Assignment #7 Developing Conclusion Assignment

O’Leary, Z. (2005).  Researching real-world problems. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

CH 12

RESEARCH AS COMMUNICATION

I often find longer quotes a bit hard to follow. Probably something to do with my own attention span (which they say makes any 5 year old with ADD look focused.) But I do find Einstein’s words highly relevant, particularly in researching real-world problems where change oriented goals highlight the need for ‘the general public … to experience … research’. In fact, Einstein’s premise provides a framework for this entire chapter; for if we are to avoid ‘restricting the body of knowledge to a small group’, then research deliverables, that is, accounts and other outcomes, must be: (1) communicated effectively; (2) disseminated broadly; and (3) applied effectively in the real world.

For those struggling with the final phases of a research project, the take-home message here is about communication. You may think the ultimate goal in writing up your project is simply reporting on what you did and what you found, but there’s much more to it than this. The real goal of any ‘reporting’ is to provide engaging explanation and clear illumination – it’s essential that your audience can see the consequence of your research journey. And while many research accounts are dry, turgid, dense, boring and even a bit ‘holier than thou’, this is exactly what you should try to avoid if you want your work to make a difference in the real world.

Producing ‘deliverables’

What generally comes to mind when you think of research communication? The most common answer is research reports … and this is certainly a mainstay, particularly in the academic world. But I want to put on my consultant’s hat for a moment and talk a bit about the concept of ‘deliverables’; a word much more common in the consultancy world than the academic world … but a world I think has a place in researching real-world problems.

Now if you were to work as a consultant, you would find that clients generally want something useful and user-friendly. This is likely to include a well-written concise report (I haven’t worked with anyone who wanted a 100+ page waffly academic thesis), but it can often include other types of ‘deliverables’ that help facilitate the move from knowledge to on-the-ground change. And while this is common practise in consultancy, the concept of ‘deliverables’ is extremely useful in most types of applied research.

Research deliverables, as an addendum to a research report, can include:

 

Recommendations – a quite common type of deliverable. Effective recommendations not only cover what should happen, but how it might happen. This means recommendations should be contextually sensitive, relevant and practical. Rather than a hypothetical wish list, recommendations need to be achievable. One strategy here is to recommend incremental (small phased-in steps for change) and not just fundamental change.

Action plans – often undertaken with stakeholders (and embedded in action research processes) the development of an action plan can be a natural follow on from research recommendations. The idea here is to clearly articulate a change process that will bring recommendations to fruition.

Procedures, protocols, guidelines, programmes – also a step beyond recommendations, the production of deliverables such as procedures, protocols, guidelines and programmes sees researchers using the knowledge they have produced to develop usable practices and processes. Examples here might be standard operating procedures within industry, guidelines for healthy school canteens, or protocols for dealing with suspected cases of plagiarism.

Tools/kits – similar to procedures and protocols, tools and kits are ‘packages’ that facilitate problem resolution and situation improvement. For example, say you developed a questionnaire that an organization might require at a later time or in a different setting – the questionnaire itself can be a useful deliverable. A good example here is the Community Toolbox (http//ctb.ku.edu), which draws on researcher experiences to offer a host of information, examples, checklists, surveys and other resources for improving community health and development.

Prototypes/models – in addition to on-the-ground change in one setting, the deliverable here can be an example (prototype or model) of what might be achieved by a similar organization facing a similar situation or problem that is willing to undergo a similar process. Action research often provides prototypes since change initiatives are embedded in its research processes.

Policy development – unless you’re collaborating with certain high profile stakeholders or perhaps a steering committee, you may not be in a position to write policy. Your recommendations, however, can be strongly policy oriented. For example, you may end up drafting a policy for discussion on school bullying, or offering recommendations for the development of a government policy on carbon dioxide emissions.

Education/awareness materials – another genre of ‘deliverable’ is promotional materials that can improve education and increase awareness. This can include news stories, press releases, brochures, pamphlets, websites and anything else you think might have an impact.

Knowing and engaging your audience

The key to effective real-world problem research may be flexible modes of communication, but the key to effective communication is the ability to connect with your audience. And this starts with knowing who they are.

