Graduate Reading, Students, Teachers, Researchers, Research Subjects

My mind is bursting with ideas today after attending a conference with Harvard Professor, Dr. Richard Light. Dr. Light is a statistician and an empirical researcher, and the studies he has done with his students at Harvard are incredibly revealing.

I'm not going to address a great deal of the substance of the conference, since I'm still processing the information, but one very memorable statement (among many) that Dr. Light made was this: when he advises students, he asks them:

"What is your job here?"

As they fumble to answer the question, or give vague and unsatisfactory answers, Dr. Light eventually gives him what he says is his best piece of advice, advice based upon rigorous empirical research about student success:

"Your job is to make an effort to get to know one faculty memebr reasonably well, and for that faculty member to get to know you reasonably well."

Obviously, if faculty members care about student success, the advice could be phrased this way:

"Your job is to make an effort to get to know your students reasonably well, and for those students to get to know you reasonably well."

I think these statements are indicative of what is wrong with the student/teacher relationship in most universities today, and probably says something about research and research subject relationships (think Nate) also.

Graduate students: please read the first chapter "Journalism and the Scientific Tradition" from Phillip Meyer's book The New Precision Journalism:

http://www.unc.edu/~pmeyer/book/Chapter1.htm

We will discuss the book on Tuesday in our grad student session.

Moving On and Summing Up

As we begin to finish the first, introductory unit of the class, I hope you are all beginning to see both differences and similarities between the research methods and traditions of the various fields we might call professional writing: creative writing, technical writing, business writing, journalism, freelance nonfiction. Even these categories have variations within them.

If this course has a thesis, or unifying idea, it is this: Studying the reaserch practices of each of these fields of professional writing will help us become better researchers and writers in our own chosen field of professional writing. In other words, understanding the practices of multiple discourse communities will help us become better researchers and writers.

The reading for Tuesday builds upon this concept. Believe it or not, this presentation by a major scholar in the philosophy of science, is a presentation based upon a rigorous scholarly observation he made at a research lab. IMHO these findings read more like a meditation, or like poetry. Here is the link to Tuesday's reading: (http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/sociology/papers/law-manager-and-his-powers.pdf)

Some Blogs I noticed today:



Steve has strong feeling about Supersize Me: http://blog.myspace.com/pepplespace

Helm hasa nice discussion of the Berkenkotter/Huckin/Ackerman article: http://11806confession.blogspot.com/

Kim has great comments on Berkenkotter/Huckin/Ackerman as well as Lulu.com: http://www.reflectionresearch.blogspot.com/

Deanna has a great reflection on rhetoric and the writing process: http://www.greatteacherangelbean.blogspot.com/

Latour and Wednesday's Reading

In Bruno Latour’s 1987 work Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society, the author advances the notion that scientific research is not based upon adherence to a firm set of objective principles, but rather, is socially constructed. In other words, instead of studying what science should be, Latour believes we should study science like we study any other culture, by focusing in what scientists actually do. For a further discussion of Latour, see the Wikipedia entry for him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Latour).

The reading for Wednesday, January 24, is a case study of an apprentice entering such a culture—in this case a graduate student negotiating his way through the Ph.D program in rhetoric at Carnegie-Mellon University, an institution which focuses heavily on rigorous research methodologies. I think this case will help us interrogate this notion of social construction raised by Latour; it demonstrates quite vividly the strengths, weaknesses, and ethical issues involved in empirical research conducted on and with human subjects.

I think I have most blog links now:

Kiciek:http://www.angielski66.blogspot.com/

Steve: http://blog.myspace.com/pepplespace

Sarah:http://www.sarahwriter.blogspot.com/

Sirc: http://www.writingeverything.blogspot.com/

J. Elkins: http://www.folkloreinwriting.blogspot.com/

C.E.'s blog has a nice reflection on the Lulu website :http://www.myresearchmethodsforwritersblog.blogspot.com/

Bruce:http://www.researchmethods49.blogspot.com/ has some interesting connections to make with the Grabill and Simmons' article.

