Bavelas’s chapter presented a number of dos and don’ts in the research process, each with interesting examples. Essentially, research comes in stages, and researchers need to do the appropriate at each stage. The process goes as follows: assume something is there; explore one’s own thoughts and the phenomenon; generate examples that have the same quality; actively selects events/phenomena to form a class; express yourself in analogues; discover proof of a model; check procedure details with pilot work; check the results through testing.
A few quotes stood out. “Creativity in the early stages of science is a way of thinking that can be learned and practiced” (p.308). However brilliant the initial idea, if one cannot build on it, the research isn’t going anywhere. This is a big “stop” moment for me and made me reflect on how I approached it so far. As a newcomer to the field of Education, there is so much to learn and every topic seems fascinating and worth pursuing. The difficult part would be to narrow down, follow up on an idea and develop it further.
“What is necessary at one stage may be harmful at another” (p.321). As a beginner, one should read, but choosily and not too much. Research is a natural process that shouldn’t be rushed. Rather, it needs to be nurtured in due course. If a few weeks or months are needed for intense thinking, then it shouldn’t be seen as idle and hurried off.
Hi Jingyu,
ReplyDeleteI think the points you have listed are really important. This article articulated the stages of doing research as you summarized at the beginning, and some of the author's opinions about different stages are interesting to me. For example, at the initial stage when the researchers has a new idea, they are suggested neither to find a category to fit in not belittle the idea. Just like what you mentioned, as a beginner we should not in influenced too much by the literature. Actually This opinion is quite different from how I carry on my research, in which I always read lots of papers after I've decided on the topic in order to find the gaps of previous research and frameworks that I can use. But at the same time I understand the author's assertion that researchers should not devalue their idea easily.
Hi Jingyu. Your big stop was also a big stop for me! I believe we do have to find ways to come up with ideas that are workable and interesting as well. However, how important is it to research, understand and consider other works that have already been carried out previously in a certain field? At the same time, how can we not let our idea be influenced by previous researches? I was wondering if a 'brilliant idea' could be built up with previous work from the same field, and be considered as an advancement for a specific area...
ReplyDelete