When researching real-world problems, your audience can be diverse and should certainly reach beyond the academic world. So before producing ‘deliverables’ you should ask:

 

Who am I writing for? – writing should be a communication process with an audience, and this means writing with your audience in mind. Consider whether your audience will be community leaders, community members, managers, politicians, practitioners, academics etc. or whether your audience cuts across more than one of these groups. Also consider whether one particular deliverable will meet the needs of all your stakeholders.

What do they know? – if you want to communicate effectively you need to start where people are – not over or under their heads. This means considering what your audience is likely to know about the topic at hand, as well as what they know about the research process. You need to ‘add value’ to what people already know without losing them in the process.

What will they find most useful? – if you want your research to have an impact, utility is key. Not only should your research communication be readily understandable by your audience, it should also be something they will be able to use to facilitate on-the-ground change.

What are their expectations? – I once worked with an academic consultant who insisted on giving clients what she knew they needed, not what they wanted or requested. And who knows, maybe she was right about what they needed. But the unwillingness to work with clients (who often felt patronized) limited acceptance of her research outcomes. Now for quite good reasons, you too may decide that clients’ expectations are unrealistic, but this should be openly negotiated, rather than blatantly ignored.

How might they react? – rarely are stakeholders neutral, they generally have vested interests, so it’s worth considering how they might react to your findings and recommendations. Not that this should impact what you find/recommend, but it might effect how you present these findings and recommendations. Remember, the goal here is working towards tangible change, so it’s smart to work in politically sensitive ways.

Knowing your audience is crucial, for without this knowledge it’s difficult to engage interest. People are busy, and they generally don’t have time to spend on things where the relevance to their own situation is unclear. If you want to get your message across, then that message needs to target your audience in a way that shows its significance and value.

Finding an appropriate structure and style

When it comes to finding a structure for writing up your research account and associated deliverables, the main things you should consider are acceptance and usefulness. Your research account is unlikely to be optimally useful if it’s not presented in what your readers consider to be an acceptable format. But even if it is presented suitably, your report still needs to be as engaging, user-friendly and useful as possible. The main choice here is to go with a traditional format (useful for meeting requirements and expectations) or to go with something more alternative (a structure you believe will best get your message across).

 

The traditional format

When it comes to research reports, there is certainly a traditional structure that is recognized, accepted, expected and often advocated. This is the ‘introduction, literature review, methods, findings, discussion, conclusion’ format that dominates the literature. And it’s quite easy to see why so many researchers adopt this. Not only does it tend to be expected, it also answers reader’s questions in a sequence quite natural to the flow of a normal conversation. As shown in Table 12.1, project-related questions and their respective answers readily fall into a traditional format.

TABLE 12.1 THE ‘TRADITIONAL’ CONVERSATION

The questions The answers that structure the chapters/sections of the conventional report

So tell me what your research is about? Title

Abstract

Introduction

research question(s)

hypothesis (as appropriate)

And why did you choose this particular topic/question? Introduction

rationale

What do you hope to achieve? Introduction

aims and objectives

I really don’t know much about this, can you fill me in? Background

recent literature and prior research (the literature review)

theory (current and seminal as appropriate)

context (social, cultural, historic and geographic)

How exactly did you go about doing your research? Research design/approach

methodological approach (framework)

methods (techniques/procedures)

limitations

And what did you find out? Findings/Results/Emergent story

text, tables, graphs, charts, themes, quotes etc.

Discussion

analysis, interpretation and meaning of findings

How would you explain the relevance/importance of what you’ve done? Conclusion

implications

significance

What will you be able to offer to others as a result of this study? Deliverables

recommendations

action plans

programmes, guidelines

kits/tools

models/prototypes

promotional materials

While the traditional format may not suit every circumstance, it is a format that can limit the work readers need to do to make sense of your write-up, and therefore your research. It is also a format that allows some flexibility within it. For example, the voice you adopt and the emphasis you place on each section will vary according to your audience. For more academic works, you might be expected to engage heavily with past research accounts and theory, and explicate all aspects of method in a fairly formal manner. Funding agencies might also require formality, but want emphasis placed on conclusions and recommendations. Meanwhile bureaucratic management might want the heart of your report to be contained within a tight executive summary. Finally, for practitioners and community groups, emphasis might be best placed on issues and resolution strategies – presented in a tone that is as down-to-earth and unpretentious as possible.

