This week I’ve been working on my PhD Ethics Application for my PhD. As I do this, there have been two international dates that have individually been very important, but collectively add gravity to my Ethics Application. This has caused me to reflect deeper than usual in light of work I’m now doing around ethics, benevolence and risk.
Source: @GPforEducation
Two key dates
Internationally, World Teachers’ Day was held on 5 October.
Celebrated in more than 100 countries world-wide, World Teachers’ Day was established by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) in 1994 to recognise the role of teachers in society.
Last year on in Instagram for World Teachers Day, I celebrated the wonderful guidance, work and role that Dr Richard Johnson had for me in my decision to go into teaching.
Then, on 11th October, it was International Day of the Girl Child.
International Day of the Girl recognises the unique challenges that face girls globally and the enormous potential for change girls possess. So the main aims of the day are to promote girl’s empowerment and fulfilment of their human rights while also highlighting the challenges that girls all over the world face.
In the midst of these two major international commemorations and working on my Ethics Application – it is Malala Yousafzai who keeps popping into my head.
Malala – teachers, girls, rights and education
For me, Malala is the common thread the weaves these three events together and directly links them to my PhD. I can’t decide if she is an archetype, hero or champion (or all three) – but I know that she is the perfect embodiment of all the issues, pressures, challenges and dynamics my research is looking at.
My PhD explores NGOs that donate bicycles to rural African girls for greater access to secondary school. So, I read a lot about education, teachers, schooling in rural areas of developing countries, the feminisation of poverty, sociocultural barriers to girls’ education, gender equity and other local and inter/national geo-political issues.
Most people have heard of Malala.
Malala’s father was a teacher at an all-girls’ school in Pakistan. In 2008, the Taliban forcibly closed down their school. Malala publicly spoke out about the rights how girls have the right to an education – she was 11. She was shot in the face as retaliation. After being moved to the UK for her recovery and for safety, she continued to speak out for girls’ education.
She received the Nobel Peace Prize in December 2014 and was the youngest-ever Nobel laureate. She continues her advocacy and activism work. She travels to many countries to meet girls fighting poverty, wars, child marriage and gender discrimination to go to school. She has spoken at UN National Assemblies and internationally and established the Malala Fund which invests in developing country educators and activists, like her father, through Malala Fund’s Gulmakai Network.
I feel very humbled and inspired by Malala’s story, courage and persistence. She is a remarkable role model, advocate, change agent and activist. I have always been incredibly grateful for having the privilege to undertake my PhD. It is also a way
And on weeks like this one, Malala is a reminder of how important it is to continue and intensify the efforts for girls education.
This weekend, I’m at a 2-day HDR Research Conference collaboration between the University of Queensland and Griffith University. At this conference, we are discussing how to interrogate and reconcile research paradoxes where notions of justice, integrity and impact in an increasingly complex post-truth world. I’m presenting a session (see below) as well as being a Plenary Panelist.
Reconciling research paradoxes: Justice in a post-truth world
UQ & GU Postgraduate Research Community Conference
2018 has seen the ascendance of post-truth politics also known as post-factual and post-reality. Post-truth is opposed to the formal conventions of debate, the contestation of ideas and the falsifiability of theories and statements. In a post-truth era what reigns supreme are fallacies, talking points, leaked information, and so-called fake news fueled by unfettered social and traditional media, and a highly-polarised political spectrum. What are the implications of post-truth to educational research that values social justice, ethical integrity, the search for the good of the community as well as that of the individual? How will research and its tenets of validity, reliability and trustworthiness respond to the challenges brought upon by a post-truth world?
My presentation: The good Samaritan and little white lies: False news, transparency and project challenges of researching NGOs.
Keywords: INGOs, transparency, self-reporting, M & E mechanisms
Around the world, thousands of International non-government organisations (INGOs) provide much-needed support and aid to those in need. But in the eyes of the general public, perceptions of INGOs are mixed. Some perceive INGOs to be ‘good Samaritans’, while others question project motives and management. INGOs continue to face criticism in a number of key areas: project practices, corruption, hiring policies, salaries of top executives, distribution of donated funds and lack of transparency. For researchers who work with INGOs, this adds an additional layer of complexity to the research process and research relationships.
