This book describes at a fundamental level what is a research problem, breaking it down into parts
such as Topic, Question + Relevance, etc.
The authors have captures many essential but non-obvious aspects of real research, such as
(I totally agree with these, after only a few years of research myself):
* The core of a research paper is to make a CLAIM, back it with REASONS, support them
with EVIDENCE, ACKNOWLEDGE AND RESPOND to other views, and sometimes explain
your PRINCIPLES (WARRANTS) of reasoning. Finally, the SIGNIFICANCE of the claim must
be explained.
* Most researchers will tell you that as often as not, their papers are cited inaccurately,
summarized carelessly, or critized ignorantly.
* A good research paper must anticipate and respond to reader's predictable questions
and objections. Doing this, rather than trying to sell your point by playing down all
other views or contradiction evidence, will easily be sensed and hurt your ethos,
which over times hardens into your reputations, your most important asset as
a researcher, and something delicate : if you lose it, you will probably never regain it
no matter how many better papers you write.
* The meeting of other views, discussion of weaknesses in your arguments,
and hedging (specifying the limiting assumptions of your claim) have to be done
in a well-balanced way : too little and too much attention is drawn away from your
main arguments and you seem timid and your conclusions unreliable, too much and you seem
arrogant and even unethical, losing the trust of the readers.
* Discuss all available evidence, also weak or ambiguous. Explain why you think that
evidence has low reliability. Both if it supports your claim or goes against it.
Confiding low reliability for evidence supporting your claim increases the trust
from the reader.
* There is no cure [for accurate reporting] than checking, rechecking, and rechecking again.
* When you want to criticize a source for being unclear, it looks nice to formulate it like
"We do not clearly see", "We do not understand", etc,i.e. formulate it like YOU have failed
to understand rather than bluntly state that its badly written.
* Another nice way to lay out critique is to first give a plus : "Although the treatment of X
is exemplary, the simple approximation used for Y might lead to serious errors". Or,
"Smiths evidence is important, but we must look at all the available evidence."
* Introductions should start with a brief summary of sources relevant for your claim. Avoid a long
account of marginally relevant sources. Then, come to open questions still lacking in the field,
or gaps in previous sources. After that, explain the value of being able to answer those questions.
Finally, either state your answer already here, or "promise" an answer at the end of the paper.
* Their quotation from Hemingway is really good when it comes to revising : "You know you're
writing well when your discarding stuff that you know is good, but not as good as what you keep."
I often found myself being a bit paralyzed with a draft containing many half-good paragraphs,
all not fitting so well together. One has to overcome to barrier to delete half-good stuff : once you
start doing that and don't is as 'sacred' because its been there for so
long, you get into a flow in writing and the manuscript improves quickly. Yes you may end up
rewriting a whole section, but you'll be surprised at how quick it goes and how much it often
improves! The authors here suggest to keep sections-paragraphs only if they either directly
add to the ARGUMENT you are making in the paper, or that they provide CONTEXT/BACKGROUND
for the analysis. Just stating facts or some numbers you have calculated are not of interest to
the reader unless they relate to your point. And the key here is not to be afraid to discard
stuff that only has MARGINAL relevance : keeping all such material makes for a bloated, long
and boring paper where the main points get lost. If anyone actually needs some particular number
of your calculation, they will ask for it and cite you anyway.
* The point of each paragraph should be summarized in the first or last sentence(s).
Avoid too short paragraphs (less than 5 sentences), except for transitions and
conclusions.
* Drafts have to be given time to "cool". What looks good one day often looks completely
different upon a fresh look a few days later. Therefore, it is of no use to make
last-minute changes just before submission : chances are you write something bad.
* You think your graphics and plots speak for themselves, but your readers won't. You have
to highlight what you want them to notice in them, and choose what to plot to emphasize
your point. For example, you can make the most important line bold, but a box around the most important
points, or add a line showing that a difference between two lines has increased, if this is your point.
* Graphs should be kept as simple as possible : consider skipping marginally relevant data in them,
for the same reason as one should cut marginally relevant paragraphs. Keep only data relevant
to your point.
* For readability, label lines inside the plot, rather than in a legend (forces the eye to go back and forth)
* In the legend you should NOT explain that the data imply : this should be in the text.
* No matter what you write, it will never be perfect. Still, you build an illusion that if you have just
one more month, week, or day, you can actually finish it. Its not so! You will NEVER be satisfied
with it. So one should set deadlines and make the best possible product within that time.
Strange as it sounds, after working 2-3 YEARS on a short paper, one is still feeling there are dozens
of places which are not quite good enough. But it has to go. Otherwise insanity will catch up
with you for sure.
* A generally successful work flow is to draft quickly, revise carefully, and toss irrelevant stuff.
Drafting quickly means writing with a flow, not pausing to get details, references and exact
number right, but rather the general structure and logic of the section.
* Make sure the numbers you present are rounded to a reasonably accuracy.
Kindle version is not great : one cannot scroll between chapters for whatever reason, and there are
quite a few "special text boxes" where the font is very small.
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club? Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
There is a newer edition of this item:
The Craft of Research, Fifth Edition (Chicago Guides to Writing, Editing, and Publishing)
$49.00
This title will be released on June 21, 2024.
$49.00
This title will be released on June 21, 2024.
Frequently bought together
$14.62
Get it as soon as Wednesday, Oct 25
Only 1 left in stock - order soon.
Total price:
To see our price, add these items to your cart.
Choose items to buy together.
Similar items that may deliver to you quickly
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
Reviews with images
Submit a report
A few common reasons customers report reviews:
- Harassment, profanity
- Spam, advertisement, promotions
- Given in exchange for cash, discounts
When we get your report, we'll check if the review meets our Community guidelines. If it doesn't, we'll remove it.
Sorry, there was an error
Please try again later.
Top reviews from other countries
Beatrice C
Perfect conditions! Well written
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on September 27, 2022WRS
Pflichtlektüre für jeden (geisteswissenschaftlichen) Studenten
Reviewed in Germany on June 25, 2012
