soa+d research manual - School of Architecture and Design, KMUTT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

26 REsEARch NOTEs synthesising ideas drawn from secondary materials (histories, theories, anthropologies, personal accounts). The importance of a short, clearly defined and carefully expressed thesis cannot be overestimated in papers of this type. here, the role of the research is interpretive. Whilst the detailed structure of humanities papers varies greatly, it is safe to say that they will comprise three major elements: 1 introduction presentation of main thesis and the author’s ‘take’ on it, introduction to the topic/theme/subject, positioning in relation to relevant research (see Research Note Two) and introduction to the structure of the paper/argument 2 main body construction of arguments (claim/ evidence/discussion cyles) that build support for and ultimately justify the main thesis 3 conclusion summary of paper, discussion of open questions and caveats (areas glossed over or omitted) To some extent, papers in other disciplines share something of both models sketched above. for example, social science papers are often structured in ways similar to those of the humanities. however in very many cases, there is a also a need for greater emphasis on the design and justification of methodological choices, for example, research design, selection of subjects, sample sizes, variables, measures of validity/reliability and so and so forth. What then of conference papers in architecture and design? is there a specific structure or approach? No. There is no off-the-shelf model that you can use to turn each inquiry into a conference paper. Whilst in some cases a pure ‘applied research’ framework might be appropriate, in others something closer to a humanities, social science or, increasingly a hybrid model drawing upon and synthesising multiple approaches, might well be necessary. illuminating examples of each of these can be found by trawling through the conference archives of organisations such as the Design Research society (DRs) or cumulus. in some papers, headings such as ‘methodology’ and ‘results’, and figures such as technical diagrams and tables of statistics, indicate a scientific emphasis. in others, more descriptive headings and diverse imagery, suggest the adoption of the interpretive agenda of the humanities. Others still, integrate both and other orientations, often in novel and distinctive ways. Whichever structure you adopt to tell the story of your research, it is worth reminding yourself of the following points: Clarity: make your ideas accessible, avoid jargon, define important concepts and methods; above all, imagine and write for your audience Immediacy: put your thesis/problem at the very beginning of your paper (introduction), make it short, punchy and clear — outline your particular ‘take’ on it Context: establish your credibility by demonstrating your knowledge of cognate research and relevant theory Coherence: develop your argument by carefully presenting and analysising appropriate evidence WRITING STRATEGIES Writing a conference paper presents a particular set of challenges. for one thing, the paper’s length — usually between 2 to 6,000 words — means a considerable amount of what you have to say has to be put to one side. for another, your paper will need to address an audience that is likely to include both subject experts and academics with a more general interest in your work. furthermore, the conference paper serves two purposes, to be read and to be heard, and will consequently exist in two registers: the written and the spoken. Whilst each of us invents our own ways of developing conference papers, in my experience there is something to be gained by playing off the peculiar relationship between the written and spoken that lies at their heart. The obvious way to surf the interface between written and spoken is to complete the paper then extract from this the key points for the presentation, simplifying the language and emphasing structure and argument cues that work better in the spoken rather than the written register (again, i will return to this in a later note). many people do this succesfully and it might work for you. indeed in some fields this is a necessary move on the part of the researcher. in phenomenological research for example, writing is an integral part of the research process and plays a central role in the production
of knowledge. in some areas of anthropological inquiry, the research thesis emerges and is shaped whilst drafting the review rather than before it. An alternative is to work — counterintuitively perhaps — from presentation to paper. given that the typical conference presentation is some twenty minutes long, this has the advantage of focusing your attention on what needs to said in order to establish, further and defend your argument. To this extent the approach can pay double dividends. firstly, it saves time and energy you would spend writing up aspects of your research that might not be directly relevant to your confernce paper. And, secondly, it helps clarify your thinking, sculpt your argument and develop its fit for your audience in practical terms, i often begin by carefullyreviewing the abstract. from this i attempt to unravel the promise it contains from the broader network of ideas, methods and discoveries that comprise the research overall (rather than the aspect(s) of it to be addressed in the paper). usually this results in a scrappy, colour-coded diagram of that maps key ideas, references, relationships and structures. from this, i then work out an extended draft presentation using index cards (avoid powerpoint at this stage as it introduces delusions of completion and finish into what needs to be a fairly messy process). When ‘read’ this one comes in at about 50 minutes and comprises between 20 to 30 slides. i then try to reduce this dramatically to the requisite 20 minutes by relentlessly shaving away unecessary detail, digressions, pomposities and affectations, and redundant links in the chain of argument. The result? A presentation comprising somewhere between 6 and 15 (content) slides. somewhere in between these two poles, lies the conference paper, made lean and mean by the process of editing yet containing enough detail to communicate and contextualise the research. Obviously perhaps, but worth restating nonetheless, the paper itself is best written iteratively and will benefit from the advice of a critical friend at the draft stage. 5 THE CONFERENCE PRESENTATION REsEARch NOTEs 27 WHAT IS A CONFERENCE PRESENTATION? Presenting a paper at conference is an important moment for you and the progress of your research. it is here that you enter into dialogue with a critical and scholarly community and your argument or findings are scrutinized by your academic peers. A good presentation will stimulate discussion within—and sometimes even beyond—the session. it will encourage your audience to read your paper in full. many useful suggestions and significant contacts emerge in this way. it is also, of course, an academic rite of passage. it is important, therefore, that you pay great attention to the process of transforming your written text into an effective and engaging verbo-visual presentation. in this note, i make some suggestions that will, i hope, help you to prepare and deliver an effective and engaging presentation. THE CHALLENGE(S) At first sight the problem is a trivial one. you already have a completed conference paper, all you need to do is to make it shorter. however, the reality is somewhat different and a whole series of challenges present themselves when we attempt to transform an academic paper into a conference presentation. carefully considering and working through these is, i believe, the best way to lay the groundwork for your talk. TWENTY MINUTES IS A VERY SHORT TIME The first challenge is, perhaps, the simplest: what to leave out. A typical conference paper is between four and seven thousand words long. A typical conference presentation lasts twenty minutes. Research shows that a twenty minute presentation would—if read from a script—comprise approximately eight sides of double-spaced, conventionally margined, twelve point text (set in a standard serif font such as Times New Roman), approximately two and a half thousand words. The challenge is to distill your paper, to make it shorter in such a way as to preserve its fundamental insights. Experienced researchers tend to address this challenge in one of two ways: The first is to summarise each section of the paper (introduction, literature, methodology and results, for example). however, whilst this approach appears to be the simplest it is not without
Page 1: SOA+D RESEARCH MANUAL 2012/13
Page 5 and 6: PREFACE Welcome to the updated vers
Page 7 and 8: it is hardly worth doing. Research
Page 9 and 10: 2.1.6 Additional funding for Englis
Page 11 and 12: 2.8 TRF THAILAND RESEARCH FUND 2.8.
Page 13 and 14: 3 Research committee comments to th
Page 15 and 16: SOA+D RESEARCH MENTORS sOA+D has ap
Page 17 and 18: http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=home&
Page 19 and 20: one written for the humanities: dis
Page 21 and 22: 2 REVIEWING THE LITERATURE INTRODUC
Page 23 and 24: 3 PARADIGMS, STRATEGIES & TACTICS (
Page 25: 4 THE CONFERENCE PAPER WHAT IS A CO
Page 29 and 30: suggest, however, that you fall bac
Page 32: SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE + DESIGN KiN

soa+d research manual - School of Architecture and Design, KMUTT

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?