This session will explore how factors such as unsourced media reports, reliability of M & E mechanisms, use of grey literature and the legitimacy of self-reported outcomes has equally enriched and problematized the aid and INGO research space. Using key examples and my own INGO experience, I will reflect on ethical and methodological ‘white lies’ that can arise when researching with INGOs.
As a PhD researcher myself, I know first-hand how much work goes into a research project. So where possible, I like to help out other researchers as a participant or lab rat.
In the past, I’ve been a research participant for the Education, Psychology and Health Sciences Departments.
My most recent foray was an invitation to be a research participant for Nicole T’s School of Applied Psychology PhD research project, which is looking at how Virtual Reality impacts cycling performance – wicked!
I was interested in this project, not only because of the cycling, but also for the VR component of this project. I have previously worked with other educational VR, AR and fully immersive experiences, but never with cycling, so I was keen to see what this simulator was like.
I’ve used fully immersive AR technologies and platforms (above – complete with cycling cap and bicycle print top of course!), but mostly for educational and entertainment purposes, not research.
Effect of Virtual Reality on Cycling Performance- Lab Rat Experience
So, this time, I went to Griffith’s Gold Coast Campus, got suited up, completed a battery of psych questionnaires before and after riding a stationary bike – and got amongst it!
Why is the research being conducted?
Nicole’s research examines the effect of the presence of the competitor in a virtual environment during a stationary cycling task. The possible performance benefits of using feedback within a virtual reality environment was the primary focus. Female participants only for this project.
After I had completed my full session, Nicole let me know more of what she was really looking for – oohhhhh! Of course, she could not let me know all the details prior, as it may have skewed my (or any other potential participants) involvement and data results. In order to maintain the project’s integrity, I’ll only give approved general info about the project here as well.
What I was asked to do
I was in the VR lab for 90 minutes, during which I did heaps, like:
Answered demographic questions, had my height and weight measured and I completed the Sports Medicine in Australia pre-exercise screening system.
Then, Nicole hooked me up to heart rate and respiratory rate monitor. She instructed me on how to use the stationary bicycle and appropriate technique – and I undertook a practice trail to become familiar with the exercise and the VR environment
Next, I jumped on the bike and had to cycle to the best of my ability to assess the intensity level (which was defined as 70 revolutions per minute while maintaining 70% heart rate reserve or until 30 minutes had elapsed.
During the cycling task, I had to continually respond verbally to a Rating of the Perceived Exertion (RPE) scale every three minutes.
I also had to complete quite a few psych questionnaires, including:
International Physical Activity Questionnaire
Long form (IPAQ-LF)
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS)
Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PAES)
Exercise Thoughts Questionnaire (ETQ)
Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI)
Feedback Rating, Self-control Questionnaire
GRIT inventory
Self-efficacy Questionnaire
Revisited Competitiveness Index (RCI)
Reality Judgement and Presence Questionnaire
So how was it?
I had great fun and did the best I could.
I took the project seriously and answered all questions honestly.
I laughed at myself because, even though I was in the lab, I still indicated turns with my arms each and every time I turned (I must have looked hilarious to Nicole, who was watching me on the screen in the lab next door).
At times I found myself bracing in anticipation when approaching uneven surfaces and cobble stones.
The simulation was basic but detailed enough to create an alternative environment. It had some good details in it like normal everyday urban encounters that had corresponding noises (pedestrians walking down the street and as I passed them, I heard the music they had playing, dogs barking, bird songs, etc).
The cycling part was no problem and I enjoyed using the VR simulation, which required me to ride around a fictitious city.
I giggled at some of the shops and department store names – they had been modified (branding) to have a very similar logo to some well known big brands, but the name was slightly different (McDowell’s anyone?) It totally reminded me of Coming to America!
At times, the VR was a little weird as it was based on an American context and had a few odd aspects for Australians (like cars parked on the wrong side of the road).
I was not totally sold on that particular program – but then again, it was not designed to be ‘enjoyable’, totally immersive or as a cycling training tool. I never really ‘left’ the lab I was in to ‘enter’ the simulation. But, it was for research purposes, not a fully immersive VR expereince – and so fulfilled its role.
After we were finished, Nicole was able to give me some feedback about my performance, some of which I found surprising …. sorry – no details on this, as the project is ongoing!
Overall, I was glad to have the VR experience and get some personalised biodata on my cycling performance as well as being able to support Nicole in her research.
