So this is the first blog from the new IPad and basically it is a job list of what I have been working on at the moment and what needs to be done by mid June!
Data Collection, Presentation & Analysis
- Sorting the analysis of the questionnaires.
- Arrange interviews based on questionnaires.
- Planning the data presentation and analysis chapters.
- Interviews & arrange transcription.
Methods Chapter
- Reading more up to date materials on methods.
- Finalise the data from the pilot questionnaires.
- Re-writing the methodology chapter given the above.
MPhil/PhD Upgrade
- Writing a presentation based on the questionnaire data for the upgrade process.
- Writing an abstract for that presentation.
- 3000 word review of PhD to date.
- Prep for interview.
- Annual Review Document.
All of this, as usual, has taken more time than I expected but very soon there should be some concrete data to discuss on here!
Showing posts with label Research. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Research. Show all posts
Saturday, 28 April 2012
Friday, 16 December 2011
Revising Research Questions: Academically not Personally Challenging
I spend a lot of my time revising research proposals, making sure that questions are realistic and correctly framed. I find myself regularly saying they are too large or too grand or too many. Questions need to be realistic, acheivable and engaging. So, I can hand out the advice but when it comes to my own for the PhD it has not been as easy.
I had 6 of them which included reviewing far too much literature and to be frank were full or jargon. Leading by example, as you can see.
And yet, we had a very painful tutorial back in November on how they need reframing and I have spend a lot of time revising them. I also added some definitions of the terms which I am using. All good but I found the whole thing incredably personal and challenging: I now know how my academics feel but I need to learn that it is my argument being attacked and not me.
I had 6 of them which included reviewing far too much literature and to be frank were full or jargon. Leading by example, as you can see.
And yet, we had a very painful tutorial back in November on how they need reframing and I have spend a lot of time revising them. I also added some definitions of the terms which I am using. All good but I found the whole thing incredably personal and challenging: I now know how my academics feel but I need to learn that it is my argument being attacked and not me.
Friday, 23 September 2011
Waiting and Working
Submitted my methodology chapter a week ago today and am now awaiting for the outcome. It is a little odd waiting for the reply and the outcome. Will they like it? Am I still miles off?
In the mean time, this weekend I am working on a draft of the Literature Review to be submitted by 2nd October. Not easy to know how much it should contain, what I should be saying in it and whether it is analytical enough. I am trying to weave the theories of social capital and soft power through but in such a way that the entire chapter builds to the discussion (and adoption) of these standpoints but without overlooking or rushing other arguments. This really is a little harder than I would have expected.
It is also about adapting a style that, for me, both tells a story and guides the reader simply through (like journalism) but also allows for discussion. I am aiming for the style of Peter Scott - himself a former journalist - in his writing about Higher Education. Some academics are said to be 'hard to read' or 'challengin'; whilst not wanting to reduce academic levels, what is the point in not trying to make sure the writing can be accessible and thought-provoking for as many as possible.
So whilst waiting for the feedback on the one chapter, working on another, it is clear that there is a long way to go in terms of being a confident, accessible and engaging academic writer.
In the mean time, this weekend I am working on a draft of the Literature Review to be submitted by 2nd October. Not easy to know how much it should contain, what I should be saying in it and whether it is analytical enough. I am trying to weave the theories of social capital and soft power through but in such a way that the entire chapter builds to the discussion (and adoption) of these standpoints but without overlooking or rushing other arguments. This really is a little harder than I would have expected.
It is also about adapting a style that, for me, both tells a story and guides the reader simply through (like journalism) but also allows for discussion. I am aiming for the style of Peter Scott - himself a former journalist - in his writing about Higher Education. Some academics are said to be 'hard to read' or 'challengin'; whilst not wanting to reduce academic levels, what is the point in not trying to make sure the writing can be accessible and thought-provoking for as many as possible.
So whilst waiting for the feedback on the one chapter, working on another, it is clear that there is a long way to go in terms of being a confident, accessible and engaging academic writer.
Tuesday, 20 September 2011
So it’s been a while…
And there has been a good reason for this. AS you know, I’ve been changing tutors. 10 days ago it was confirmed that I am changing to Dr. Chris Lloyd and retaining Dr. David Rose.
All good news and I am pleased with the final resolution; that said given that and everything else that has been going on my life, the PhD is running a bit behind on me graduating in 15 months time and is mor looking like 2 years hence but it is still hopeful.
I am in the process of updating all the work and submitting drafts of the methodology and literature review chapters. As I do this, new thoughts are coming up and I am feeling more invogorated with the research. I am also feeling keen to finish the work. Just finishing will also help me to think where I am going in life and where I want my career to head.
So, no promises of regular blogs vut there should be now something to type about!!
Monday, 21 March 2011
Grief, Graduation and Going Forward
There’s been a bit of a gap in my blogging.
The event which we had predicted since diagnosis for 2 years ago has happened.
My Mother passed into somewhere peaceful on 24 February 2011.
As with so many sufferers, it was not her Motor Neuron Disease which actually killed her. It was an inter-cranial bleed following a fall in the kitchen.
She was with her GP at the time and so was in hospital quickly and through a drug-induced coma was in no pain.
She did not have to suffer a further loss of independence. She had fought this disease so hard that she ended with the dignity and elegance we would expect.
That said, it leaves a massive hole in our lives. In some senses it has not really sunk in. I still wander around and see her in the flowers or the sunshine, think of news to tell her or make her laugh. That will change as we find the ‘new normality’ without her.
Just 6 days after her passing I was due to graduate from my post-graduate diploma in social research methods. After a brief discussion, it was decided we would keep the date and we were right to. She was there in spirit and left me a card ‘just in case’. She was proud of what I had done. So we celebrated that day for her and the sun shone on one of those days were the warmth & hope of spring is just starting to show which my mother would have loved.
