Researcher's Notes: Your Journal

 

I was thinking whether or not to write on this topic, some might consider it too basic, instead that's what gave me motivation. We tend to ignore doing what we think is too basic.

Today's blog is about another version of blogging - writing your own research notes into your journal.

It's never too late to begin one whether you're a student who just entered college or if you're already at the year when you are about to begin your thesis writing.

I suggest getting a nice notebook, one you're comfortable with. I use an MS Word file linked to my MS Online account since I have chicken scratches masquerading as handwriting.

This becomes your journal or research notes. Name it, like, The Journal of Ronald Castillo or Castillo's Research Notes.

NOTE: Never share this special notebook to anyone. The thoughts you write there can and will become your future researches.

Jot down your observations, reflections every time you encounter a piece of news that's interesting to you. Mark the date and even time when you make an entry,

Just jot them down. No need to fret about composing your sentences. They can be phrases or short sentences or even a scribble of interconnected words (these can become conceptual maps!).

As you go on you will notice that your phrases become sentences.

Your terms become full ideas.

You begin to jot down puzzles and questions.

You begin to jot down possible answers.

You might even be able to find possible ways to prove your possible answer.

All these become building blocks of your future researches, for researches are works of proving ideas.

All these become building blocks for your publications, for publications are works of organizing and sharing your ideas.

Sometimes, you can even copy an entry in your journal and then refer to it in your thesis. I've seen published articles of social scientists who went on immersions, jotted their notes, and referred to these notes in their manuscript.

So, go and get your notebook and start making entries.

Check out our MTG card quote for today. See the quote at the bottom of the card.

Image copyrighted to Wizards of the Coast https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=571369

Logos: Relevance of '-logy' stuff

If you've ever watched Fullmetal Alchemist, you'll notice that Roy Mustang has a tool on his hand. A glove that has a symbol on the backhand part.

Here's an image of them gloves

Image from https://www.spotern.com/en/spot/tv/fullmetal-alchemist/65348/the-gloves-of-roy-mustang-in-fullmetal-alchemist

What's freaky is how the details of that symbol actually does reflect actual alchemical symbols, and reading the components of Mustang's gloves tell us that it IS about genereting and directing fire.

It's not about the drawing of a flame though. It's about the circle, the elemental triangle symbols (one of which is the code for fire) and the salamander (the elemental of fire).

On a different part of my life is me who plays a different version of Dungeons & Dragons called Mage: the Ascension where the setting is the real world and mages exist. In this world, nages are grouped into traditions, each specializing on a particular kind of magic. This specialization is cause through their PARADIGM, their frame or perspective at looking at the world.

For example, the mages which specialize in forces such as fire, water, lightning, etc., have a paradigm similar to the alchemists which use diagrams to shape the world. In comparison, the mages which specialize in mind magic use the perspective of "do" a meditative idea linking body and mind much like Buddhist monks and martial artists.

Among the nine are mages who specialize in the magic behind the magic. Those who understand the basic element of what constitutes doing what they do.

The last one sounded so abstract, right?

That brings us to our talk today.

We are usually studying a particular field and a specialization in that field. 

For example

• Political Science > Comparative Politics
• Political Science > Gender Politics
• Asian Studies > Southeast Asia
• Asian Studies > International Relations
• Economics > Macroeconomics 
• Economics > Business and Entrepreneurship

Note: Just to address technicalities, sometimes we have a field, then a track, then a specilization (Political Science > Comparative Politics > Social Movements)

Understanding this helps us give a pathway in our study track, and our eventual career paths.

This is quite concrete, in some way since it tells us what topics we focus on, where we are headed, what we do with knowledge. Just like the first two examples of mages that I mentioned above.

The third mage is puzzling though, and that is where we encounter the words which end with '-ogy.'

Methodology

Ontology

Epistemology

I listed them in degrees of abstractness. 

Methodology is the study of methods. We are familiar with it because we encounter it a lot in research and thesis writing. There are academics and researchers whose specialization is method instead of a specific topic.