If you get an opportunity to use a VR cycling simulator – give it a try for something different!
Taking a quick side-step from our usual posts of all things bikey into the straighty-one-eighty world of academia, I was delighted this week to be notified that my first book review has been published!
Woohoo!
I found this book review a little nerve-racking to do, for two main reasons.
The book I reviewed was written by two leading scholars in the field, so it was comprehensive, clearly organised, informative, interesting and very well written.
It was the first time I have collaborated with my PhD supervisor Prof. Singh on a writing project.
Overall it was a very positive experience.
I enjoyed reading the book, learning some new skills (like how to use Routledge’s online proofreading software system) and having to opportunity to develop different academic writing skills and genres
Most of all, I am so grateful to Prof Singh, who invited me to work on the project with her so I could extend my academic skills, networks and exposure.
She is a wonderful role model and a very positive and inspiring PhD supervisor.
I was previously advised that while undertaking a PhD, it is important to recognise and celebrate the smaller stages of the whole research process – which this first most certainly qualifies!
So here it is!
Ginsberg, N., & Singh, P. (2018). Consultants and consultancy: the case of Education. Journal of Education Policy, 1-2. doi:10.1080/02680939.2017.1420310
Consultants and consultancy: the case of Education
In their book titled Consultants and consultancy: the case of Education, Gunter and Mills explore how the growth of a consultant class, (a faction of the middle class and comprised of knowledge actors) is working to accelerate the privatization of public education in the United Kingdom. This class faction of the new middle class is redefining what the authors call ‘knowledges, knowings, knowledgeabilities and knowers’ (p 12). The authors have considerable experience and expertise in the research area and this is put to good use in the selection of content and theoretical approaches.
The book focuses on the role and implications on the UK public education service of ‘The 4Cs’ (Consultants, Consulting, Consultation and Consultancy). Each of these 4Cs are defined in detail and refer to actors, practices, exchange relationships and power relations. In doing so, this book provides a valuable exposition of the increasing commodification of knowledge and its implications for how educational policy is being designed and enacted.
The authors are unsettled by the ubiquitous and increasing privatization of the UK education process. In recognizing that ‘the 4Cs are generated by privatization, they create and develop it, and are beneficiaries of it’ (p 95), the book seeks to warn there is ‘no alternative to the privatization of public education’ (p 93) and the ‘creeping commercialization within schooling’ (p 93) will continue, as will the ‘setting up and development of a branded and billable education’ p (129).
The central premise of the book is to raise greater awareness and critical analysis for how the 4Cs are impacting educational management and provision. To highlight this, the authors present their arguments in a clearly structured way, with the book being divided into two main parts. After defining key terms and setting the scene in the introductory chapter, the first part of the book consists of three chapters, where the role and contributions of ‘educational experts’ in the form of corporate consultants, university researchers and industry professionals, are succinctly clarified and unpacked. Part two of the book consists of five chapters. In each of the chapters empirical data generated from three large scale studies is presented with the aid of concepts derived from key sociologists of education (Bernstein and Bourdieu) to think about the processes and issues involved in the generation and management of knowledge within education policy and practice. This section describes the ways in which policies and practices of the ‘consultocracy’ are shaping educational dynamics, tactics and reform.
The book has implications for education researchers working not only in the UK, but also Australia and elsewhere that have witnessed the rise of new middle class factions of consultants. Specifically, the book explores the notion of ‘knowledge regimes’ and ‘knowledge politics’ by drawing on theoretical concepts from Bourdieu and Bernstein as thinking tools to explore the ways in which new knowledge forms produced by the consultancy class (consultocracy) are reaching into schools, classrooms and homes. From Bernstein (2000) the authors draw on the concepts of boundary, pedagogic device, pedagogic fields and recontextualisation. From Bourdieu (1992; 2000) the authors draw on concepts of misrecognition, logic of practice, codified knowledge as doxa of self-evident truths, habitus, capital and the illusio of the game.
A limitation of the book, however, is that the work of these theorists is not systematically used to present new insights about the marketization of public education. For example, Bernstein has written about the emergence of new middle class factions engaged in processes of symbolic control (see Robertson & Sorenson, 2017; Singh 2015; Singh, 2017). The book needed to provide more detail about the ways in which factions within the middle class positioned in the fields of symbolic control and economic production are struggling over the pedagogic device of knowledge about public education. The authors provide a deterministic account around the production of new knowledge regimes, and what is thinkable, doable within these regimes. However, as Bernstein (2000) clearly indicated the pedagogic device is a site of ongoing struggle because the stakes are high. Ultimately the pedagogic device governs modes of consciousness and conscience – what is knowable, doable, and thinkable in terms of public education.