At the same time as leaving me a card for the post-graduate diploma, Mother has left me a card for the day when I get my PhD. So, in the short to medium term that has to be my focus. The idea of Dr. Grinbergs is fulfilling so much that my mother would have wanted and so much that my mother had encouraged me out. So I’m in the process of investigating a new supervisor, either at Roehampton or at the Institute of Education as this is becoming a bit of a block and not developing me or my research in the way I would like.
So, for my career, my research, my life and, despite the grief, for my mother – it’s time to go forward and get this done.
The event which we had predicted since diagnosis for 2 years ago has happened.
My Mother passed into somewhere peaceful on 24 February 2011.
As with so many sufferers, it was not her Motor Neuron Disease which actually killed her. It was an inter-cranial bleed following a fall in the kitchen.
She was with her GP at the time and so was in hospital quickly and through a drug-induced coma was in no pain.
She did not have to suffer a further loss of independence. She had fought this disease so hard that she ended with the dignity and elegance we would expect.
That said, it leaves a massive hole in our lives. In some senses it has not really sunk in. I still wander around and see her in the flowers or the sunshine, think of news to tell her or make her laugh. That will change as we find the ‘new normality’ without her.
Just 6 days after her passing I was due to graduate from my post-graduate diploma in social research methods. After a brief discussion, it was decided we would keep the date and we were right to. She was there in spirit and left me a card ‘just in case’. She was proud of what I had done. So we celebrated that day for her and the sun shone on one of those days were the warmth & hope of spring is just starting to show which my mother would have loved.
At the same time as leaving me a card for the post-graduate diploma, Mother has left me a card for the day when I get my PhD. So, in the short to medium term that has to be my focus. The idea of Dr. Grinbergs is fulfilling so much that my mother would have wanted and so much that my mother had encouraged me out. So I’m in the process of investigating a new supervisor, either at Roehampton or at the Institute of Education as this is becoming a bit of a block and not developing me or my research in the way I would like.
So, for my career, my research, my life and, despite the grief, for my mother – it’s time to go forward and get this done.
Tuesday, 15 February 2011
Dear PhD Supervisor: Why Academia’s failing me, not my brain.
Dear PhD Supervisor,
I have been wanting to write this for some time. Because I am unhappy. With you. With the PhD. With the nature of academia. Let me explain.
I remember our first conversation going down the wisteria arch at university and you asked if I really wanted to do this project or if I would prefer doing something questioning ‘what is internationalisation’; I didn’t want to do that and despite my attempts to find another tutor, I have ended up with you. You see me as stubborn, as not learning and growing through the PhD project. But in the end the whole thing feels like you are trying to turn me into a mini-you. And I’m not.
You like philosophy and see it as a way of framing the world. I see it as a way of creating artificial arguments without addressing or answering the problems of the world. Our politics and world view don’t match. I suspect you lean to the left and I know you oppose the neo-liberal agenda. I lean to the right and see market forces as a good way of making universities work. You see new media and journalism generally as dumbing down, reducing debates to nothing but core messages. I see it as requiring more intellectual precision to make knowledge accurate, brief, accessible and engaging. You think academics should be left to do research and not made to reach targets in terms of publications, income won and impact generated. I think it is important that we justify our existence in Higher Education, the amount of money spent in taxation and show how our research transfers to the non-academic (some might say ‘real’) world, just as other businesses have to. Yet none of this should matter if getting a PhD was about educating or developing an individual to be an academic. It does matter if the process aims to form someone in your own image.
In my recent essay you commented:
Christopher’s journalist background [sic] comes through in his writing style – short, pithy statements - and this is at odds with the problems he is grappling with and therefore there is an uneasy tension. He is aware of this and is working hard to find his writing style.
To be honest, I smiled at this as I wasn’t a very good journalist as I was too wordy. My academic tutors at both BA and MA level would have described my “short, pithy statements” as “engaging” and that reading across the whole piece developed a sense of discussion and nuance rather than in any particular sentence. I think I have developed a ‘style’ but not one you like as it happens to be the opposite of your slightly wordy style which seems to repeat itself and can lose the reader (particularly the non-academic one).
And this is the whole trouble: my job, world view and engagement with new media has been shaped by people beyond academia, by issues that affect the wider world and by forms of media that try to bring my work to a wider audience. ‘Traditional’ academia, of course, wanted to be relevant and accessible, too, but just as the internet has changed our social interaction and ability to access knowledge, so must it change access to academia and the way universities operate. Academia should not lose its rigour, its use of peer review and independence. But, for me, academia needs to change the questions it asks and the people it engages with. All of this challenges your role and status as an academic. Perhaps I am part of a generation constrained by fewer social norms and constraints than those before me that I want this to be extended to my research.
But I do not and will not believe – as you would have me believe – that this challenging and changing of academia makes me unsuitable, unable or, indeed, intellectually incapable of finishing my doctorate.
All good wishes,
Your PhD tutee
I have been wanting to write this for some time. Because I am unhappy. With you. With the PhD. With the nature of academia. Let me explain.
I remember our first conversation going down the wisteria arch at university and you asked if I really wanted to do this project or if I would prefer doing something questioning ‘what is internationalisation’; I didn’t want to do that and despite my attempts to find another tutor, I have ended up with you. You see me as stubborn, as not learning and growing through the PhD project. But in the end the whole thing feels like you are trying to turn me into a mini-you. And I’m not.