Brandon:http://www.brandonrentfrow.blogspot.com/

Tysdaddy:http://www.researchbt.blogspot.com/

Blogger18622's:http://www.bloggeripfwblogger.blogspot.com/

Helm has changed the address, and has some interesting meditations:
http://11806confession.blogspot.com/

C625 Student: http://www.lacavernadelsaber.blogspot.com/ has some interesting connections to make with the Berkenkotter and Huckin reading.

Kim: www.reflectionresearch.blogspot.com

Amie: http://www.researchmetodsdesertrose.blogspot.com

Deanna:http://www.greatteacherangelbean.blogspot.com/

John: http://www.canoemidewst.blogspot.com

Beginnings

I am joining my research methods class in blogging this semester. It is my hope that I can be a faithful blogger, and that this blog can help me understand the research process better, and help me become a better writer.

Reading the Grabill/Simmons article is tough. Academic discourse is not easy, and Grabill and Simmons are raising some difficult issues. But as difficult as they are, I think they are important because of the way they highlight one of the essential features of scientific and technical writing: the (perceived or real?) gap between positivist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism_%28philosophy%29) research methodologies and the humanistic education most technical writers receive.

I feel comfortable with both traditions--because of my background as an engineer before I became a professor working in a humanist discipline (English/Rhetoric). I see the limitations of both logics. On the one hand, I understand the frustration scientists feel when the public responds "irrationally" to scientific progress. For example, few nuclear protestors understood or believed that the amount of radiation they would normally receive from a lifetime of operations of a nuclear power plant a mile from their house would be less than the radiation they would receive during a major sunspot eruption--an event that occurs naturally in nature.

On the other hand, IMHO positivists are guilty of hiding their research methodology behind jargon--they don't want the public to understand. Because when the computer statistician who conduct a nuclear reactor protection analysis based upon simulations assert that the chances of a major accident at a nuclear plant is "one-in-a-million," they don't bother to tell the public the assumptions upon which those statistical claims are made. For example, many accidents are based upon the assumption that only a "single-event at a time" occurs. In "real life," accidents begin with one event, but the stress of that event leads to others, and a "comedy of errors occurs. Take "Three Mile Island," for example: operator intervention actually made the accident worse.

No wonder the public is unwilling to simply let the scientists make the decisions for them!

Here are links to some student blogs.

Sarah's blog:

http://www.sarahwriter.blogspot.com/

Sirc does a nice job describing a personal research process:

http://www.writingeverything.blogspot.com/

J. Elkins has a take on the DOL reading:

http://www.folkloreinwriting.blogspot.com/

C.E.'s blog:

http://www.myresearchmethodsforwritersblog.blogspot.com/

Bruce has some interesting comments on the class and on the DOL reading:

http://www.researchmethods49.blogspot.com/

Brandon makes an interesting connection between emerging writers, and the indie movement in music:

http://www.brandonrentfrow.blogspot.com/

Tysdaddy has some nice insight into his own pursuit of accuracy in writing, and its relationship to research:

http://www.researchbt.blogspot.com/

Blogger18622's blog:

http://www.researchbt.blogspot.com/

Helm's blog:

http://www.setup14rm.blogspot.com/

C625 student has a great take on the Grabill/Simmons reading:

http://www.lacavernadelsaber.blogspot.com/

If you had trouble with the reference to Saussure, try this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_de_Saussure

Kim has an interesting response to the DOL article:

http://www.reflectionresearch.blogspot.com/

Deanna has some interesting reflections on how research might be valuable to her projects. Find them in the comments section of her blog:

http://www.greatteacherangelbean.blogspot.com/

Finally some links for you to consider:

Here is a link to Jeff Grabill's home page at Michigan State:

http://www.msu.edu/~wrac/faculty_staff/grabill.html

And here is a link to the Miami of Ohio page which contains pictures and a description of Michelle Simmon's work:

http://www.units.muohio.edu/mtsc/faculty.htm#msimmons

A very fine beginning!!!