This book constitutes one of the sites of struggle over the pedagogic device of public education. Consequently, the book and this review are actors in ongoing struggles over ideas about the re/form of public education.
References
Bernstein, B.2000. Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity. Theory, Research, Critique. Revised Edition. 2nd ed. Lanham: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers Inc.
Bourdieu, P.1992. The Logic of Practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Robertson, S. L., and T. Sorenson. 2017. “Global Transformations of the State, Governance and Teachers’ Labour: Putting Bernstein’s Conceptual Grammar to Work.” European Educational Research Journal, 1, 19.
Singh, P.2015. “Performativity and Pedagogising Knowledge: Globalising Educational Policy Formation, Dissemination and Enactment.” Journal of Education Policy 30 (3): 363–384. doi:10.1080/02680939.2014.961968.
Singh, P.2017. “Pedagogic Governance: Theorising with/after Bernstein.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 38 (2): 144–163. doi:10.1080/01425692.2015.1081052.
PhD Confirmation happens about 1.5 years into your research. It is a major milestone to check you are on track before you go out for data collection. Essentially, it is a pass or fail milestone – but they don’t actually say it like that, they call it ‘recommend to continue’ (pass) or ‘recommend to revise’ (fail).
After the candidate gives their 30-mins presentation, there is an open Q & A. Then everyone (including the candidate) is asked to leave and the panel (your supervisors, the HDR Convenor and your independent assessor) discuss the work in private. Then only the candidate is invited back in. Then, in private the panel give immediate feedback on the study and the presentation and let the candidate know if they are recommending for continuation or not.
On Friday I had my PhD Confirmation Seminar
PhD Confirmation is a big deal as it is the first time you show your research to anyone outside of your supervisory team. It is where you have to submit you first 4 dissertation chapters (Intro, Lit Review Theoretical Perspectives and Methodology).My first 4 chapters comes to 191 pages and 50,718 words. Two weeks after you submit your Confirmation paper, you present your work.
So on Friday, I presented my PhD Confirmation seminar to explain, justify and defend my bicycle NGO research study.
Here’s my PhD Confirmation flyer.
A Successful Seminar! Recommended for PhD Confirmation!
I’ve been recommended to proceed with my study!
It was a very stressful and interesting process putting the seminar together. Big decisions had to be made about what to leave in and what to leave out.
My study is pretty complex, but I managed to get it all organised on the day.
The seminar itself went well. There was a great turn out and it had the largest attendance to date! While waiting for the seminar to start, the audience started singing The Pushbike Song, which boosted the energy in the room instead of being so formal and academic (which it was) and made me feel very supported. There were some good questions at the end from the audience at the end, which I was able to answer and had slides prepared for (phew!) to the point where the questions almost looked like a plant (they weren’t!).
I got called back in and was asked the difficult questions in private. No surprises in the immediate feedback I received. The study will need more shaping and ‘massaging’ and I already have a few other ideas I’d like to change and discuss with my supervisors.
I get the Confirmation reports from my panel back in 1-2 weeks.
I’m very interested to hear the feedback!
The panel has recommended me for PhD Confirmation! Yahoo!
This recommendation goes to the Dean of School of Education & Professional Studies to be approved. It is rare that a panel’s recommendation is overturned, but I still have to wait for the official approval from the Dean.
I was completely wiped out at the end of the seminar.
For the last 4 weeks, it has been a massive big push to get my Confirmation paper prepared and then to arrange the seminar.
My brain is officially mush.
I am happy with the result, but too tired to celebrate just yet.
My main task over the weekend is to have a glass of red wine while reading a good book in the bath – and recharge!
Looking forward to hearing what the independent assessor says about my 4 Chapters….Intro, Lit Review, Theoretical Perspectives & Methodology.
It was a missive big push to have it all done….I keep reminding my supervisors that I am Part-Time researcher. Also, that I only want to do one PhD at a time (…bad joke – but true!!)
