Essential Insights: Research, Presentation, and Literature Analysis

Introduction

Recently I partook in a series of lectures that were intended to discuss a variety of tasks and obstacles that will be faced by those planning to undertake a PhD or MA. The information presented during these lectures covered a variety of topics, ranging from the generation of new research to the considerable ethical requirements said research can take. While all the lectures were engaging, this paper will focus on examining three specific lectures. The paper will discuss these lectures by examining what I assert are the most important and informative points, while also discussing how said information relates to me as an MA student. Furthermore, it will briefly examine how effectual or ineffectual a particular presentation was to a MA student specifically.

Original Research

Academia is a field that thrives when it is grown by new generations of students and scholars adding to the existing body of knowledge, though the formation of knowledge is a significantly more complicated concept than it initially appears. Of the three lectures this paper will discuss, I assert that the first lecture, regarding the formation of original research, should be of the most concern regarding students undertaking either a Master’s or PhD dissertation. 

The first lecture, given by Dr. Silvia Ross, discussed both the definition of what original research is and what methods can be used to formulate it. The presentation begins with a discussion on what originality is, and provides two distinct definitions of originality. While both definitions had merit in the general discussion, the first definition seemed more applicable to the overall discussion. The definition, “The ability to think independently and creatively: she’s a writer of great originality,” accurately displays what originality is within the context of research and the production of knowledge. In order to add to academia, new ideas, concepts and perspectives need to be added through the formation of new research. This is an effectual way to begin the discussion on original research, because it gave the students, including myself, concrete definitions for a more abstract concept. 

As an MA student, I found this definition enlightening given that I have not had to produce completely original research yet. Therefore, understanding the process by which original research is created and how it is defined has been helpful in bolstering my existing research skills. In particular, the idea Dr. Ross presents, that creating original research is a marathon not a sprint, bolstered the original argument. When creating original research, it is important to read through and examine the existing body of research. This serves many purposes, as will be discussed later, but in this case, it is to determine what has already been covered. Once the existing body of research has been examined, and the attitude or direction of the body of research has been determined, a researcher may see gaps in the existing body of knowledge and be inspired to research these particular gaps. Furthermore, the ‘scale of originality,’ proposed by Michael Talbott, which Dr. Ross presents on slide nine of the presentation, was also particularly helpful, as it categorized the different tiers of research. The presentation of this scale was also highly effectual because, like the definitions Dr. Ross provided earlier in the presentation, it helps to distinguish between what is and is not original. In my case, for example, the research done in my early undergraduate degree would fall under the fourth sub-category, old ideas, old facts.

In this regard, I have largely relied more on the discussion of existing ideas rather than inventing or innovating on more original concepts. Talbott’s model as presented by Dr. Ross suggests that the most original knowledge is created using new knowledge combined with new ideas. With previous research projects I have focused more on accumulating information from the existing body of knowledge and applying it to an initial hypothesis. This caused my research papers to be much more information than argumentative, aiming to relay the existing body of evidence rather than adding to it. Ergo, my research served more to inform on a topic than it did to argue for or against a point. This changed in my later undergraduate degree, in that I became more argumentative, and entered the third tier of the model; old facts, new ideas. As I have moved into my MA degree I will be expected to develop more original concepts and argue them against the existing body of knowledge. To this end, Dr. Ross’ presentation was helpful in providing a concrete foundation from which to conduct original thought, which can be developed into original research. Furthermore, the model proposed by Michael Talbott will also assist me as it gives me a meter against which to measure my research, thus providing a much more solid way of measuring my originality. 

Presentation of Research

This presentation, given by Dr. Miranda Corcoran of the School of English, was perhaps the most directly helpful and constructive for a student in my position, primarily because it covers information regarding something I, as a scholar and researcher, have not yet had to actually do. While the formulation of research, both in the forms of research notes and research papers, has been a staple of my academic career, I have never had either the opportunity nor distinct idea on how to present the material I have been researching. This paper will explore exactly how Dr. Corcoran’s presentation enlightened me on the process of creating a cohesive presentation that not only engages the audience in the research being presented, but also allows said engagement to be conducted without being disrespectful to other presenters.

