As Dr. Giles notes, we now have *lots* of data and at this point, there is always the risk of letting that wonderful fact (better than having too little data, right?) overwhelm the article formation process.
As Sternberg (2000) writes:
"There are two possible articles you can write: (a) the article you planned to write when you designed your study or (b) the article that makes the most sense now that you have seen the results. They are rarely the same; and the correct answer is (b)." (p. 4)
So our task is to find what makes the most sense and if we are lucky it will overlap with what we set out to do. As we sift through the data, it is also important to keep in mind where the data contribute most with regard to the existing literature and the existing gaps in that literature. This part of the process can be hard for students because not only does it require assimilating considerable and complex data but also because it requires that we mentally go back to the literature a bit to see where our work helps to fill a gap. Students are starting to post suggestions, based on our data and based on the literature in our lab this week – which is exciting because we start to see the end ‘product’ if you will but also because it requires that students think critically, take a risk and put their ideas out there. As an instructor, this is a very rewarding part of the process!
AES
Sternberg, R.J. (Ed.). (2000). Guide to Publishing in Psychology Journals. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment