Skip to main content

Plans for Revision: Outline/Rough Draft

Master Plan

Part 1 - Literature Review


Revise and Arrange


I feel like I’ve gotten enough time/distance that I can dive in with my editor’s cap on and revise my Literature Review. Once I’ve cleaned that up, I can take the introduction and slide it up to the first page. After I correct the References page, I can slide that to the back of my outline.


Part 2 - Outline


Make Choices and Commit


I’ve been working on the Outline in-class when time was set aside for it. I’ve created a page for the Cover and a blank page for the Abstract. The bare bones of the draft are there. I have “something” in all of the slots—sometimes as bullets, or simple sentences, or possibilities. 


I have to make a big decision for Part III. Research Design and Methods: “Describe the Sample.” Right now, I have two routes I can take.


If I go with Option 1, I do a sample of convenience using people from our university. However, that means I won’t be using a randomized representative pool of participants (and it’s a polytechnic institution so most people there are likely pro-technology which is a bias). There won’t be a margin of error (MOE). I also won’t get to do much statistical calculating. So, my findings will be very conservative in what they can relay. There are lots of disadvantages to this possibility because the tone/theme of my project has revolved around getting real people’s candid feedback. So, this route could undermine that. The one big advantage is that it would just be easier to recruit people at the university during campus events or via mass emails (or both).


If I go with Option 2, I aim for a more randomized sample using adults in the local community which will be more representative of the population as a whole (there could be a range of opinions about QR codes). If my sample size is large enough, my level of confidence could translate into stronger claims. If I was willing to do the footwork/fundraising to set up at local events in the community, I could get some great data. Plus, I’m fairly sociable so I can get myself out there. I would just need another peer researcher to come onboard and help me man the table. There could also be an opportunity for survey variety: paper version, digital version via tablet, and a QR code version. Tracking the preferences there could be an interesting side quest that could feed back into the project.


Once I decide on this, the remaining portions of the Outline will get easier to write.


Adding On and Fleshing Out


Right now, the current Outline has portions of the unrevised Literature Review being used as place markers for content. I need to swap those out with the revised version of the Literature Review. 


Then, I can start fleshing out the draft as a whole. My Literature Review was 8.5 pages so I’m not too worried about hitting the minimum page amount. I may need to add an Appendix section once I start drafting up Survey Instructions, Scripts, and Survey Questions.  


Main Goal 


I aim to have the first half of the Outline fleshed out for when we meet on Tuesday. The second half can be more scraggly. I tend to hold off on writing the Conclusion until the Introduction and Body Paragraphs are more stable, otherwise, it can turn stale very quickly. Lots of revisions tend to be made at the front first and don’t always carry along to the end. So, I’ll probably just have a place marker there. Then, once everything is better set, the Conclusion can be made fresh.

Comments

  1. I love how organized and well-thought out your blog post is. There are so many things to think of and you have touched on so many of them. I like that you have given yourself options to evaluate how you should approach your research design and methods. There isn't one right way to do things and I think both approaches will yield interesting information for you to evaluate. You are very thorough in your thought process and it shows in your papers. I'm excited to see what you decide to do.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Research Gap

M ore research into QR codes must be done. As it stands, technical writers have not studied QR codes and how they fit into technical writing, though the existing frameworks easily encompass it. Most importantly, technical writers need to ascertain how the majority of readers/users feel about QR codes. Barnum (2011) states that understanding how users experience products “determine[s] whether the design matches their expectations and supports their goals” (p. 10). How they perceive QR codes can inform technical writers and other researchers on how helpful or frustrating a QR code is. Technical writers and designers need this “feedback” (Barnum, 2011, p. 138). By now, most readers/users in metropolitan and suburban spaces in the United States have encountered QR codes in their daily lives. This means a variety of people of varying backgrounds and ages and technological skills will have formed opinions. They need to be invited into the conversation on QR codes. The market is being flood...

Reflections on Designing a Research Study

What have you learned about the processes of designing a sound research study in class? I've learned that designing a sound research study is a very iterative process.  It involves continually challenging the starting point of a proposed study and then refining it as more information is discovered or complications arise. What was right yesterday often needs improvement today. My original blog post ideas underwent multiple transformations before I arrived at my current proposal's research questions. I had to pare down from three questions to two. This made sense because of the brevity of the survey. It also demanded a decision to be made for what was "most important" for me to research.  There was a lot of reflection involved as I went through the piece repeatedly to see what "made sense" or needed to be addressed. For example, some portions needed to be combined or moved to better suit the needs of the study and/or paper. Other times, different words could b...