학위논문 연구 관련 안내 자료들 (4) Durkin (2021), Writing Strategies

Durkin, Diane Bennett. (2021). Writing Strategies for the Education Dissertation. Routledge.
* 교육 분야 박사논문에 초점
* 논문 작성의 형식적인 면뿐만 아니라 쓰는 과정과 생각하는 방식에 대해 자세히 조언해주는 책.
* 이번 정리에서도, 문헌검토 이후 부분 작성 관련 내용은 건너뜀.
 

Chapter 1. De-mythologizing the process: Changing one’s mindset

- 기여하는 바가 있는 주제를 찾으라는 것은, 거대한 국가적 문제를 해결하라는 것이 아니라, 선행연구의 한계나 다음 단계로서 필요한 바를 더하라는 것: The requirement of contribution leads many to think they need a national, headline-worthy problem, for example, “the achievement gap,” “school to prison pipeline,” or “secondary trauma” – and to find a whole new solution. To the contrary, intransigent problems are unlikely to be solved by a dissertation study; nor is the creation of a new theory likely to come out of a single individual’s work. Rather, doctoral students need to add to what is already being researched, in a defined way. The advice here is to read according to one’s interests, examine carefully what researchers say are limitations or next steps with existing research, and select a doable project. 
- 기존 이론을 새로운 맥락에 적용하는 방식으로 새로운 주제를 찾을 수 있음:  A useful project can be found by looking for new applications. For instance, one student applied mindset theory to urban teachers teaching third grade reading. The gap in the research was in the unique application. Early reading instruction has been studied extensively. Mindset theory has been studied extensively. But no one had combined the two, applying the theory to transforming urban teachers’ practices for teaching early reading. ... To make a contribution, the study did not require a whole new theory, just a new application – filling a gap. Dissertation writers need reminding that opening up a new field is rare. 
- ★ 생각하고 나서 써야 한다며 하염없이 문헌을 읽는 학생들이 많은데, 읽은 것을 종합하여 자기 논증을 자꾸 작성해야 어떤 선행연구를 어떻게 활용할지가 정해짐: Many students, trying to “think first, write second,” bog down when writing their Literature Review. They read continuously, and the more they read, the more they think they have to read. Partly procrastination, partly anxiety at missing something, they fall down the proverbial “rabbit hole.” These students often delay writing entirely, thinking they must first know all the research on their topic. They read and read. They assume that once they have this knowledge, the writing will just come. Maybe they make lists and notes, but they don’t synthesize what they have read to form an argument.
  In contrast, continuously writing about the research helps students see what is really needed (and what is not). As they begin arguing for their study, writers are forced to consolidate studies to make a point– deciding which studies to link together, which to feature at length, which to cite parenthetically, and which to ignore. The argument itself helps determine the strongest supports. Then, as writers try to communicate these points, the writing requires multiple decisions on organization, detailing, and language, decisions best approached as an ongoing process. 
- 이를 위해 독자가 필요 - 종합적인 글을 쓰기를 요구하고, 질문해줄 독자: At the beginning of the process, readers can encourage writers to write something integrative, or at least to generate some claims related to the proposed study. When doctoral students write lists of isolated summaries, another delay tactic, they have nowhere to go. Simple reader questions such as how groups of studies either support or contradict arguments, or which studies are key to the argument, can help keep writers focused on creating an argument.  
- 한쪽이 일방적으로 피드백해주는 것보다는, 같이 서로의 글을 읽어주는 모임 강추: Creating a community of writers!
 