Thanks to Deniese, Annalise, TK and all the others who helped during this time – I will not forget you!
Woohooow!
Now time to start on my 30-mins Confirmation Seminar for next Friday!
My eyes are sore, my brain is mush and I am (almost) to knackered to celebrate!
It does feel quite surreal to see it all in the one document -with all the fancy referencing, formatting, images and section headings.
Why do the PhD Confirmation procedure?
At my uni, you need to do a PhD Confirmation, because it allows:
provide peer feedback to the candidate on the work completed to date through open discussion of the candidate’s research proposal
provide confirmation that the project is appropriate to the degree for which the candidate is enrolled
determine whether a candidate has made suitable progress during the initial stage of the candidature
ensure that adequate resources and facilities are available
confirm that satisfactory supervision arrangements are in place
identify any specific problems or issues (for example, ethics or intellectual property) needing to be addressed; and
determine whether the candidature should continue.
As I gear up for my PhD Confirmation paper submission on Friday, all thoughts are now academic. My PhD is looking at how bicycles create more positive community change and this post gives a quick overview of an academic skills workshop I attended earlier this week that will help me explain and distribute my research more widely. Viva la bici! NG.
A Kick-Ass PhD Lit Review
How to write a kick-ass Literature Review? Need a publication? How about conducting a SQLR? Never heard of it?
A SQLR is a Systematic Quantitative Literature Review – it is where the best Lit Reviews are at! The SQLR technique was devised by Prof. Pickering (Griffith University School of Environmental Science) …. and it is amazing!
Here’s a quick snapshot of what it is… On the offical SQLR website it is described as..
Suffice to say that it is a kick-ass way to get a comprehensive lit review completed AS WELL AS being able to publish it.
SQLR publications are still relatively new and more often used in science disciplines. There are a few SQLR starting to crop up in the social sciences, so it is a good time to get in, as scholarly interest is increasing – and you can leverage the ‘novel’, yet comprehensive contribution it provides to a research field.
For theses, you need to do a thorough lit review anyway, so why not do a super good job of it AND get published?
Don’t get me wrong; it is a serious undertaking and hard work, but… oh so worth it!
My SQLR problem
I did a SQLR as part of my lit review. You need at minimum 15 articles to do a SQLR. Even with the help of librarians, I only found 12 publications specifically on my topic. Crap!
This is both a blessing and a curse. A blessing because it means my area is emerging and requires scholarly attention (i.e. justification of my PhD!!). But it’s also a curse because there is insufficient evidence and breadth to establish generalizations or to formulate a theoretical framework purely based on previous work.
So I went to the Advancing SQLR session to see what my options were.
Boy, am I happy I did. Prof. Pickering sure packed a lot into the one-hour session!
Top 4 takeaways from this session.
1. Questions = Answers!
I had prepared questions ahead of time and I didn’t waste any time asking them. My hand was first up, and I was very appreciative that the Prof answered them directly and clearly. I got exactly the info I needed. As well as asking questions directly related to aspects of my project, I was also sure to reiterate the answers back so there were transferrable elements and general practicalities that would be applicable to other students as well.
2. Concrete examples
The PPT and handout provided included heaps of concrete examples of next-generation ideas, explanations/justifications and development techniques to include to maximise publication possibilities. See some of the examples at the end of this post – Unbeatable!
3. Analysis Inspiration
I was inspired by the ‘advanced’ level and types of analysis Prof. Pickering presented. It truly was ‘advancing’ the process on the original SQLR session. It was great to see to what degree, and the types of creative analysis that is being drawn out of SQLR data.
It was at this stage that I got some specific idea on how to meet my minimum source quotas to exceed my current 12, which the Prof. also confirmed in more detail during Q & A– woohoo!
In response to dealing with the frustration of getting 3rd review feedback, the Prof. recommended the video below – Bloody GOLD!
(The quality is not 100%, but well worth it for the relief it brings!)
Add my own practical visual data 2 cents!
Overall I was very glad that I went to the session.
During Q & A, I offered my top picks of the most useful and relatively easy to use free (or free trial/nominal fee) design software programs that others might want to check out if they want to might want to spice up their text-heavy work and present data in a more engaging way.
Prof. Pickering appreciated the practical suggestions. She asked me to email her what my suggestions were. I also had a few attendees ask me afterwards for the names of the programs.
