Difference between revisions of "Topic iteration"
From Sustainability Methods
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|} | |} | ||
| − | + | Formatting of the text | |
Makes sense to do it once the full text is written and imported into the wiki editor. --> | Makes sense to do it once the full text is written and imported into the wiki editor. --> | ||
<!-- Paragraph titles are formatted as == Level 2 ==. Sub-headlines are formatted as ==== Level 4 ====. If you put in pictures, make sure it is in "thumb" format if you want to show the caption, or "frameless" if you don't. | <!-- Paragraph titles are formatted as == Level 2 ==. Sub-headlines are formatted as ==== Level 4 ====. If you put in pictures, make sure it is in "thumb" format if you want to show the caption, or "frameless" if you don't. | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
Finding and finalizing the topic of your thesis is the first big step regarding its content. This step can already feel huge and overwhelming and take longer than expected. In the following you will get tips on how to start researching literature on a topic as well as what is important when deciding on a topic, so you will hopefully get through this step smoothly and choose a topic you can work on well for the next weeks and months. | Finding and finalizing the topic of your thesis is the first big step regarding its content. This step can already feel huge and overwhelming and take longer than expected. In the following you will get tips on how to start researching literature on a topic as well as what is important when deciding on a topic, so you will hopefully get through this step smoothly and choose a topic you can work on well for the next weeks and months. | ||
| + | == RESEARCH QUESTION == | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
🎯 How to get from an idea to a specific topic and research question or hypothesis. | 🎯 How to get from an idea to a specific topic and research question or hypothesis. | ||
| Line 32: | Line 31: | ||
===How to frame a research question=== | ===How to frame a research question=== | ||
| − | We all stand on the shoulders of giants. Any given research question is based on previous research. No research is an island. Whatever we do as researchers, we have to start with what was done before. Reading is the most essential skill of any person new to research. Balance is key to this end. If you read everything there is on a specific topic, then you are in for a long ride. Otherwise, if you miss something important that has been published before, you basically reinvent the wheel, which is a waste of your time and the time of your readers. Hence make sure that you get the main approaches that have been attempted before, and the main knowledge that has been gained. You will eventually have to make a cut at some point, otherwise you would basically read everything there is, since almost everything is connected. Hence try to focus on what is specific for your topic and for the area you focus on, thereby gaining some insights about the respective context. Context knowledge matters to this end, because only if you know the context of the specific topic allows you to aim with the right ratio of focus and distance. Why both? If you look too close, your knowledge is too singular, too specific, or just beyond the point, or any point at all. If it is too broad, it may be generic, trivial, and thus again beyond any point whatsoever once more. Ideally, you work in a specific system. This may be a group of people, and institution, or any other constructed entity. This allows you to add specificity to your research topic. You aim at creating knowledge about this system, people or entity. Hence your framing can be about a specific topic, an entity or institution, but also about a theory. What matters to this end is to have the right angle. Did you every try to look at a painting from the side? Basically, this does not work, because the framing will block the view, and you do not see the picture. In framing your research, this is basically the same. You need to have the same angle, not from the side, but up front. Within research, we often look at a topic or problem through a certain theory. While testing theory is restricted to deductive research, regarding a research question our framing and viewpoint is more open minded. It is thus not restricted to the yes/no categories of a hypothesis, but instead allows us to ask a broader question that allow us to create contextual and novel knowledge. | + | <!--We all stand on the shoulders of giants. Any given research question is based on previous research. No research is an island. Whatever we do as researchers, we have to start with what was done before. Reading is the most essential skill of any person new to research. Balance is key to this end. If you read everything there is on a specific topic, then you are in for a long ride. Otherwise, if you miss something important that has been published before, you basically reinvent the wheel, which is a waste of your time and the time of your readers. Hence make sure that you get the main approaches that have been attempted before, and the main knowledge that has been gained. You will eventually have to make a cut at some point, otherwise you would basically read everything there is, since almost everything is connected. Hence try to focus on what is specific for your topic and for the area you focus on, thereby gaining some insights about the respective context. Context knowledge matters to this end, because only if you know the context of the specific topic allows you to aim with the right ratio of focus and distance. Why both? If you look too close, your knowledge is too singular, too specific, or just beyond the point, or any point at all. If it is too broad, it may be generic, trivial, and thus again beyond any point whatsoever once more. Ideally, you work in a specific system. This may be a group of people, and institution, or any other constructed entity. This allows you to add specificity to your research topic. You aim at creating knowledge about this system, people or entity. Hence your framing can be about a specific topic, an entity or institution, but also about a theory. What matters to this end is to have the right angle. Did you every try to look at a painting from the side? Basically, this does not work, because the framing will block the view, and you do not see the picture. In framing your research, this is basically the same. You need to have the same angle, not from the side, but up front. Within research, we often look at a topic or problem through a certain theory. While testing theory is restricted to deductive research, regarding a research question our framing and viewpoint is more open minded. It is thus not restricted to the yes/no categories of a hypothesis, but instead allows us to ask a broader question that allow us to create contextual and novel knowledge. |
===The question=== | ===The question=== | ||