 

Alternative formats

While the academic world and its requirements can be quite prescriptive, expectations within a workplace or community can be more open. Depending on the nature of you as researcher, the organization(s) you might be affiliated with, your research topic, your methods and your audience, you might find that an alternative structure best gets your message across.

Alternative structures for writing up your research report can be based on:

 

chronology – describing how the events within your research project unfolded over time

theory-building – describing how theory was inductively generated, and allowing that theory to build throughout your report

findings first – providing readers with your conclusions up-front, and then describing how you got there

Any one of these formats might be better suited to both your story and your audience than the traditional structure. I think the main thing to consider here is whether your readers will be ‘accepting’. If you decide to go with a structure that is new to your readers, you need to take great care that the logic of that structure becomes self-evident as your readers progress through your account. You don’t want them to get ‘lost’ as you take them through your research project. Any structure you adopt should take your readers through a clear, coherent and hopefully compelling storyline.

THE WRITING PROCESS

Okay, we’re now down to the nitty-gritty of writing. And trust me, you’re not alone if you wish this whole research thing could happen without you needing to write it up. Regardless of the dimension or scope of the project, writing up is usually approached with a sense of apprehension and wariness – and in many ways this is justified. For one thing, you probably aren’t too practised in the art of writing research reports, and secondly, research is often judged not by what you did, but by your ability to report on what you did.

So while there really is no way around it (to disseminate you generally need to write), there are quite a few practical strategies for negotiating the writing process in a way that improves the overall quality of the project, and makes the task less daunting. If you can make a start, craft a good story and are willing to draft and redraft, you can produce a research account with the potential to make a difference.

Managing the task

So how do you make a start in the inevitable writing process? Well, I actually think the best advice is to avoid leaving it all until the very end. Write as you go. If you see writing as part and parcel of the research process rather than just an account of that process you will never have to face what looks like an insurmountable obstacle.

Process or product

Traditionally, research has been a three-step process: (1) write and submit a research proposal; (2) conduct the research; (3) write up the report. But writing can be a more integrated part of the research journey. For example, if you formulate even your most initial ideas in written form, you will have begun to produce notes for the first draft of your ‘introduction’ and ‘methods’; and annotating your sources can lead to preliminary drafts of your ‘literature review’. These sections can then be redrafted as you go through the process of data collection. Similarly, preliminary analysis, note taking and writing throughout data collection will provide you with a good start on ‘findings’.

Keep in mind that even if you’re a procrastinator and you’re not that keen on writing as you go, it is a highly attractive option compared to facing the daunting prospect of having to start your writing from scratch when you complete your data collection and analysis.

Writing as analysis

As well as a head start on report production, ‘writing as you go’ can actually be part of the analysis process. Very few people can formulate finalized ideas in their heads without committing them to paper. Ideas almost always evolve as you write, so writing throughout the research process can be crucial in moving from simple descriptions through to broader synthesis and on to significant, relevant, logical and coherent storylines. In fact, writing and rewriting can be the key to bringing storylines into focus.

Constructing your ‘story’

So why am I using the word ‘story’? Well I’m using it because good stories grab reader interest, hold that interest, have a strong plot, take readers on a journey, and lead them to logical, yet sometimes surprising, conclusions. The other implication of stories is that people simply won’t read them if they’re boring, tedious, long-winded, pretentious, etc. Yes, your write-up needs to report on your research, but it should do more … it should unfold, it should engage and it should tell an interesting story.

Now as the author of that ‘story’, there are several things you need to do:

 

Think of your research account as a ‘conversation’ – now I realize conversations are two-way, but you can apply this even in writing. You may not be there to see or hear a response, but you should be trying to engage your readers in a conversation. In fact, if you can give relevant information, predict questions and respond to inquiries, your writing will become ‘interactive’. Remember, very few people have the ability to stay interested and focused on dry and turgid writing – they need to be mentally, intellectually and/or emotionally involved.

Become familiar with the craft – very few authors are not avid readers. One of the most effective things you can do is find ‘good’ examples of what you intend to write. These examples may not be prototypes, but they can certainly give you some sense of the shape of your end product.