I felt good that I contributed something valuable for my cohort as well as getting exactly what I needed out of the session!
Now to apply it all!
Now, I need to get back to work and look at how I’m going to integrate this into my Confirmation paper.
If you are doing any kind of research, I highly recommend checking out SQLR as a lit review methodology.
Best of luck and let me know how you get on with it!
Usually this blog features events, initiative and personalities where bicycles create positive community change. At times, I also include some researcher aspects to do with my PhD study. This is one such instance.
Departing from our usual bicycle centred posts, the next couple of entries are PhD-orientated as I prepare my PhD Confirmation submission for next Friday. And yes…. I am freaking out! NG.
Image: PhD Comics
Academic Overload
I’m preparing my PhD Confirmation paper for submission next Friday. Two weeks later I will defend my thesis in my PhD Confirmation seminar.
As you can imagine it has been very busy and somewhat stressful time.
I’ve found myself in the middle of academic overload! I feel like I am in the middle of an Academic Zombie Apocalypse!
Good grief!
The fortnight lead-in was intense anyway. Trimester at uni ended last week. Last Thursday I finished semester classes and said goodbye and good luck to my two Communication and Languages for Science classes and my HDR Writing Workshop, which, I think is ironic given my current stress round my Confirmation submission! Hilarious!
Also, last Friday I finished marking the last of 48 final report assessments for my class. This week all the paperwork, reporting, feedback, blah, blah… you get the picture!
Finally, I thought…. now I’ll have concentrated time to ‘catch up’ preparing my submission.
Alas, not quite.
Added to this crazy time has been a convergence of workshops (see next posts). Each of these workshops is interesting and useful, but the timing is very awkward. I still have a lot to do on my paper. All I can think is that I need to be at my desk, all day every day, working on my manuscript.
It seems like I can’t escape! I need to get away!!!
Beware! The Academic Zombie Apocalypse
Image: The Conversation
I am hiding inside, not risking to venture out. I squirrel around at odd hours and lock myself up at night. I have my equipment with me at all times, and bury myself in my work and try and disappear from sight, not making a sound. When someone approaches me, I get nervous, suspicious, and cry out ‘What do you want! Stay away from me!’
It is a very appropriate metaphor. If I had less brain drain, I’d ‘flesh out’ the idea out (tee hee) but I am conserving synapses for Friday.
Image: kids-army
Academic zombie apocalypse survival kit
Taking inspiration from other zombie survival kits – I’m working on developing my own academic zombie apocalypse survival kit.
I quickly vox popped some academics & PhDers for ideas on what they would include/do/have for this busy time. Here are their suggestions:
laptop
key journal articles printed out
trashy pulp fiction book for mental breaks
coffee
Sudafed
exercise
a critical (about work, not you!) and a non-critical friend to talk to
good nutritious food
a short holiday at the end to look forward to
downtime away from communications and electronic devices
limit of one drink per week/no drinking alcohol during this time
connect with meaningful other/partner
designated office space for undisturbed time to work
thinking time away from the office (sitting on a bus looking out a window)
hot showers
good poos
sleep
Certainly, a lot less ammo than I expectedl!
I’m going to keep the survival kit idea handy – just in case.
But the mere act of just talking about starting a academic zombie apocalypse survival kit has already made me feel a little better.
I think I might go to the office and smash out some more writing for my Confirmation paper!
Today was Griffith University’s Education and Professional Studies (EPS) HDR Student Conference. This Graduate HDR* Conference is organised by the EPS PhD Candidates for other Candidates. Although I am on the organising committee, I did not attend the proceedings today because I am Melbourne for another event (SSWC 2016 – see upcoming post). * In AU we call PhD Programs HDR = Higher Degree by Research i.e. PhD or Doctoral programs. In the US, PhDs are part of the Graduate Program (Grad School) – hence ‘Graduate HDR’*
The reason I am posting about the Graduate HDR Conference now, is the theme for this year’s conference “Aiming for the future: Learning from reflection and reality” really resonated with me. In developing my PhD research proposal, I was very strategic about synthesising certain professional and civic dimensions that I think are very important – education, social justice, community development, and of course, bikes! One of the reasons I am so motivated in my research is that it is inherently practical to implement. It is not difficult for me to translate my research into practice. This is not necessarily the case for other researchers.