| − | + | Our research question may start with a “How”, thereby examining explanations of dynamics or patterns. “Where" questions will typically try to spatially locate phenomena, while “when” questions examine dimensions of temporality. “Why” questions try often to go deeper into reasonings and examine patterns that may in one extreme be pretty foundational, yet can in other extreme cases be borderline trivial. “What” question are one last example of research question that can either be rather procedural or again end up being vague. Some research question may avoid such question formats altogether, which is for instance true for much of the realms of descriptive research. Yet another example is critical research, which may not be occupied with questions at all, but instead offer a critical reflection or specific viewpoint.What should be however clear is that research questions can be at least partly answered, or we may conclude that based on the current design and data the research question cannot be answered. This is perfectly ok, and a part of scientific research. However, research is often biased towards positive or even potentially exciting research, while researchers rarely report that they could not find out anything at all, and the their initial research question remains unanswered. | |
==The research== | ==The research== | ||
| Line 47: | Line 46: | ||
A suitable topic should be built on scientific literature, maybe not to the really precise inner core, but at least in terms of previous studies going into a similar direction. If a topic is flooded in literature, I would stay away from it, but this is only my preference, because I like emerging topics. If so much was said before, what could you specifically contribute? If this is not clear, I would advise you to avoid the dead chewed topics where your contribution may not add anything new anyway. However, it can be equally difficult if no literature exists about a specific topic. How do you approach the topic, which theory or conceptual approach can you build upon? All this makes it very hard to engage with something totally new, no matter how appealing it may be. I have a rule of thumb: from the trilogy of science - topic, theory and method - ideally two are rather clear and the third is then in the focus. If you want to work on a specific topic that is vague, the conceptual basis and the methodological approach should be rather clear. Working on methods empirically demands a well understood topic and a good command of the conceptual foundation. Researchers often tend to hopefully become more innovative over time, which could lead them to combine a rather new method with a vague topic, but this can create problems at such an early stage of your career. | A suitable topic should be built on scientific literature, maybe not to the really precise inner core, but at least in terms of previous studies going into a similar direction. If a topic is flooded in literature, I would stay away from it, but this is only my preference, because I like emerging topics. If so much was said before, what could you specifically contribute? If this is not clear, I would advise you to avoid the dead chewed topics where your contribution may not add anything new anyway. However, it can be equally difficult if no literature exists about a specific topic. How do you approach the topic, which theory or conceptual approach can you build upon? All this makes it very hard to engage with something totally new, no matter how appealing it may be. I have a rule of thumb: from the trilogy of science - topic, theory and method - ideally two are rather clear and the third is then in the focus. If you want to work on a specific topic that is vague, the conceptual basis and the methodological approach should be rather clear. Working on methods empirically demands a well understood topic and a good command of the conceptual foundation. Researchers often tend to hopefully become more innovative over time, which could lead them to combine a rather new method with a vague topic, but this can create problems at such an early stage of your career. | ||
People often get dragged down by all the details they read in the literature. This is why it is so important to decide on what you think would work in your specific case. I think this decision can be best taken by someone with experience, but remember that failure is an important part of science. Failure is not the opposite of success, but a steppingstone! Pragmatism is also important, since in my experience it is very easy to start a thesis, but remarkably difficult to end. Hence do not get dragged down on what could potentially work in your thesis, but instead try to focus on what will most likely work, and is also feasible. | People often get dragged down by all the details they read in the literature. This is why it is so important to decide on what you think would work in your specific case. I think this decision can be best taken by someone with experience, but remember that failure is an important part of science. Failure is not the opposite of success, but a steppingstone! Pragmatism is also important, since in my experience it is very easy to start a thesis, but remarkably difficult to end. Hence do not get dragged down on what could potentially work in your thesis, but instead try to focus on what will most likely work, and is also feasible. | ||
| + | |||
== RESEARCHING THE LITERATURE == | == RESEARCHING THE LITERATURE == | ||
🎯 How to read texts efficiently and effectively | 🎯 How to read texts efficiently and effectively | ||
| Line 101: | Line 101: | ||
Depending on which reading strategy is selected, the reading style can be adapted to it: | Depending on which reading strategy is selected, the reading style can be adapted to it: | ||
Bild | Bild | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
--> | --> | ||
| − | |||
<!-- Key publications and references. | <!-- Key publications and references. | ||
Latest revision as of 12:57, 22 April 2024
| Type | Team Size | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Me, Myself and I | Group Collaboration | The Academic System | Software | 1 | 2-10 | 11-30 | 30+ |
Formatting of the text Makes sense to do it once the full text is written and imported into the wiki editor. -->
Finding and finalizing the topic of your thesis is the first big step regarding its content. This step can already feel huge and overwhelming and take longer than expected. In the following you will get tips on how to start researching literature on a topic as well as what is important when deciding on a topic, so you will hopefully get through this step smoothly and choose a topic you can work on well for the next weeks and months.
Contents
RESEARCH QUESTION
🎯 How to get from an idea to a specific topic and research question or hypothesis.
🎯 Finding the red tape of your thesis → What is the focus of your thesis? What will you not consider?
How to frame a research question
Links & Further reading
Videos
Books
Tools
Papers
According to Chicago Style conventions
The author of this entry is Max Mustermann.
