10.25.08
Posted in Writing at 11:45 am by psquire
A plan of action is what I need when I write. I sit down I stare at the blank screen and I think. I think, what the heck should I write. I typically place a great deal of emphasis on that first sentence of the paper. It is the kick-off for the reader, the welcome mat that welcomes them to the paper. But once they have entered, I am not sure I have a great layout for where they should go. In part because I don’t have a typically layout or focus that I use. Rather, as try and determine the central premise of the paper and argue from there rather than using a simply story layout. In our research writing class we recently described the layout structure for a social science paper. Those comments will be combined with the ideas that Paul Siliva presented in his book, “How to Write a Lot”. Both of these I hope to use in the future when consider my story format for the reader.
Introduction (2 to 3 pages - an overview of the problem)
- Overview: lay down the framework for the article.
- Purpose / Rationale: describe what motivated the study.
- Significance: Justify the existence of the article.
Theoretical Framework / Literature Review / Research Purpose (5 to 6 pages - review of the necessary theories and findings; and how your research will address the problem)
- Use subheadings (if necessary) to describe relevant theories, review past research, and discuss in more detail the question that motivated the study.
- Describe your experiments and how they answer your research question.
Research Design / Methodology (3 pages)
-Use subheadings such as Participants, Design, Apparatus, Measure, and Procedure
Findings / Data / Results
- themes about research questions
- report only the results that bear on your problem. Good results sections should tell a story.
- First, a result section that highlights the integrity of your results.
- Second, describe results in a logical sequence.
- Lastly, avoid clutter by using figures and tables.
Discussion
- Summarize the study’s findings and discuss how the paper informs the central question.
Conclusions / Implications
- consider the practical and theoretical implications of your results.
Permalink
10.24.08
Posted in Human Factors at 11:08 am by psquire
I do not typically listen to CSPAN radio. However, since NPR was having it’s annual membership drive (constant request for money rather than news) I found myself listening to Sprint CEO Dan Hesse talk about the wireless community at the National Press Club. While listening I picked up a couple of interesting tidbits that were related to the types of findings that human factors research often stress. First, he noted that the number one product return last year from Christmas purchases were smartphones. The number one reason given for these returns were that they were to complex. People didn’t have the time or energy to figure out how to use these devices. Hesse then briefly discussed two different actions that were taking to address the high number of returns for these devices. First, before customers left the store with their new device, Sprint employees taught users how to use the device. Sounds like training design improvement to me. Next, Hesse indicated that they worked with cell phone makers to redesign the phone to be usable. He had a specific phrase for this re-design but I can not find it on the Sprint website, and I can’t recall it now. If you are interested you can listen to the presentation at CSPAN. Now if they would only publicize these action on their website so that others knew what they were doing.
Permalink
10.23.08
Posted in Personal at 10:33 am by psquire
Although my wife and I are not currently expected another member of the family, we must prepare for that event. And while we both enjoy (her a little less than myself I think) the small comfortable one bedroom; a little more space will be required for our bundle of joy. So begins the purist of more space for this future family member. Since the financial times we are living within are less than stellar, we having been debating whether it is better to rent or buy. Ideally we would love to buy. However, we don’t want to be house poor. We know that we will be here at least three more years, but after that we are not sure. And we know that to minimize my commute time we can only live in a few select areas; which are expensive for renting or buying.
As I begin to explore (with the support and encouragement of the wife) the age old question of renting or buying, I will be using the rent vs. buying tool that was recently written about in the Wall Street Journal. The key financial consideration in the rent vs. buy debate is the rent ratio. The rent ratio compares two similar houses. One house is for sale and the other for rent. You obtain the ratio by dividing the sale price by the annual rent. If you compare the rent ratio figures from the Wall Street article with a recent Washington Post graphic of the foreclosure market an interesting relationship appears. Those areas with greater rent ratios also appear to have a great rate of foreclosures. While not entirely true, it does suggest the importance of the rent ratio.
Permalink
10.22.08
Posted in Writing, Science at 6:34 pm by psquire
Today I submitted my review of a conference paper. As I sat down to formalize my review comments, I realized that this is exactly what another individual must go through when they are reviewing my paper. Yes, this statement appears completely obvious. However, when I begin writing my paper, I often forget about those items an individual reviewing my paper will consider. I like to tell myself that this temporary amnesia is because I am so engrossed in the writing process. To help address this amnesia I have listed several review consideration below. In addition, I am happy to note I am not alone in this writing/review struggle as numerous scientific articles have been put forth on the subject: e.g. How I Review an Original Scientific Article or simply Google “How to Review a Manuscript How to review a blog”. My final hope is that I don’t’ forget to look for these items when I am writing another paper.
• Summary: Please summarize what you believe are the main contributions of this paper.
• Strengths and Weaknesses: What are the main strengths and weaknesses of this work?
• Soundness: Are the ideas, algorithms, results or studies technologically and methodologically sound?
• Related Work: Does the paper adequately describe related and prior work?
• Presentation: Is the paper well organized, well written and clearly presented?
• Suggestions: Do you have suggestions for improving this paper?
• How well did the writers motivate the study: Is the rationale well developed?
• Discussion: are the implications of the results for theory, previous studies, and practical applications well brought out?
Permalink
« Previous entries