Find a voice – there is likely to be a tension between ‘engaging story telling’ and ‘take me seriously reporting’, and this is a tension you’ll have to negotiate based on you, your goals, your audience, and their expectations. The more you know about these elements, the better off you are in finding an effective voice. Now the generally rule in regards to writing in the first person has been to avoid it – this is so your research does not appear to be tainted with personal bias and subjectivities. But this convention is relaxing. While using first person to give your personal opinion is likely to be frowned upon, using ‘I’ to report on happenings and events is now more commonly accepted.

Develop your structure – decide on a structure and work up an appropriate outline for your write-up early on. The more you know about where you want to go, the easier it will be to set a course that can help you get there. Remember that your structure can always be modified as your thinking evolves.

Craft the story line – whether you opt for a traditional or alternative structure, your report will need to have a beginning, a middle and an end. It needs to engage your readers, pique their interest and take them through your research journey in a way that unfolds the story and logically leads to your conclusion. Also check to see if your story logically answers questions similar to those in Table 12.1. Ways to begin this process include: writing a creative working title; constructing one or more draft outlines; and writing a one-page abstract.

Be ready to make convincing arguments – it is essential that you write purposefully. The quality and credibility of your write-up is largely dependent on your ability to construct logical and convincing arguments. You need to convince, reason and argue your points. And of course, you need to be able to back up your arguments with appropriate references and data.

Write/construct your first draft – you can think about it, and you can keep thinking about it, but it won’t happen unless you do it. If you’ve constructed writing as part of the research process rather than its product, the bones of your first draft will be there for you to put together and flesh out. If, however, you’ve followed the ‘write-up after’ approach, you’ll need to gather your notes and put it all down on paper.

Get appropriate feedback – reader expectations can vary widely, so don’t wait until the last minute to find out that your approach is inappropriate. Be sure to pass a draft of your write-up to someone who either: (a) has some experience in research; or (b) has some insights into reader expectations.

Be prepared to redraft – this should be an expectation. In fact, as discussed below, very few people can get away with submitting a second draft, let alone a first.

From first to final draft

Whether your decision making processes see you go for formal or casual, traditional or alternative, dry or sensational, there is a common denominator. No matter what format, style or voice you adopt, your final work needs to be polished and professional. If you want people to take your message seriously, if you want action and change to be a result of your work, then you simply cannot come across as an amateur. Your authority can actually be enhanced or destroyed by not only the quality of your research, but by its presentation. Bottom line? Be ready to draft and redraft.

Now as you work through various drafts, you’ll be tightening up different aspects of your writing (see Box 12.2). But you can approach this in any number of ways. Some like to work sentence by sentence in a slow and diligent fashion, while others don’t want to break a stream of consciousness; they try to get new ideas down on paper all at once, to be cleaned up later on. As long as you find a process that works for you, there is nothing wrong with developing your own approach. It is the end result that counts.

Box 12.2 offers a number of checklists for helping you get to a quality end product. While it may seem somewhat tedious, almost all good writers do go through some variation of this process (see Box 12.3).

RESEARCH DISSEMINATION AND UTILIZATION

A tremendous amount of effort needs to go into the conduct of rigorous and credible problem-based research. So the last thing you want to do is go through the whole research process and have absolutely nothing come of it. But unfortunately this can actually be the rule rather than the exception. An unbelievable amount of research into real-world problems ends up as nothing more than reports sitting somewhere on a shelf.

But of course, for research into real-world problems to achieve its goals, broad dissemination and effective utilization are imperative. Without them you have nothing more than academic waffle (and don’t we have enough of that out there already!). If your goal is to have an influence on areas such as professional development, practice, programmes, policy, or pervasive cultures, your research must be disseminated to stakeholders in user-friendly ways that optimize utilization.

Disseminating outcomes

Conducting a research project, even if it’s done well, in no way assures wide dissemination. Take for example the PhD thesis, probably the most prestigious piece of academic research writing there is. Sadly, it can also be the most poorly disseminated. Most theses are read by the author, a reviewer or editor, the supervisor or supervisory panel, and examiners. At the high end, that’s about seven or eight people. Not a lot of dissemination for a work that usually takes four or more years. Now this doesn’t mean that research dissemination won’t happen, but it does remind us that broad dissemination requires creativity and flexibility in message delivery. You need to go beyond an academic model.

This is particularly true when researching real-world problems. Because (a) getting your message out is crucial, and (b) you often need to engage a diverse audience, it’s well worth considering a range of dissemination options. Such options include:

 

Informing the community – options here include presentations to town or council meetings, articles for local newspapers, talking on local radio, addressing community action groups, speaking to parent teacher associations, etc. And remember, the last thing you want here is dry and boring!

