Every good paper or thesis puts the presented research into a general context. This is particularly the case with theses and dissertations. Commonly an entire chapter is devoted to synthesizing relevant literature. More often than not, these sections are boring to read, cumbersome to write, and simply take on the role of a task to be finished rather than of framing the research problem to be presented. Such droll background sections are very common in student papers and theses; how is it that something as simple as providing the context for one’s research can go so array?
My impression is that it takes a tremendous amount of effort to amass solid general knowledge of the literature in a research area. My sense is that students underestimate the amount effort and time it will take to build the knowledge that will become the context of their research. I find that students operate under one or more of the following fallacies. First, many do not see context as important because it appears to relate to their own research only indirectly. This is an illusion, the context is anything but indirect; it surrounds and permeates the student’s research whether or not they are aware of it. The supporting literature is written and read by those who will evaluate the integrity, originality, and value of the student’s new research. Second, the system encourages cursory, rapid-paced work in that students are pushed to graduate on a templated schedule not according to the needs of their research and the rate at which they acquire skills and knowledge. Because background research seems so nebulous, it becomes an area that is skirted.
Finally, my opinion is that many students simply don’t want to do this work; in their haste to get a degree they may view the more cumbersome aspects of learning to be barriers rather than learning opportunities. Combine their perspective with a more implicit view among professors that many students’ writing is painstaking to read, and corners can get cut. I think we can do better.
What is the purpose of a background section? There are three that I can think of. First, as stated earlier, the background provides the context for a student’s research. More explicitly stated, this section provides a warrant for pursuing the thesis or paper project. Without such a warrant and context, the paper is decoupled from the discipline from which it originates. Second, the process of learning a field of study is a source for ideas. During the literature review, new ideas emerge that energize the student and their mentors. Third, and more functional, is that the background proves to the student’s mentors that she/he knows what she/he is doing. That is, the student is demonstrating their knowledge of their field of study.
The role that the background section plays, however, is diminished when it is poorly presented, which will be the case if the aforementioned fallacies are adopted. In order to provide a context for research, this section must be integrated into the research project as part of a whole. Too often the background is awkwardly presented and sticks out like a sore thumb giving the reader the impression that “someone made the student do it.” Such a poor structure compromises an ability to take full advantage of what background research can offer. It should be introduced in a manner that highlights the importance of the current research. For example, “the goals of this research project, if met, would fill several important gaps and answer many relevant questions pertaining to the field of interest.” Then show the reader those gaps, and sell the current research as an opportunity. In other words, put the background section to work for you rather than treat it as an onerous task to be completed.
It is Spring Break! I’ll be back in a week.
0 comments:
Post a Comment