Chapter 2. The Problem Statement: Writing Processes 

- The Problem Statement chapter, with its supportive studies, already presents key arguments. It typically funnels from broad background to existing studies, to research gaps, to the proposed study.
- 참신한 연구주제 찾는 여러 방식: (1) 통계자료 검토하기 (2) 기존 논문 결론부의 향후 연구 제언 확인하기 (3) 기존 논문의 참고문헌을 통해 주요 학자들의 인용 및 영향 관계 파악하기 (4) 기존의 이론적 틀, 개념 모델에서 출발해 새로운 적용 방식을 탐색하기 등.
- 선행 논문들 비판적으로 읽기: To evaluate research, the student identifies each study’s weaknesses and strengths – in theoretical framework, research questions, methods, protocols, quality of data, findings, and conclusions. Is there sufficient data to support the claims made? How were the sites and subjects (if any) selected and accessed? Was there data that might have been collected but was not? What limitations to the study were noted and what others were not? Was there researcher bias to begin with? Again, notes on these key studies, especially their strengths and weaknesses, may create a path toward a study that needs to be done. 
- 다양한 방식으로 주제 좁힐 수 있음. 주의: 특정 프로그램이나 집단을 선택했다면, 왜 그 프로그램, 그 집단이어야 하는지 명분을 설득할 수 있어야 함.
- ★ 지도교수 면담: 진행 현황과 질문 리스트 미리 보내기, 전날 리마인더 보내기, 녹음 요청하기, 면담 후 감사 인사와 함께 주요 논의사항과 향후 단계 보내기: For meetings after the initial meeting, the candidate needs to come prepared – to provide a written progress report and a list of questions that need a response. Any materials for the meeting need to be sent in advance, as well as a reminder the night before. The student might also ask to tape record the meeting so as not to forget any key points. After the meeting, a note of appreciation should be sent, recapping the main points discussed, as well as next steps. This way, students make clear that they have come prepared, take in the advice, appreciate the Chair’s time and expertise, and are not going to waste other people’s time. The next steps might include the specific products students will produce for next time, the date they will produce them by, and the next meeting’s date and time, arranged before the meeting ends. 
- 프로포절의 구성요소 및 설득적 글쓰기로서의 성격: As noted above, most proposals have three sections or chapters: the Problem Statement (which may be titled Introduction but includes a Problem Statement); the Literature Review; and the Methodology. The first chapter is like a mini version of all three chapters – it compresses the background/context, problem, purpose, supportive literature, and the design and methods into a succinct preview of the project. When completed, this chapter will (1) define and defend the problem, using an abbreviated synthesis of findings/results from previous studies as study context; (2) summarize the research project; (3) state the research questions; (4) identify the research design and methods, including the site(s), if any, and subjects/ participants; and (5) state the purpose or benefits of the study, including who will use it and how results will be disseminated. Given such complexity, how does the student synthesize persuasively when they have not yet figured out every detail of the study? 
  A key suggestion is that students write out the project as what they think they will do and why, keeping in mind that they need to defend each of these decisions – as if readers were questioning them with alternatives. This first take will still be a placeholder draft. But the writer is now imagining the reader’s response. The student is not just informing others of what they have decided to do. Rather, they are persuading them that each decision is the right one for this particular study. To repeat: the writer avoids saying “I want to study X” or “I would like to find out Y.” This wording offers no rationale, and expresses only personal desire. Rather, one argues, “researchers need to know X in order to solve Y.”
- 배경(선행연구, 통계, 관련 역사 등): 점점 좁혀가기, 연구목적과 연결시키기. 진부한 명언이나 개인 의견 쓰는 자리 아님: As a general principle, the proposal’s context moves from wide to narrow scope, and provides readers with connections between sections. With each new section, the document ties the discussion back to the study’s purpose. Eventually, the context narrows to a small number of closely aligned studies that the investigation will engage. These key studies become pivotal to the Literature Review, where they can be discussed more fully. In the Problem Statement, they provide initial arguments for the reader, defining the need for the investigation.
... The writer establishes credibility through the pertinence of the evidence and a depiction of a problem compelling to academic readers. This might mean highlighting recent data, identifying key researchers and any controversies that have arisen, and citing confirming studies. The background is not the place for generalities, truisms, clichés, opinions, popular ideas or pretentious jargon. 
- 기존 연구들을 논문 목적과 연결시켜야 함: The student needs to connect these studies explicitly to the proposed study’s purpose. As noted earlier, listing studies, one after the other, is not a helpful approach, either here or later in the Literature Review. Rather, the studies need to be integrated into the argument. 
- 연구 필요성의 논리 예시 및 이러한 논리에 도달하기 위해 소리내어 2분 스피치 해볼 것 추천: 

The achievement gap for African-American high school students remains constant, despite extensive interventions. Mentoring, which increases sense of belonging, is broadly shown to significantly reduce drop-out rates in urban schools, but not for African-Americans. This group requires other socio-emotional needs to be met, including empathy, getting along with others, and managing emotions. This project investigates whether low attendance African-American students, who create and participate in an Action Research mentoring program focused on socio-emotional needs, show an increase in time and effort in academics. 