You like philosophy and see it as a way of framing the world. I see it as a way of creating artificial arguments without addressing or answering the problems of the world. Our politics and world view don’t match. I suspect you lean to the left and I know you oppose the neo-liberal agenda. I lean to the right and see market forces as a good way of making universities work. You see new media and journalism generally as dumbing down, reducing debates to nothing but core messages. I see it as requiring more intellectual precision to make knowledge accurate, brief, accessible and engaging. You think academics should be left to do research and not made to reach targets in terms of publications, income won and impact generated. I think it is important that we justify our existence in Higher Education, the amount of money spent in taxation and show how our research transfers to the non-academic (some might say ‘real’) world, just as other businesses have to. Yet none of this should matter if getting a PhD was about educating or developing an individual to be an academic. It does matter if the process aims to form someone in your own image.
In my recent essay you commented:
Christopher’s journalist background [sic] comes through in his writing style – short, pithy statements - and this is at odds with the problems he is grappling with and therefore there is an uneasy tension. He is aware of this and is working hard to find his writing style.
To be honest, I smiled at this as I wasn’t a very good journalist as I was too wordy. My academic tutors at both BA and MA level would have described my “short, pithy statements” as “engaging” and that reading across the whole piece developed a sense of discussion and nuance rather than in any particular sentence. I think I have developed a ‘style’ but not one you like as it happens to be the opposite of your slightly wordy style which seems to repeat itself and can lose the reader (particularly the non-academic one).
And this is the whole trouble: my job, world view and engagement with new media has been shaped by people beyond academia, by issues that affect the wider world and by forms of media that try to bring my work to a wider audience. ‘Traditional’ academia, of course, wanted to be relevant and accessible, too, but just as the internet has changed our social interaction and ability to access knowledge, so must it change access to academia and the way universities operate. Academia should not lose its rigour, its use of peer review and independence. But, for me, academia needs to change the questions it asks and the people it engages with. All of this challenges your role and status as an academic. Perhaps I am part of a generation constrained by fewer social norms and constraints than those before me that I want this to be extended to my research.
But I do not and will not believe – as you would have me believe – that this challenging and changing of academia makes me unsuitable, unable or, indeed, intellectually incapable of finishing my doctorate.
All good wishes,
Your PhD tutee
Monday, 14 February 2011
What I Really Learnt about Social Research Methods
For those who have been following my twitter feed or Facebook status, you will have noticed that I have just passed the Post Graduate Diploma in Social Research Methods with a distinction. Thank you to all of you who have sent kind wishes. So I have another qualification to my name and a few more letters. But what does this say about me as a researcher and about my research?
Well, I do know more about research methods – or at least the questions I should be reflecting on when deciding the methods. A lot of the programme was less about saying how particular methods work and much more about reflecting on how to define the most appropriate methods. Each module made us ask a different question:
- What statistics are needed – and what do they really show?
- How important is the individual researcher in qualitative research?
- What are the philosophical and ethical underpinnings to the research?
- Is the research design possible, reasonable and related to the questions posed?
- What responsibilities does the researcher have to the discipline and the research community?
These are universal questions to do with research but require far more self-awareness than I had originally thought. When undertaking arts/humanities research (in France and the UK) the importance of the individual was hardly evident other than in our (academically worded) ‘opinions’ on the products of human endeavour. When looking at journalism research (as part of the MA), the aim was to remove the individual researcher from the reporting but being reflective of their practice is a fundamental skill.
Some of this has changed my opinions, other elements have reinforced what I feel. At times I have felt lost when trying to position myself in all of these debates. I am more of a numbers person but the programme (and my tutor) are more words and qualitative people. Both my research area and questions require a more nuanced way of looking at things. One of the causes of the current economic situation is an over-reliance on false-statistics and only metrics which are measurable. Life is more complicated than that and requires us to examine a variety of numeric and non-numeric data to understand it. That said, as I tried to argue in the philosophy essay, just because I am not using pure numeric data, doesn’t mean that my research should not have the same rigour as quantitative research.
So, ultimately, what did I learn from my Post Graduate Diploma in Research Methods? Perhaps that social research – by which I mean research looking at society or its members – is about reflecting about my own role and the impact of my research. This means making sure that the questions posed and researched are created and answered in a reflective, self-aware way. Research may not produce as concrete answers due to this but given the trouble that ‘absolute’ answers gets us into – perhaps that is no bad thing, either.
Well, I do know more about research methods – or at least the questions I should be reflecting on when deciding the methods. A lot of the programme was less about saying how particular methods work and much more about reflecting on how to define the most appropriate methods. Each module made us ask a different question:
- What statistics are needed – and what do they really show?
- How important is the individual researcher in qualitative research?
- What are the philosophical and ethical underpinnings to the research?
- Is the research design possible, reasonable and related to the questions posed?
- What responsibilities does the researcher have to the discipline and the research community?
These are universal questions to do with research but require far more self-awareness than I had originally thought. When undertaking arts/humanities research (in France and the UK) the importance of the individual was hardly evident other than in our (academically worded) ‘opinions’ on the products of human endeavour. When looking at journalism research (as part of the MA), the aim was to remove the individual researcher from the reporting but being reflective of their practice is a fundamental skill.
Some of this has changed my opinions, other elements have reinforced what I feel. At times I have felt lost when trying to position myself in all of these debates. I am more of a numbers person but the programme (and my tutor) are more words and qualitative people. Both my research area and questions require a more nuanced way of looking at things. One of the causes of the current economic situation is an over-reliance on false-statistics and only metrics which are measurable. Life is more complicated than that and requires us to examine a variety of numeric and non-numeric data to understand it. That said, as I tried to argue in the philosophy essay, just because I am not using pure numeric data, doesn’t mean that my research should not have the same rigour as quantitative research.
So, ultimately, what did I learn from my Post Graduate Diploma in Research Methods? Perhaps that social research – by which I mean research looking at society or its members – is about reflecting about my own role and the impact of my research. This means making sure that the questions posed and researched are created and answered in a reflective, self-aware way. Research may not produce as concrete answers due to this but given the trouble that ‘absolute’ answers gets us into – perhaps that is no bad thing, either.