Preparing Research for Presentation

Some of the most important points that Dr. Corcoran brings up are concepts that deal with how best to present the research one has been conducting to audience members, both those who are knowledgeable of the topic and newcomers to the field. What is most interesting is that the process by which a cohesive presentation is created is similar to the way in which a cohesive research paper is constructed. Dr. Corcoran’s presentation suggested that some of the best ways to make a presentation both engaging and cohesive is to, in a sense, cut the fat. This process involves cutting away the excessive material that may be present within the presentation and includes the removal of all junk and jargon, relying instead on using as few words as possible and removing any flowery language. The intention behind this method is not only to strip any useless information that may make the presentation excessively long, but also makes certain that the information you present is as concise and straightforward as possible. This will, in turn, allow for the information to be more easily followed and digested by those in the audience, as well as allow for the audience members to contemplate the information more directly as it is presented. The best way Dr. Corcoran explains this is by asking the question, “Would your family and friends understand it?” While this may seem to reduce the research down to its most mundane components, it becomes clear that that is actually the intention. The information, regardless of how dense it can be, must be presented in as simplistic a form as possible, most commonly for factors like time restraints for individual speakers. Its also important to understand that there is a difference between the straightforward communication of research points and dumbing down your research. You, as the presenter, are still presenting the full range and extent of your work. You are just doing so in a manner that is straightforward and concise.

Creating the Abstract

Creating an abstract for a research paper is another aspect of research writing/presentation that I have limited to no experience performing. Because of this, I found Dr. Corcoran’s section on writing an abstract engaging and informative. By stressing that the abstract is both the first and the only component of your research paper that a conference organizer will actually see, Dr. Corcoran adequately showcases the importance of making the abstract as concise, yet as thorough as the research itself. This is because the abstract has to be compelling enough to grab the attention of the organizer so that the whole paper may be considered for a time slot. As mentioned above when discussing the presentation, the main point is to be both concise and engaging. To this end, Dr. Corcoran suggests the use of provocative statements that display how the whole research paper relates to both the conference’s overall subject matter and at least one of the suggested topics that fall under the broader umbrella of the conference’s theme.

Presenting My Research

As I have said, I have not had to present my research, either at a student run or more professional conference. However, this presentation has given me some extremely useful tips on how to improve both my abstract writing and my presentation skills. My most relevant issue, which this presentation addresses at almost all points, is the trimming-down process. In the presentations I have done in the past, which are mainly confined to small, in-class presentations or in-class research seminars, my issue has always been a presentation that suffered from either too much information, or not enough information that is puffed up and bloated with unnecessary language. Most recently, in a seminar-based class during my undergraduate degree, I found that my presentations were weak due to my inability to cut down on the information I intended to present. In essence, I was relaying the information of the paper almost verbatim as it was written, which led to my presentation times becoming blown far out of what was supposed to be allowed. This, in turn, led to conflicts with other presenters, as going over my allotted time meant I was effectively stealing theirs.

Dr. Corcoran’s presentation gave me a much more cohesive plan on how to dissect my paper and really extract the more definitively important bits as they appear in the chronology of the paper. The process of examining what is important will allow me to distinguish between that which is effective, presentation worthy material, and what falls more under the category of fluff. The same can be said of the formation of an abstract, which I also have next to no experience with. Thanks to this presentation, I believe I will be able to accurately dissect my own work to determine what is best to present at conference, while also being able to create an appropriate abstract to advertise my research to any conference it may fit in to. On a final note, the fact that Dr. Corcoran covered all of her points, had an extremely concise argument, and completed her presentation exactly on time, gave the whole of her arguments significantly more weight. 

The Literature Analysis

The third and final presentation that I will reflect on was given by Dr. Siobhan Dowling and regarded the formation and purpose of a literature analysis. Given my position as a MA student the formation of a literature review for submission is, currently, not overly applicable. That being said, the ability to create an effective literature analysis is essential to those studying academia, and still holds importance to me as I aim to pursue a PhD once my MA is completed. This section will discuss what a literature review is, how it can be effectively created and what its purpose is. Lastly, it will discuss how the literature review, as shown in Dr. Dowling’s presentation, is most relevant to me, not only as a future PhD student, but also how I can use a literature analysis now to assist my research process.

