upfront.

If you deviate from it, document why.
Transparency means showing your work.
Warts and all.

No hidden shortcuts or surprise detours.
Read 14 tweets
Apr 10
How I silenced the "your n is too small" critics

A manifesto for defending qualitative research

Qualitative researchers face criticism about small sample sizes.

Here's how to address these concerns effectively: Panel labelled How to defend the power of your in-depth qualitative research. A comic version of a research prof says: "A single in-depth interview changed the trajectory of my entire research project"
1. Understand the context of the critique

Is the person questioning the value of
• Small samples
• Generalizability
• Data saturation?

Clarify their specific concerns before responding.

The obsession with large sample sizes stifles innovation in research.
2. Avoid justifying qual research using quant criteria

Qualitative studies use various philosophies:

Subjectivism
Truth is a personal view

Relativism
Truth is context or culture

Interpretivism
Meaning is understanding

Constructionism
Social experiences build knowledge.
Read 12 tweets
Apr 6
I discovered the secret to captivating academic writing:

Academic storytelling.

5 storytelling techniques to master the art: A comic with the title: How to make your academic writing read like a bestseller: Tell a research story.
1. Sustain a compelling narrative

Don't just sprinkle anecdotes.
Weave a cohesive story.

Create
• Suspense
• A narrative arc
• A sense of progression

Keep your readers hooked until the very end.
2. Identify the stories within your research

Every project has multiple tales to tell.

The subjects' experiences.
The researcher's journey.
The historical context.

The research itself.

Choose the most engaging angles.
Read 9 tweets
Mar 31
My data's strong, but my paper's weak. 😱

Don't just write; guide your reader.

How to use the PASTOR framework: Illustration: Inside a sunlit Caribbean church with vibrant stained glass windows casting colorful patterns on the floor. An old pastor with gray hair and glasses sits at a wooden desk in the middle. He is deeply engrossed in writing a paper, quill in hand. Around him are tall stacks of weathered books, some open and others closed. Palm trees can be seen through the open windows, swaying gently in the breeze.
1. PROBLEM: Identify the gap

• State a clear gap in existing literature.
• Pinpoint the issue your research tackles.

Be explicit about the problem.

❌ 'This area needs more study.'

✅ 'Current methods fail to address X accurately.'

Vagueness won't cut it.
Clearer = better.
2. AMPLIFY: Make the gap painful.

• Discuss the impact
• Show what we lose by not addressing it.

Emphasize the stakes.

❌ 'It's a significant problem.'

✅ 'Ignoring it costs companies millions annually and impacts the health of X people.'

Impact is measurable, not a claim.
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(