Monday, 24 January 2011
Research Update 24/01/11
So the plan of writing every day with what I had done does not seem to have worked either, does it? So let’s scrap that for a work. The thing is I don’t make the greatest diarist but be assured that I have been working for at least an hour a day. The essay on the philosophy of social scientific research went through 3 further drafts and has resulted in quite a bit of reading on the History of the European Union and on neo-liberalism. A post follows on that and I think this will have to remain my main way of writing as daily (or even regular blogging) does not appear to work for me!!
Tuesday, 4 January 2011
New Year New Blog
So I am going to aim and fill in a (short) blog every time I do some research on the PhD. The aim has always been to do an hour and I will keep a brief diary of the format below. Every day for a year so you can see what is going on. Feel free to feedback on any of my thoughts! That doesn't mean there weren't be other posts on other issues (particularly politics, news, university items and general reflections); I just want to keep a better record of my research
Hours Carried Forward from Last Session:
Hours & Work Undertaken:
Hours Carried Forward to Next Session & Job List:
Notes:
Hours Carried Forward from Last Session:
Hours & Work Undertaken:
Hours Carried Forward to Next Session & Job List:
Notes:
Reflections on Citizen Journalism
10 days ago I was stuck in the protests on Oxford Street and proceeded to capture the event using my mobile to tweet and record the event, blogging about it afterwards and disseminating my findings by email & social media.
This reminded me of discussions about citizen journalism when I studied to be a journalist at the University of Sheffield. Now much has been written about citzen journalism and there's even a good wikipedia summarising many of the debates. Now the 2 of the problems with citizen journalism are obvious: skills (whether someone is trained to report) and editorial rigour (anyone can blog, that doesn't necessarily make it fair/balanced journalism).
Now unlike many 'citizen' journalists, I have actually trained formally as a journalist and I was conscious of one key limitation during my time on Oxford Street: the lack of editorial oversight available. If I had been linked to a newsroom, more details on what was happening elsewhere could have been fed back to me and a wider context passed on which would have allowed me to focus on the important areas in what I was witnessing. This would have helped with independence of the journalist (even if most journalists can self-regulate themselves) but more importantly told me where to focus my efforts.
As part of the MA dissertation handbook, I remember reading that good academic research is like good journlism: thorough, verifiable and fairly presented. As an academic researcher now, I have the framework (libraries, online publications, colleagues etc.) to fraw on to verify my work. As a journalist you have the desk-based research, news wires and colleagues to rely on. As a citizen journalist, I felt alone and could not guarantee I was getting it all - let alone getting it all right.
Over the last few days I have been drawing on a reflection on objectivity I wrote as part of my MA dissertation. In that work, I argued that objectivity is impossible but the rigours of trying to achieve it at least ensure work is balanced and possibly of a higher, more ethical standard. Much to my tutor's disbelief I think the same is true for my PhD research: the ability to critically reflect on one's work is important. Now as an MA and PhD student, that is part of what academia helps instil. As a journalist, the profession and the editor help instil this. As a citizen journalist, I lacked both the guidance of a team to deliver journalism that would work in the wider world.
Elsewhere on this blog, I have discussed the changing media habits (look at my blog a few moments before the protests for my first thoughts): there is a clear 2 tier news system with an 'official stream' (made up of journalists & mainstream media) for hard facts & comment and an 'unofficial stream' (made up of citizen journalists & commentators) for analysis. Now this has always existed - look at any historical event and the official media has always been challenged; some would argue that the pamphlets of the 1968 protests, for example, have become the blogs of today.
However, in a modern media world, there is a need to ensure wider media education so that people can assess and access all types of media. Not all forms are equal and should be given the same credance. And that includes my report from Oxford Street. My report lacks the journalistic rigour that official media would give it - even though I would vouch for its accuracy.
On Saturday's 'Today' programme, there was a discussion over whether blogging is dead and what media will take things forward. This would leave citizen journalists looking either out of a job or looking for a new way forward. But in age where media seems all dominating, though the format may change, there is still a need for citizen journalists to be there.
So for all my faults on Oxford Street, I come to the same conclusion about my citizen journalism as I did for my MA & PhD and my professional journalism: that trying to follow the research & reporting protocols of the 'trade' may not result in a perfect product but it at least means a story gets out there.
This reminded me of discussions about citizen journalism when I studied to be a journalist at the University of Sheffield. Now much has been written about citzen journalism and there's even a good wikipedia summarising many of the debates. Now the 2 of the problems with citizen journalism are obvious: skills (whether someone is trained to report) and editorial rigour (anyone can blog, that doesn't necessarily make it fair/balanced journalism).
Now unlike many 'citizen' journalists, I have actually trained formally as a journalist and I was conscious of one key limitation during my time on Oxford Street: the lack of editorial oversight available. If I had been linked to a newsroom, more details on what was happening elsewhere could have been fed back to me and a wider context passed on which would have allowed me to focus on the important areas in what I was witnessing. This would have helped with independence of the journalist (even if most journalists can self-regulate themselves) but more importantly told me where to focus my efforts.
As part of the MA dissertation handbook, I remember reading that good academic research is like good journlism: thorough, verifiable and fairly presented. As an academic researcher now, I have the framework (libraries, online publications, colleagues etc.) to fraw on to verify my work. As a journalist you have the desk-based research, news wires and colleagues to rely on. As a citizen journalist, I felt alone and could not guarantee I was getting it all - let alone getting it all right.
