![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
why did no one mention this?
Nov. 17th, 2023 06:51 pm One thing I have always hated about being a researcher is my poor ability to remember names, which mean that when it is time to sit down and write the paper, while I can type up the things I have learned from my reading, remembering/figuring out which paper to cite for any given thought is tough, and I was in awe of my UTAS PhD supervisor who always knew who to cite for what, and, could walk over to his shelf, grab the right box of unmarked print outs of old papers, riffel through the box, and in about 30 seconds hand me a copy of the one he was thinking of.
So, to try and combat this, when I started this degree, and found out about Scrivener, I did my best to take advantage of the technology in a way that might help overcome this. For every paper I read it would get a card with the citation information at the top. Then a note as to the date the card was created, and why I have it (did someone recommend it in person? (who/what did they say), was it cited in another paper (whose/what did they say), did I find it through a google search? (what was I searching for, and why). Then I would assign it to at least one topic, and put a link to that topic card. On the topic card there is a bullet point of all papers on that topic, with their name author, and either the paper title, and excerpt of the title, or a general topic (which ever was best to clarify how it relates to the topic). Back on the original card, under the topic I would put any notes I took during reading, along with the date I read it, and the relevant page numbers.
Doesn't that sound like it would make it easy to find things to cite? Just look at the appropriate topic card? Sometimes, but other times I have to click through to a lot of cards to find the one I was thinking of, and I more and more dread doing the work when my supervisor adds a "add citation" comment to a given spot in the thesis, and even more dread writing up the parts I haven't written yet. You know, the ones where she wants paragraphs full of synthesis of information from the literature, plus my own thoughts to show I can think critically? I have put that bit off as long as possible, while I fill in facts about the analyses I did. I like facts. Facts are easy.
Today, knowing that it really is time to do the part I have been avoiding, I re-read my supervisors comment, and wondered. "I wonder exactly what she means when she suggests adding a section that "synthesises the ideas?" So I asked Google for the meaning of synthesises the ideas, and it not only gave me a good clear definition, it sent me to an example "synthesis matrix" for organising information gleaned in the reading in preparation for doing the synthesis. Synthesis matrix, where have you been all my life, and why has no one ever mentioned it to me before? Being able to visually see side by side which similar papers said what (and condensing "what" down into sound-bites that fall under a given heading)is brilliant. I remember once trying to set up a spreadsheet for the papers I was reading, but the best I figured out was putting notes into cells, and it got messy fast, and there was nothing to relate the info from one paper to another, and I soon gave up.
Today I have started filling in a synthesis matrix, and it is going well. -having one or more sound bites per paper, and grouping them under headings really helps. I am using two levels of headings--the top level relates to the topic cards I have had that wound up with lots of papers (Provenance studies vs archaeological theory, vs assemblages etc), and under each of those (thank you Excel merge cells) I have sub headings. So for provenance studies I have headings for: region, materials, technique, quality of results, how the results were assessed, and underlying assumptions. If I encounter a paper that reports more than just those, I can add another column for it.
So, to try and combat this, when I started this degree, and found out about Scrivener, I did my best to take advantage of the technology in a way that might help overcome this. For every paper I read it would get a card with the citation information at the top. Then a note as to the date the card was created, and why I have it (did someone recommend it in person? (who/what did they say), was it cited in another paper (whose/what did they say), did I find it through a google search? (what was I searching for, and why). Then I would assign it to at least one topic, and put a link to that topic card. On the topic card there is a bullet point of all papers on that topic, with their name author, and either the paper title, and excerpt of the title, or a general topic (which ever was best to clarify how it relates to the topic). Back on the original card, under the topic I would put any notes I took during reading, along with the date I read it, and the relevant page numbers.
Doesn't that sound like it would make it easy to find things to cite? Just look at the appropriate topic card? Sometimes, but other times I have to click through to a lot of cards to find the one I was thinking of, and I more and more dread doing the work when my supervisor adds a "add citation" comment to a given spot in the thesis, and even more dread writing up the parts I haven't written yet. You know, the ones where she wants paragraphs full of synthesis of information from the literature, plus my own thoughts to show I can think critically? I have put that bit off as long as possible, while I fill in facts about the analyses I did. I like facts. Facts are easy.
Today, knowing that it really is time to do the part I have been avoiding, I re-read my supervisors comment, and wondered. "I wonder exactly what she means when she suggests adding a section that "synthesises the ideas?" So I asked Google for the meaning of synthesises the ideas, and it not only gave me a good clear definition, it sent me to an example "synthesis matrix" for organising information gleaned in the reading in preparation for doing the synthesis. Synthesis matrix, where have you been all my life, and why has no one ever mentioned it to me before? Being able to visually see side by side which similar papers said what (and condensing "what" down into sound-bites that fall under a given heading)is brilliant. I remember once trying to set up a spreadsheet for the papers I was reading, but the best I figured out was putting notes into cells, and it got messy fast, and there was nothing to relate the info from one paper to another, and I soon gave up.
Today I have started filling in a synthesis matrix, and it is going well. -having one or more sound bites per paper, and grouping them under headings really helps. I am using two levels of headings--the top level relates to the topic cards I have had that wound up with lots of papers (Provenance studies vs archaeological theory, vs assemblages etc), and under each of those (thank you Excel merge cells) I have sub headings. So for provenance studies I have headings for: region, materials, technique, quality of results, how the results were assessed, and underlying assumptions. If I encounter a paper that reports more than just those, I can add another column for it.
My only worry is that November is more than half over, meaning I have less than 1.5 months to finish everything and turn this thing in. This tool will help, but will it take too long? (No matter what it is faster than avoiding doing it because the other way was too painful.)
In other news, the paperwork has now been submitted to switch me to the MPhil degree that my supervisor thought we had already switched me to, and I have turned in the "submitting soon, start the behind the scenes work needed to process the thesis" paper, so it is looking pretty real.
In other news, the paperwork has now been submitted to switch me to the MPhil degree that my supervisor thought we had already switched me to, and I have turned in the "submitting soon, start the behind the scenes work needed to process the thesis" paper, so it is looking pretty real.