Defining Literature Analysis

Put most simply, a literature review is a collected survey that displays what currently exists in a certain field of research. When one is constructing a literature review, they are compiling a list of papers and studies from the field or subject they aim to research, and compiling it into a collection. In this way, a literature review appears similar to an abstract in that it takes the most meaningful points of a research paper or study and presents it in a more easily read and understood format. These abbreviated summaries allow for the information in the paper to be represented as accurately as possible, without including the entirety of the paper. This is important because the research must be appropriately represented in order to accurately view where gaps in the existing knowledge. In doing so, a literature review can highlight the limitations of theories existing points of view which, in turn, can help highlight the originality of the PhD paper to which the literature review is attached. In summation, the purpose of a literature review is to represent the existing body of research. This allows for the existing researchers to be appropriately represented, thus showing what has already been thoroughly studied. This exposes the gaps in the field of research which gives PhD students a better idea of what subjects would constitute original research. 

Creating Literature Analysis

The creation of a literature review is more complicated than the above section suggests. As mentioned, it requires compiling a selection of the existing literature and research. In my instance as a historical researcher, this would require compiling a list of books and papers authored by individuals who have researched specific time periods in which I am interested. I would have to comprise a list consisting of the primary scholars of my field, as well as what those scholars were most aggressively researching. I would then have to establish what the experts on my specific time period were not researching, and investigate whether or not there was enough information to warrant examining these gaps further. However, in forming my literature analysis, I would have to be careful not to fall into certain missteps that cause a literature review to become something else. For example, a literature review is not intended to be an annotated bibliography, nor a list of all the research papers and books consulted when forming a research thesis. It is different, in that it requires the creator to critically read as much as they are critically writing. A literature review requires that the reader be able to respond critically to the works they are considering for their review. Returning to my own process, this would mean that if was considering a topic for my literature review, I would need to consider whether the particular piece of research being considered was relevant in the current body of research. I would have to critically evaluate the points and claims presented, while also being able to possibly counter any of the arguments being made, and all of this would have to be done whilst I am reading the text, before I begin writing the review in the first place. Finally, when compiling the information, one has to consider whether they would present the review in a chronological order or a thematic order. In my case, I would be more likely to present the information thematically, as it fits the way in which I write papers more cohesively. 

Me and the Literature Review

As I have mentioned, I have not yet had to write a literature review. However, the practices that are involved in created a literature review can be useful when performing research below a PhD level. Though I do not have to form a literature review for an MA dissertation, creating a literature review at an MA level does assist greatly in the research process. Going through the initial process, the accumulation of existing research, helps MA students like myself identify the gaps in existing research and begin the formulation of more original concepts, departing from the safer regurgitative formats of earlier, undergraduate level research. In my case, following this format has stimulated the flow of more creative concepts and ideas which, while not entirely original, are not solely dependent on holding a question up to existing scholarship and determining whether its true or not. This has been a freeing experience, because it showcased, for me at least, that I had the capacity to look for these gaps and challenge existing scholarship with new ideas and perspectives. 

Conclusion

To conclude, the creation of a literature review is an essential component of the PhD writing process, but that does not mean its needs to be exclusively for PhD students. In using a literature review process, students at the MA level can begin the process of examining the existing body of research for gaps and holes in the existing body, which allows the student to be encouraged to challenge existing ideas and investigate their own, new perspectives.

Bibliography

1. Corcoran, Miranda, “PG6004: Presenting Your Research.” Powerpoint, University of College Cork, (October, 2017): 1-19.
2. Cisco, Jonathan, “Teaching the Literature Review: A Practical Approach for College Instructors.” Teaching and Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal 2, (2014): 41-57.
3. Dowling, Siobhan, “The Literature Review.” Powerpoint, University of College Cork, (November, 2017): 1-41.
4. Hargreaves, David. H, “The Knowledge-Creating School.” British Journal of Educational Studies 47, (1999): 122-144.
5. Perez, Alejandro, “Successfully Presenting Your Research at Conferences and Competitions.” IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine 17 (2010): 1-4.
6. Ross, Silvia, “What is Original Research.” Powerpoint, University of College Cork, (October, 2016): 1-19.