Over the last few days I have been drawing on a reflection on objectivity I wrote as part of my MA dissertation. In that work, I argued that objectivity is impossible but the rigours of trying to achieve it at least ensure work is balanced and possibly of a higher, more ethical standard. Much to my tutor's disbelief I think the same is true for my PhD research: the ability to critically reflect on one's work is important. Now as an MA and PhD student, that is part of what academia helps instil. As a journalist, the profession and the editor help instil this. As a citizen journalist, I lacked both the guidance of a team to deliver journalism that would work in the wider world.
Elsewhere on this blog, I have discussed the changing media habits (look at my blog a few moments before the protests for my first thoughts): there is a clear 2 tier news system with an 'official stream' (made up of journalists & mainstream media) for hard facts & comment and an 'unofficial stream' (made up of citizen journalists & commentators) for analysis. Now this has always existed - look at any historical event and the official media has always been challenged; some would argue that the pamphlets of the 1968 protests, for example, have become the blogs of today.
However, in a modern media world, there is a need to ensure wider media education so that people can assess and access all types of media. Not all forms are equal and should be given the same credance. And that includes my report from Oxford Street. My report lacks the journalistic rigour that official media would give it - even though I would vouch for its accuracy.
On Saturday's 'Today' programme, there was a discussion over whether blogging is dead and what media will take things forward. This would leave citizen journalists looking either out of a job or looking for a new way forward. But in age where media seems all dominating, though the format may change, there is still a need for citizen journalists to be there.
So for all my faults on Oxford Street, I come to the same conclusion about my citizen journalism as I did for my MA & PhD and my professional journalism: that trying to follow the research & reporting protocols of the 'trade' may not result in a perfect product but it at least means a story gets out there.
Tuesday, 23 November 2010
Re-thinking Neo-Liberalism
Quick thought on train home: neo-liberalism's accused of giving everything an economic cost; if we talk of value doesn't that broaden things but remain within broad discourse? What impact does differentiating price and value have on neo-liberalism?
Tuesday, 7 September 2010
Research Update - Nationally and My Own
So where have I been? Well here there and everywhere if I am honest - I presume you've been checking out the twitter feed?! Well the essay on 'what counts as education' has now been completed as has the redraft of the journal article. Only the small issue of a Literature Review Chapter to plan and write. It is all taking a bit longer than I ever predict - coupled with an extra trip home next week!
Whilst things have been going steadily with the research, the university world around me has been continually moving forward and is a little worried about the cuts going forward. Even today, Universities UK used a press release about their conference to raise concerns that the UK's investment of 1.3% of GDP into Higher Education is below the OECD's average of 1.5% of GDP. Furthermore, the patterns of international mobility are changing with the UK as the second most popular destination but Canada, Australia and New Zealand all increasing their shares. Indeed, the OECD says that governments should increase the amount they spend on Tertiary education to firm up their economic growth. Listening to the noises coming from the coalition government, I would be asking more 'how deep are the cuts' (25% upwards is my guess) rather whether there should be cuts.
One of the blogs I read regularly is Research Fundermentals which has some of the best news of what is happening in the research funding world. Included this week has been a discussion on impact and an article talking by a report from the Society of Scholarly Publishing on the fact that peer reviewing is important. They argue that given all the non-peer reviewed sources out there academic journals are more important. I am not so sure. The BBC produced a report on the growth of social networking sites and the way that we interact. Now I have blogged about this in the past but it is clear that certain media are growing (facebook and twitter) and certain shrinking (flikr and myspace). The way we interact is constantly changing and who we consider an audience is important. So whilst we the peer reviewed article will be important in academic circles (and after the time I have spent on one this week, I do hope so), we really do need to look more widely so that research affects the world more widely.
So why have I brought these three elements: my research taking time, the potential cuts and the way we communicate our research? Well because I do not believe them to be separate. Research takes time - and a lot of it - and is also very personal to the individual. The freedom to do research must be defended but perhaps the risks of funding cuts is down to the way communicate this work and its findings. The undergraduate degree has been opened up to nearly 50% of the population and research affects our country in so many ways but appears so closed. Engagement in a fuller, newer way with the wider community using technology or whatever methods is important. Until our presence is felt our funding will always be endangered.
Whilst things have been going steadily with the research, the university world around me has been continually moving forward and is a little worried about the cuts going forward. Even today, Universities UK used a press release about their conference to raise concerns that the UK's investment of 1.3% of GDP into Higher Education is below the OECD's average of 1.5% of GDP. Furthermore, the patterns of international mobility are changing with the UK as the second most popular destination but Canada, Australia and New Zealand all increasing their shares. Indeed, the OECD says that governments should increase the amount they spend on Tertiary education to firm up their economic growth. Listening to the noises coming from the coalition government, I would be asking more 'how deep are the cuts' (25% upwards is my guess) rather whether there should be cuts.
One of the blogs I read regularly is Research Fundermentals which has some of the best news of what is happening in the research funding world. Included this week has been a discussion on impact and an article talking by a report from the Society of Scholarly Publishing on the fact that peer reviewing is important. They argue that given all the non-peer reviewed sources out there academic journals are more important. I am not so sure. The BBC produced a report on the growth of social networking sites and the way that we interact. Now I have blogged about this in the past but it is clear that certain media are growing (facebook and twitter) and certain shrinking (flikr and myspace). The way we interact is constantly changing and who we consider an audience is important. So whilst we the peer reviewed article will be important in academic circles (and after the time I have spent on one this week, I do hope so), we really do need to look more widely so that research affects the world more widely.
So why have I brought these three elements: my research taking time, the potential cuts and the way we communicate our research? Well because I do not believe them to be separate. Research takes time - and a lot of it - and is also very personal to the individual. The freedom to do research must be defended but perhaps the risks of funding cuts is down to the way communicate this work and its findings. The undergraduate degree has been opened up to nearly 50% of the population and research affects our country in so many ways but appears so closed. Engagement in a fuller, newer way with the wider community using technology or whatever methods is important. Until our presence is felt our funding will always be endangered.