Griffith Graduate HDR Student Conference 2016
So this conference theme aligned well with my personal approach to research. I think there is great value in exploring and trialling methods and praxis, and feel that unless research can be operationalized to contribute to a better outcome for all, then a project does not fully reach its potential. It is also an excellent forum to not only get together and network, but also to share ideas about work being undertaken. I was looking forward to hearing the abstract sessions detailing what others were working on – I find it perpetually inspiring and engaging to hear the range, types and topics that others are working on. Most of all I was looking forward to the Guest Speaker Workshop “Possibilities: Knowledge into action” session (understandably why) to get some fresh insights and motivation.
The need for peer contact
Whilst organising this conference, I sometimes caught myself thinking that there were certain aspects of this conference I was sorry I was going to be missing. At this stage in my PhD, I am preparing my Early Candidature Milestone (Feb 2017) and coming out of my most challenging time working on this project so far, I recognise that I wanted to go to this Conference to reconnect with some Uni contacts. I had been feeling quite awash, distanced and anxious after not having my usual regular contact with peers and supervisors. So I was craving to discuss and mull over a few challenges and to get some suggestions, motivation and ideas. I found that just by working on organising the conference, meant that I had more contact with some of the other candidates and started feeling much better. By the time I met with my supervisors mid this week (a meeting which I had been very much looking forward to), I felt was already feeling much more settled and refocused.
Actioning the theme
Now that I am down in Victoria for some bike riding and exploring some research possibilities, I am back in my element – the physical realm. I most certainly would have attended the Conference had I still been in Brisbane, but I like the idea that, instead of sitting in a room talking about how to energize research and translate it into real world practice, I am out in the real world investigating ways to translate the lived experiences into research. In a strange way, I’m putting into practice the main theme of the conference, which, I suppose, if I was not there to participate, is a bloody good alternative!
I am looking forward to hearing how the conference went and some attendee feedback as to what they got out of it, what worked and what didn’t. It is a great opportunity to get the HDRers out from behind their screens to network, share and stimulate each other. You never know where a conversation topic might take you, or how participating in a workshop can unlock a new idea or direction – after all, I am now doing my PhD because I sat at a table in a workshop last year and got chatting to those around me on the table – and boy and I glad I did. I hope the attendees today had an equally provoking and restorative experience.
Now back to the bike and making some contacts for recruiting singlespeed research participants!
This week I saw my supervisors for a meeting as it is my PhD 6-month review. We were meeting to discuss my PhD Lit Review. I’ve not had a meeting with them for a while as we’ve all had things on – I’ve been working on my Lit Review, one had long service leave and the other has been working hard for the start of the Uni semester.
I’ve been keeping busy and trialling different productivity techniques and activities to varying degrees of success. I’ve missed not meeting my supervisors each month. I like the routine, and it gives me enough time to get some work done and work towards the next deadline.
I’ve been struggling the last month with my Lit Review as I’ve found myself summarising the issues to do with my topic and not fully critiquing the references as I’d like to be. I chatted to a few other full-time PhDer about getting their lit reviews done and it the consensus is that it is on ongoing progression that you keep coming back to. I asked my supervisor to see her original thesis she wrote in 1999, which she gave me a copy. I’m keen to see to what degree and how she critiqued her sources, synthesised content and expressed her analysis and critical thinking about the methodologies and theoretical frameworks – I know I have to work on these areas for my own lit review.
My primary supervisor suggested I look at the online RMIT Lit Review material as she thought it was helpful. However, I like the practicality and find having examples more instructive, so the UQ Reviews with examples is more my style – especially seeing as though there is extra downloadable info.
I find this first table useful to approach readings, and I like the idea of having questions to answer or a focus to draw out – it also helps hone key terms, methodologies and points for comparison that I would not otherwise necessarily have looked for – but most importantly I like the reminder, and I’ve found it invaluable in relation to looking for disruptions and gaps in some research aspects.
This second table is a useful editing and content refinement checklist. It helps keep me honest, structured and stimulated content inclusion and points that I need to clarify, include or emphasize. I think ultimately, I will incorporate ideas from all these three sources. After a week of marking course work (this week) and having a little mental break from my Lit Review, I’ll use these resources as stimulus to get stuck back into it and refocus the themes and work on increasing the level of critical analysis – which is probably a good thing as this will be my main task at least up until November.