  If such a logic paragraph does not come easily, the writer can explain the project aloud, in one or two minutes, to someone new to the study. This “elevator speech” helps synthesize what is important. The student thus uses talk to understand, letting the logic unfold in the process. The logic then suggests a methodological approach. For this study, which involves collaborations among a small number of students at a single site, qualitative action research seems appropriate.
- 방법부터 정하는 게 아니라, 연구문제가 방법을 제시하는 것: The writer does not begin with methods, but with a problem that implies an overall approach. 
- 연구 설계를 정당화해야: For the Design rationale, writers need to avoid circular reasoning. For instance, students may write that they will use a qualitative design because their methods are interviews and focus groups. This begs the question: Why are they using interviews and focus groups? Rather, students need to argue for the data they need – why they need to know about processes, contexts, evolving thoughts, or why it is important to gain numerical ratings or values, number of times a given practice is used. Students need to persuade their reader that their Design is appropriate to their purpose and their questions. 
- Maxwell이나 Creswell의 방법론 교과서를 인용할 때, 교과서의 일반적인 설명을 많이 가져오는 게 아니라 자신의 연구에서 이 방법의 정당성을 설득하는 근거로 활용해야. 좋은 예:

This project will use a qualitative design, as the study seeks to explore and understand in-depth the journey of Latinas to UC senior positions. I will seek the particulars of the events, including barriers, supports, and decisions that made up their journeys, including how various people and events contributed to these Latinas’ rise. As Maxwell (2013) explains, qualitative researchers try to “understand the particular context within which the participants act, and the influence that this context has on their actions” (p. 30). That context consists of UC executive searches, barriers, and low numbers of Latinas in positions of power. Also, the research will focus on the process by which events and actions take place, a criterion for qualitative design (Maxwell, 2013). Because this exploration has not been done before, I do not have pre-set interview questions, but will let questions and procedures emerge, although I will probe the role of mentors and the Latinas’ reliance on cultural strengths. I will inductively build from particulars to general themes, as explained by Creswell & Creswell, 2018. This study will focus on a small number of Latinas and their experiences in navigating their way to a senior position. 

- 연구 대상의 선정 근거도 설득력 있게 하고 예상되는 비판에 대응해야: What would count as a good site for the study and why? What characteristics must a participant or subject have in order to participate in the study? Students need to write out the criteria in ways that relate to the research questions. Also, they need to anticipate potential critiques of the choice of participants. What is the likelihood of reactivity (participants saying what they think the researcher wants to hear)? What bias might surface in the choice of a site, such as researcher bias (selecting a site one knows will support a finding)? Strict criteria can offset such critiques. 
- 데이터 수집 방법 역시 정당화 필요: Again, the methods should be constructed and then negotiated with one’s Chair. Students’ methods courses, their textbooks written by such key methodologists as Joseph Maxwell and John Cresswell, and their Chair comprise students’ key resources for choosing methods. However, the student then needs to argue for each choice in the proposal submitted for Preliminary Orals. When students first conceptualize this section, they need to identify the key methods (introducing the most important first) and how they will use each one. Each data collection method needs to be discussed in terms of answering the research questions. Why are focus groups better than interviews for asking Action Research participants about the effect of their project? Why are observations necessary to triangulate data from interviews? These are tricky questions, and require a thoughtful answer.
 