Enlightening the workplace – options here include workplace presentations, articles for professional journals and trade magazines, and presentations at trade shows and conferences. Again a stiff academic presentation is probably not going to grab attention. You need to highlight pressing issues, significant findings and compelling conclusions.

Presenting at ‘academic’ conferences – as much as this will allow you to disseminate your work, academic conferences are also great places for networking and making contacts in the research/practice world. Conferences can give heightened profile to both you and your work.

Getting published – beyond articles for local papers, or articles in trade and practitioner publications, you can also consider publishing for an academic or broad general audience. Academic publishing generally means traditionally structured articles in refereed journals. Now while this does offer a high level of prestige (and can definitely help you if you want to pursue further education), it can be difficult to get journal articles accepted, and dissemination can be rather limited. Another option is to write a non-fiction book that appeals to the general populace (for example, there are plenty of high-selling titles based on research into stress, bullying, globalization, etc.). The work you’ll need to do to get this off the ground can be tremendous, but so is the potential for extraordinarily wide dissemination.

Facilitating utilization

Okay, last section of the last chapter of the book, and in many ways this section brings us full circle. Now you might be thinking that facilitating research utilization is something you do at the end of your research process. And yes, there are some steps you can take to motivate the use of your findings after the research process is complete. But working towards effective utilization is really something that needs to happen throughout the entire life cycle of your research project. If your goal is to make a difference, then consideration of how this difference might occur should be integrated into planning and decision making throughout your project.

Effective research utilization requires:

 

Relevant, meaningful questions – the premise here is that you’re asking timely questions that have significance for an organization, an institution, a group, a field etc. Research that centres on questions that can lead to tangible situation improvement is likely to have the political support necessary for actioning real change.

Stakeholder involvement – the stronger the relationship with key stakeholders, the more likely that your research findings can influence decision making processes. At a minimum, you’ll need to insure that key decision makers are considered in the planning and conduct of your project. But at the other end of the spectrum you can work collaboratively with stakeholders thereby increasing their sense of ownership over findings and their potential to bring about change.

Political nous – related to stakeholder involvement, but somewhat more strategic, political nous means knowing who should be a part of the process and how their support can best be solicited. If you can get the right people on side, your research is that much more likely to end up going somewhere.

Integrity and rigour in methods – if you want decisions to be based on evidence or ‘data’, then there needs to be faith in that data. Decision makers and key stakeholders must be confident that the conduct of your research has occurred with integrity and rigour.

Credible, relevant and significant findings – findings that are likely to lead to onthe-ground change are those whose credibility, relevance and significance are clear. Now while it’s true that findings that validate assumptions and expectations can lead to high levels of utilization, unexpected results can also lead to change. The trick here is being aware of any potential resistance that may need to be overcome.

Feasible recommendations – I think this is important because impractical recommendations really are a waste of time. Recommendations need to sit within the realm of possibility. In addition to being achievable, it will help if your recommendations are economical, cost-effective and in line with organizational/personal goals.

Tangible deliverables – if you offer something tangible that is both practical and useful for driving change, then you’re certainly facilitating the utilization process. The more practical your outcomes can be, the better the chance of their making a difference on the ground.

Effective written and verbal communication – as this chapter stresses, it’s all about communication. Think about your audience and do your best to grab their interest and share a compelling, undeniable ‘story’ with them.

Wide dissemination – finally get the message out there. Dissemination can take many forms and should not be restricted to formal written research accounts.

THE FINAL WORD

So, you’ve reached the end of the journey – or at least the end of this book. Hopefully, your research journey will continue. So what last words of wisdom do I have for you? Well, I don’t think I’ll take that on by myself … In fact I think I’ll leave that to Albert Einstein – he’s a bit more qualified than me.

Einstein on continuing the journey …

‘The important thing is not to stop questioning …’

Einstein on overcoming challenges …

‘In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity …’

Einstein on the sometimes confusing research process …

‘If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?’

Einstein on the joys of being a professional researcher …

‘If I had only known, I would have been a locksmith.’

I wish you all the best in your quest to research real-world problems. You never know what contribution you might make to a better world!