Friday, 6 August 2010
Do I Really want to be a constrained academic?
So it is Friday, Day 7 of my 9 day holiday in Provence. I have successfully done an hour’s work each day and have the essay planned, the essay is coming on though the article is a little way off and as for the chapters of the thesis that is quite a way off even finger tip touching key board as yet.
Though I am clear on what is required for master’s level study and what I need to be asking of my academics. But what is required for a PhD level study and a career in academia leaves me a little unsure.
The thing is that the current form of academia relies on me copying the ways and means of those before me and lacks individual personality. At times the creativity which many people have (and I mentioned this in a previous post) seems to be stifled. I have been told off for trying to be gently witty or engaging rather what I find as a dull style. There seems to be a lack of personality.
So much of the work seems to focus on basic definitions of words which we all know and accept rather than thinking how we can make this world better. This may simply be me being bored of what I am doing at the moment but that is not unusual!!
The ultimate answer is of course, yes I do want to be an academic and help to shape a newer form of academia and thinking going forward. For now, I have play by the rules - and try not to be overly socialised.
Though I am clear on what is required for master’s level study and what I need to be asking of my academics. But what is required for a PhD level study and a career in academia leaves me a little unsure.
The thing is that the current form of academia relies on me copying the ways and means of those before me and lacks individual personality. At times the creativity which many people have (and I mentioned this in a previous post) seems to be stifled. I have been told off for trying to be gently witty or engaging rather what I find as a dull style. There seems to be a lack of personality.
So much of the work seems to focus on basic definitions of words which we all know and accept rather than thinking how we can make this world better. This may simply be me being bored of what I am doing at the moment but that is not unusual!!
The ultimate answer is of course, yes I do want to be an academic and help to shape a newer form of academia and thinking going forward. For now, I have play by the rules - and try not to be overly socialised.
Friday, 16 July 2010
Changing News, Changing Reseach
Andrew Marr has just written a very good piece about the changing nature of news and journalism. His main thrust is that the changing technology and number of authors/voices out there has meant that during any crisis he is personally merging professional news sources with comment. For me, this was best seen during the election and budget a couple of weeks ago when I was watching the BBC for the official footage and some instant comment but supplementing this with twitter and blogs to provide comment. Now, we're all aware that this is partisan comment but as readers' we are able to differentiate between a variety of news sources and voices. Marr's argument goes onto say that rather than being focused on a variety of spikes (news bulletins, newspaper editions), news now permeates. This requires a new way of reading news and a new of interacting with information which academia could learn from.
I remember when doing the MA in Broadcast Journalism, they justified the level of the degree by saying that good academia is like good news: based on thorough, honest, thoughtful research which is well targeted and challenging for its audience. As part of this I wrote a list in 2005 called My Rucksack and Beliefs saying what I thought I needed to my job. Five years on and my career has changed from researching news to researching as an academic. The list in 2005 was as follows:
1. My Notebook
2. My Contacts Book
3. Pens and Pencils
4. A Diary
5. An Umbrella, hat and gloves
6. A lunch box
7. Mini-Disks
8. Pen Knife, Tissues and Condoms
9. CD/Radio Player
10. A Book
11. Spare Batteries
12. Me?
As an academic researcher, I still need numbers 1 to 4 to keep records and make sure interviews with participants take place. Increasingly electronic varieties are common but pen and paper does not run out of power! Numbers 5 and 6 are still important as keeping warm and fed is just as important for the academic in a drafty library as the door-stepping journalist. Mini-disks are now outdated but I still use a little digital recorder to record interviews. Number 8 lists tools for maintaining recording equipment (the condom was to stop wind on the mic) and I still carry most of the stuff but for different reasons: packed lunches, a cold nose and ... um ... The CD/Radio has been replaced by a digital radio but along with the books and batteries provide the latest info for my research as well as entertainment. So the list needed to be a good researcher has not changed that much though perhaps a little more high-tech: a lap top along with a mobile would probably feature.
Yet, I have a feeling I am unusual in my research; the fact I keep this blog and twitter is often derided by the academic community. For me, it is a way of sharing and testing my theories, for exchanging ideas and forming a larger debate. The changing technology has opened news to a new audience and yet many (though not all) in academia remain aloof and not engaging with the technology or the potential audience. Personally, I think academia - like news - should become a rolling dialogue with official voices (academics at universities) and commentators (those from the wider community).
What is universal to both the 2005 and 2010 lists and in common with Andrew Marr's article is the importance of the individual. The ability to tell a story, to identify key issues and ask the questions is necessary to both trades, yesterday, today and tomorrow. This will not be lost in a changed academia - indeed the value of the individual could be enhanced and, as Marr concludes, thus making it an exciting world to be involved in.
I remember when doing the MA in Broadcast Journalism, they justified the level of the degree by saying that good academia is like good news: based on thorough, honest, thoughtful research which is well targeted and challenging for its audience. As part of this I wrote a list in 2005 called My Rucksack and Beliefs saying what I thought I needed to my job. Five years on and my career has changed from researching news to researching as an academic. The list in 2005 was as follows:
1. My Notebook
2. My Contacts Book
3. Pens and Pencils
4. A Diary
5. An Umbrella, hat and gloves
6. A lunch box
7. Mini-Disks
8. Pen Knife, Tissues and Condoms
9. CD/Radio Player
10. A Book
11. Spare Batteries
12. Me?
As an academic researcher, I still need numbers 1 to 4 to keep records and make sure interviews with participants take place. Increasingly electronic varieties are common but pen and paper does not run out of power! Numbers 5 and 6 are still important as keeping warm and fed is just as important for the academic in a drafty library as the door-stepping journalist. Mini-disks are now outdated but I still use a little digital recorder to record interviews. Number 8 lists tools for maintaining recording equipment (the condom was to stop wind on the mic) and I still carry most of the stuff but for different reasons: packed lunches, a cold nose and ... um ... The CD/Radio has been replaced by a digital radio but along with the books and batteries provide the latest info for my research as well as entertainment. So the list needed to be a good researcher has not changed that much though perhaps a little more high-tech: a lap top along with a mobile would probably feature.
