kareina

 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.

I just found out that not only does his mouse come with nine buttons, it has a little LED display, which he has set up to be red lights if he's got it set to "general use", green when the settings (changes to mouse speed and which buttons cause what actions) are set for playing most of his computer games, and blue for one specific game, whcih needs different settings from the other. He says that he can set up other profiles when he figures out what other sorts of setting arrangements he might need.

Makes my pen and drawing tablet seem downright simple!

clovis_t needed a new mouse--his right mouse button didn't work any more. He told me that he didn't just want to get a cheap one, so I gave him permission to look for something better than bottom-of-the-line. After all, I insist on a pen/drawing tablet instead of a mouse, so I understand being fussy about how one communicates with one's computer. But, I do have to wonder, does a mouse really need NINE buttons? Sure, I like having a pen with two buttons--one for "double click", and one for "right mouse". But Nine?! Isn't that a bit excessive?