Task 3: Reverse Article

Overview

In this task students start the process of undertaking a research proposal and review cycle, gaining insight into how projects are proposed and argued and increasing their capacity to engage in scholarly reading. From now on, you are the researchers and I and my team are the reviewers.

Aims
• To guide experience in analyzing key ideas as they are presented in the scholarly literature ?
• To present research ideas and questions as a platform for on-going and future research ?
• To develop skills in critically reviewing research ideas ?
• To scaffold students as they constructively respond to criticism ?

Method ?

The Australian Research Council (ARC – where universities get a lot of their money from) requires researchers to submit a proposal that argues a case for future research. ARC proposals are submitted under a number of sections, which address both the research aims, objectives and outcomes and also the wider benefits which will flow from the research. Researchers are required to develop the proposal ? under the following sub-headings:

1. Proposal Title ?
2. Aims and Background ?
3. Significance and Innovation ?
4. Approach and Methodology ?
5. National Benefit ?
6. Communication of Results ?
7. Role of Personnel ?
8. References ?

Exercise (what you have to do)

You have to imagine that you are a researcher. The article you choose is the product of your research but, for the sake of this exercise, you have to imagine the research is not yet done and the article is not yet written

Part 1: Choosing an Article

A research article must be selected from the list issued.
Please email to the reviewers the following details:
1. A citation for the article you choose. That will include: the title of the paper, title of the journal, ?the volume and page numbers and the year of the paper. ?
2. The names of the people in your group and a name for your group. ?

The email will be acknowledged and the date of the acknowledging email will be accepted by all as the commencement date of the exercise.

Part 2: Writing a Proposal to explain why you want funding for this research

1. Proposal Title – use the same title as the original journal article ?
2. Aims and Background – read the abstract and introduction of the paper and clearly explain ?to the reviewers the principle aims of the project and the background to why the research ?was undertaken. ?
3. Significance and Innovation – from the abstract, introduction and perhaps methods section ?of the paper, explain to the reviewers why the research was undertaken – what was new, what was significant ?

4. Approach and Methodology – this should come mainly from the methods section but lots of social science articles don’t have methods sections – you might have to hunt for it. Outline the approach that was used and why you think it is a valuable approach. ?
5. National Benefit – a very interesting category, forcing you to think about the wider ramifications of your research. Benefits might be economic, environmental, social, security, etc., or a combination of benefits. You will be able to find most of the benefits in the discussion and in the conclusion sections. The nation under analysis is the nation you are asking to pay for the research ?
6. References – include a brief list (perhaps a subset of about 8-12 key players). Formatting references is an important skill. Give some explanation as to why you selected them. ?

Part 3: Reviewing a Proposal

Your reviewers will both review the papers against the criteria above and return their reviews within 7 days.

Part 4: Replying to the Reviews (Rejoinders)

In serious research review processes, researchers are allowed to comment on their reviews. These comments are called a rejoinder. Rejoinders might take the form of explanations of something you don’t think the reviewers understood, an opportunity for researchers to add something they left out, a re- emphasis of your main points, a point-by-point refutation of the reviewers’ criticism, or many other forms. In the end, a good rejoinder is one that engages with all the points reviewers make but without getting bogged down, without being insulting, and without being repetitive. A good rejoinder tends to fill reviewers with confidence, showing that the researchers know what they are talking about, know how important their research is and know how appropriate their approach to the project is. A rejoinder is not a correction of your proposal, or a re-submission, it is more like the next part of your conversation with the reviewers.
Is this question part of your assignment?
Place order
Posted on May 28, 2016Author TutorCategories Question, Questions