Yet, I have a feeling I am unusual in my research; the fact I keep this blog and twitter is often derided by the academic community. For me, it is a way of sharing and testing my theories, for exchanging ideas and forming a larger debate. The changing technology has opened news to a new audience and yet many (though not all) in academia remain aloof and not engaging with the technology or the potential audience. Personally, I think academia - like news - should become a rolling dialogue with official voices (academics at universities) and commentators (those from the wider community).
What is universal to both the 2005 and 2010 lists and in common with Andrew Marr's article is the importance of the individual. The ability to tell a story, to identify key issues and ask the questions is necessary to both trades, yesterday, today and tomorrow. This will not be lost in a changed academia - indeed the value of the individual could be enhanced and, as Marr concludes, thus making it an exciting world to be involved in.
HE Making the News
My sector has made the news a couple of times in the last few days: firstly as the discussions over its future funding continues and secondly as the assessment of research has been postponed.
Since joint the coalition, Dr. Cable has been given some of the trickier jobs to do and moving away from his party's aims to scrap tuition fees to one where he is looking at the options for a graduate tax must be tough. It seems so different from the Lib Dems that the students voted for. It seems so far from the Lib Dems I profiled in the lead up to the general election. But, once again, the focus of the funding discussions looks at undergraduate students, particularly those aged 18. They form but a part of what we do. A significant part but it misses out on all the postgraduate, doctoral, research and knowledge transfer activities that take place. These may form a smaller part of a university's income but in many ways are more significant to do with the culture of learning. A recession hits postgraduate study hard as it can be easily cut and the amount of spare money for research is going to be halved. So, whilst it is important that we look at the life-changing opportunities we offer those on Bachelor degrees, we must not forget the wider activities of a university which still need income to survive.
But it is not just on financial numbers alone that we survive. The assessment and ranking of our research is important. So the good news is that the timeline for the submission to REF (the Research Excellence Framework) has been pushed back to the end of 2013 which means I may (just) be able to submit in my own right. This means that there will be a longer period over which work can have been prepared and I think this is going to be important to give us the time to get our house in order (both personally and professionally). Though a delay is good, more is going to be expected at the end of it so it could be a double-edged sword.
Since joint the coalition, Dr. Cable has been given some of the trickier jobs to do and moving away from his party's aims to scrap tuition fees to one where he is looking at the options for a graduate tax must be tough. It seems so different from the Lib Dems that the students voted for. It seems so far from the Lib Dems I profiled in the lead up to the general election. But, once again, the focus of the funding discussions looks at undergraduate students, particularly those aged 18. They form but a part of what we do. A significant part but it misses out on all the postgraduate, doctoral, research and knowledge transfer activities that take place. These may form a smaller part of a university's income but in many ways are more significant to do with the culture of learning. A recession hits postgraduate study hard as it can be easily cut and the amount of spare money for research is going to be halved. So, whilst it is important that we look at the life-changing opportunities we offer those on Bachelor degrees, we must not forget the wider activities of a university which still need income to survive.
But it is not just on financial numbers alone that we survive. The assessment and ranking of our research is important. So the good news is that the timeline for the submission to REF (the Research Excellence Framework) has been pushed back to the end of 2013 which means I may (just) be able to submit in my own right. This means that there will be a longer period over which work can have been prepared and I think this is going to be important to give us the time to get our house in order (both personally and professionally). Though a delay is good, more is going to be expected at the end of it so it could be a double-edged sword.
Thursday, 15 July 2010
Tutorial Day Revisited
OK, it has been a week but have been thrown somewhat into a spin after the tutorial and have sort of been running away from doing anything with it since. The summary of the tutorial which I wrote for the supervision report was as follows:
Main topics/issues discussed and action points agreed:
o Work was rushed, not what expected and failed to sit comfortably in any section of the final thesis. Work failed to reflect nuance or discussion and its style could be more in line with academic writing.
o A broader literature needs to take place, covering a number of areas including the Europe, Student Experience, Policy Formation and Coopeartion etc.
o Specific issues to do with issues raised and language used were discussed.
Basically, they wanted a draft of the lit review chapter. I did a paper on internationalisation. They did not want me analysing the documents and stats I had found. I analysed away. They did not want me drawing conclusions about new models of international relations. I came up with (I thought) an interesting new model. They did not like my attempt to be informal and witty. I did.
So, as with all tutorials, I went into a spin and felt that I was not getting anywhere. Each time I do this I feel like it is one step forward and two back and one just has to be positive.
Therefore in the last week I have broken my own rule of doing an hour's research daily. I need to produce a chapter for the autumn but first there is an article which needs re-editing and an essay to be written so I might distract myself with that for a few days so I can write them on holiday.
Instead of research reading on the train, I have read two books which I will review else where but have felt a little better for that; both relate to the play 'Holding the Man' which I saw a couple of weeks ago but that can feature in another blog.
I feel a little better for writing this, I have to say, and have got it all off my chest. Still feel a little lost, as do many of my colleagues after a tutorial, but I will get there.