Chapter 3. Writing Strategies for the Literature Review 

- 각 선행연구가 이 연구의 필요성을 어떻게 지지하는지가 분명해야: Readers constantly ask about relevance. One can take notes on each study, writing a phrase (or sentence or two) on how each serves as evidence for the study. The writer keeps asking: How does the empirical data here support the need for the proposed investigation?  
- 일련의 주장을 중심으로 선행연구들을 종합하기: A fourth step in concentrating on argument is to write a series of claims under which the writer will discuss certain key studies, as a way to synthesize. The claims need to relate back to the research questions, providing future guideposts to help the reader connect studies to the proposed study’s aims. 
예:

1 Latina principals are underrepresented at a time when principal instructional leadership is increasingly related to student achievement.
2 New research indicates how principal leadership affects student success, and how cultural responsiveness among leaders is particularly important to an increasingly diverse student body.
3 Existing interventions include how Latinos/as generally, and Latinas in particular, are being recruited, trained and supported.
4 Challenges remain  – to recruiting, training, and helping Latinas persist: family, cultural bias, lack of leadership training. 
5 We still need to know how successful Latina principals overcome barriers.
6 Critical Race Theory provides a theoretical frame and rationale.

  These claims help the researcher clarify what is missing from existing studies. With a structure in place, the writer can begin to compose key sections.
- 논증 계획을 가지고 논증에 필요한 연구를 선별하고 조직하기: As noted above, researchers can read and write endlessly on background material. That is why a concentrated plan can keep the writer focused on what is essential. With a sense of the whole, writers select and measure what literature is useful to their argument, judge what to value most, and make critical decisions about how best to use their time. Writers may wonder what a concentrated plan looks like – how detailed they need to be.
논증 플랜 예:

1 Background: the benefits of AP classes – their role in college admissions and college success; minority students’ low rates of taking AP courses; benefits for this specific group – success rates, college completion rates, student motivation. 
2 Existing supports: classroom pedagogies; supports that already target this population; data on how existing interventions are failing.
3 The intervention: Capstone classes’ theory and history – plus argument for why culturally responsive pedagogies should work. 
4 Gap in the research: What we know and still need to know about existing AP Capstone course pedagogies, nationally.
5 Theoretical frame: culturally responsive pedagogy

- 글 작성할 때, '내 안의 편집자 끄기': Writing full text, however, creates challenges of sentence structure, tone, diction, and correctness, and the temptation for doctoral students is to let everything but writing actual sentences take precedence. The best advice here is for writers to let the writing come out as close to thinking as possible, in sentence form, and not worrying about errors, awkwardness, clunkiness, disconnect, and bad phrasing. Turning off the editor can, to the contrary, make the language more natural and more attuned to thought. It is important that writers draft in consecutive prose – however tentative, provisional, or narrow in purpose. The more they practice it, the more fluent they become. When writers conclude a writing session, it helps if they jot down what the next piece of writing will be, maybe even writing the next few sentences, to jump start the next day’s work. 
- 선행연구 검토는 나열이 아닌 '종합': Writing a strong literature review involves not just expansion but also synthesis. The task is to bring articles together and distill them. Writing about groups of studies creates challenges that usually result in some revision. First drafts typically struggle to synthesize the findings from multiple studies, works with diverse purposes, populations, and methodologies. For one, synthesizing does not mean making a claim and then listing in parentheses numerous studies on the same general topic. For another, it does not mean listing studies, one after the other, and describing each one separately. Rather, the researcher analyzes a group of studies and identifies overlap or discordance among findings as these studies support (or do not support) a claim.  
This grouping calls for a lot of analysis and decision-making: Specifically, the writer might decide to discount a piece of research, based on weak methods; or the writer might decide to generalize from the preponderance of like studies and communicate what they agree on (despite differences in methods or assumptions); further, the writer might decide to select one study as representative of a number of studies; also, the writer may have to decide how to acknowledge contrary findings. In sum, the writer analyzes and decides for the reader what multiple studies add up to. This task may take some rethinking, rewriting, and some guidance from peers or Chair. 
 
* 나중에 다시 볼 것:
Chapter 4 Writing the Methods chapter, getting past Preliminary Orals, and getting started 
Chapter 5 Collecting and analyzing data, then writing up results and findings 
Chapter 6 Writing up the Discussion: conclusions and recommendations
Chapter 7 Revising the dissertation as a whole