Main topics/issues discussed and action points agreed:
o Work was rushed, not what expected and failed to sit comfortably in any section of the final thesis. Work failed to reflect nuance or discussion and its style could be more in line with academic writing.
o A broader literature needs to take place, covering a number of areas including the Europe, Student Experience, Policy Formation and Coopeartion etc.
o Specific issues to do with issues raised and language used were discussed.
Basically, they wanted a draft of the lit review chapter. I did a paper on internationalisation. They did not want me analysing the documents and stats I had found. I analysed away. They did not want me drawing conclusions about new models of international relations. I came up with (I thought) an interesting new model. They did not like my attempt to be informal and witty. I did.
So, as with all tutorials, I went into a spin and felt that I was not getting anywhere. Each time I do this I feel like it is one step forward and two back and one just has to be positive.
Therefore in the last week I have broken my own rule of doing an hour's research daily. I need to produce a chapter for the autumn but first there is an article which needs re-editing and an essay to be written so I might distract myself with that for a few days so I can write them on holiday.
Instead of research reading on the train, I have read two books which I will review else where but have felt a little better for that; both relate to the play 'Holding the Man' which I saw a couple of weeks ago but that can feature in another blog.
I feel a little better for writing this, I have to say, and have got it all off my chest. Still feel a little lost, as do many of my colleagues after a tutorial, but I will get there.
Monday, 5 July 2010
Tutorial Day
It hardly seems like 2 minutes since the last tutorial but today’s the most recent one. I think I will be told off for not getting work done soon enough. There are a variety of issues to discuss including the paper I submitted on Internationalisation, my questionnaires which have been submitted and planning for the year ahead. Quite an involved meeting. And there’s a problem with my registration at the moment that my paperwork for the fee waver has been lost and I may end up paying for the year.
Saturday, 3 July 2010
A Heck of a Week
Just on the train home after quite a frantic week with two huge bids submitted (totalling £2m) and also the reports submitted for the Research Excellence Framework internal review today. I have to admit this was revealing from my perspective of bidding; some of them really lack focus and ideas. Some are very badly structured and written. And the (self-defined) more professional bidders were not always the best.
Anyway, almost home for wine and a celebration of Daddy’s Birthday. I have Nigel Hess on the MP3 player (a new habit’s developing) and the sunshine is gleaming as I come through Gressford bank. Welcome home and a happy weekend all.
Anyway, almost home for wine and a celebration of Daddy’s Birthday. I have Nigel Hess on the MP3 player (a new habit’s developing) and the sunshine is gleaming as I come through Gressford bank. Welcome home and a happy weekend all.
Thursday, 1 July 2010
Trips Across Europe
Just been thinking about my research and how useful it was to meet with the students face to face and question them about their feelings towards inclusive education. Now the alumni are spread around the world so the only way I am going to approach them is via telephone. Now I am trained as a radio interviewer so I should be able to get them to do a reveal some interesting things about their experiences but it is not as easy as face to face.
The last chance I can speak to students is just after the vivas (it would not be fair to disturb them when preparing for them) which take place in Tilburg (Netherlands), Prague (Czech Republic) and Roehampton (UK). This is also a week I have off on leave. So I have just thought I could do a quick whizz across Europe so I can interview them face to face but the window of opportunity is small. It would mean flying out to Eindhoven for Tilburg on Monday night, interviewing all day Tuesday, flying Amsterdam to Prague Wednesday morning before interviewing Wednesday afternoon and Thursday morning before flying back to the UK and interviewing the UK cohort on the Friday. Intensive but I would then have a three day weekend to recover and some excellent data. And the flights would cost me about £120. Tempting. Just need to check the students are available and the academics willing. Time for a bit of arranging. I also need to start working on getting myself an invite to the Erasmus Mundus co-ordinators conference in November so I can interview both the staff their and network. A busy few months travelling coming up. Researching international education has its benefits!
The last chance I can speak to students is just after the vivas (it would not be fair to disturb them when preparing for them) which take place in Tilburg (Netherlands), Prague (Czech Republic) and Roehampton (UK). This is also a week I have off on leave. So I have just thought I could do a quick whizz across Europe so I can interview them face to face but the window of opportunity is small. It would mean flying out to Eindhoven for Tilburg on Monday night, interviewing all day Tuesday, flying Amsterdam to Prague Wednesday morning before interviewing Wednesday afternoon and Thursday morning before flying back to the UK and interviewing the UK cohort on the Friday. Intensive but I would then have a three day weekend to recover and some excellent data. And the flights would cost me about £120. Tempting. Just need to check the students are available and the academics willing. Time for a bit of arranging. I also need to start working on getting myself an invite to the Erasmus Mundus co-ordinators conference in November so I can interview both the staff their and network. A busy few months travelling coming up. Researching international education has its benefits!
Wednesday, 30 June 2010
Feedback on the Journal Article
Just received feedback from the article which I am preparing for the special edition of the International Journal of Inclusive Education. It was a little confusing and a little down-hearting. It asked for a couple of things. Firstly, a methodology section which is understandable and a rooky error; I would include one in other articles I am preparing but not in this one. The second one is a firm grounding in the literature of Inclusive Education. As my co-writer and I pointed out when accepting the opportunity, we were not specialists in that field and more linked to international education. The Editor has kindly agreed to support with a few key sentences and some guidance. The third issue was around the anecdotal evidence we use and this is part of the reason we were asked to write as it was meant to be a little more personal and to offer a different perspective on EMSEN. It was as if the reviewer missed this. Again, after discussions with the Editor we have come up with methods around this. But all of this reminded me of how personal all of this academic work is. As I mentioned with the conference paper, it is about allowing one’s ideas out into public where they might be criticised and condemned after a long, personal time of nurturing and development. I suddenly realise a little more why academics are defensive of their research and their bids. At the heart of it, these works symbolise them and are a very personal dialogue with the wider world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