In a way, ontology, has one leg in being concrete and the other in being abstract. It's the study of being. Beings can be quite abstract, you're a being, and God is a being, and humans are beings. Sometimes we are attempting to study stuff ontologically and yet we did not know that what we we're trying to do was an ontology. For example, when we argue on what being gay is, that's an ontological discussion.

We can insert phenomenology here as a another abstract thing which can relate to ontology. When we study migrants, we can focus on what makes a migrant a migrant (the being), but more often, part of being a migrant is the experience that they undergo or have undergone. Phenomenology is the study of experience. 

Finally, we have epistemology, and this is the study of knowledge itself. The study of how we know what we know, much like the third example of mages a while back who understand the magic behind the magic.

In the most basic sense, we know that we search for knowledge when we study. Epistemology gives us understanding of the process on how we gain knowledge, and even on the higher levels of understanding information.

This is best understood in sociological political science research, which is where I'm specializing now in my PhD studies here in Taiwan.

I enrolled in Research Theory of Ethnology, the class has lots of classic readings. We're required to read them all, we submit a summary every week, and we are required to participate in weekly discussions.

The spartan training supplements the content of the class, and it bears excellent fruit.

Ethnography is a method and a field of study which focuses on civilizations and cultures. That's my operational definition though (there's political issues in the definition).

Ethnology is an epistemology which provides pathways for ethnography to work.

The magic behind the magic. 

So, know what end you are trying to achieve, it will inform you what "-logy" you are doing. 

In research:

• It will help inform you of much more literature to enrich your study.
• It will help you craft your design.
• It will help you form your argument better.
• It will help you better understand your topic.

In academic life:

• Need I say more? It helps you study better.
• It gives you better understanding.
• It helps you review.
• It will give you mastery on the subject.
• It leads you from knowledge to wisdom.
• Need I say more?

In debates:

• It helps you understand the angles around the topic.
• It helps you strategize your argument.
• It helps you dismantle the opposing arguments.
• It makes you open to the truth if the opponent is making sense, making you the bigger person.
• It elevates debate to discourse.

So, how do we do epistemologies and thus gain access to the magic behind the magic of knowledge? There is an entire body of materials on epistemology. But here are practical stuff.

• You are doing it whenever you do reviews of related literatures.
• You are doing it when you focus on how a researcher did their method.
• You are doing it when you focus on how a researcher formulated their argument.
• You do it everytime you read this blog.
• You did it when you gave value to your 101 class (i.e. Psych 101, Econ 101, it's Political Science as a Profession or Pol 201 or Pol 3211 in political science at the University of Santo Tomas)
• You do it when you value the "intro to" classes.
• There are certain "minor" or general education classes (logic, rhetoric) which also help you epistemologize.
• You also do it when you read, listen, participate in pedagogical and co-curricular stuff. I.e. attending conferences, publishing, apprentice as a Research Assistant or Teaching Assistant.
• Read on updates regarding your discipline. These are usually in purely academic journals where the articles are about what's going on in the field rather than the specific topics.

Of course, I won't end without our Magic:the Gathering flavor text of the day. Check out the quote on this card.

Image Copyright to https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=442960

Speed Reading: My Strategies

Mind you, I used to be a slow reader since I like to enjoy fiction. This kind of clashes when I need to read non-fiction and then there's limited time since the readings are needed for class.

All of us students encounter tons of readings. Students of Political Science take this as a measure of pride. Hence, conversely, to balk from readings is in a way shameful.

But how do we deal with tons of readings, be agile in moving across multiple materials, be fast in consuming them, and consume them properly with comprehension?

I'd like to directly point out our MtG card for today below, check out the quote and think on it.

Know the readings, don't memorize them all, but strategically memorize and understand the key parts. This is one strategy.

Let's go further

Sparta

It was nice that on day one of one of our major subjects here in Taiwn, our professor Dr. Lev Nachman iterated one of the lessons I learned from Elle Woods in Legally Blonde 1. Divide and conquer the readings in groups.

If there's one reading, divide the outline, each member does a part, make quality notes, then discuss AS a group.  Voila! What could have consumed several hours in reading is consumed in a shorter time.

But what about the human component? You know, how can you trust group members to do quality?

I once thought that a Spartan attitude is the best, be strict, threaten to remove members who can't contribute.

But sometimes this isn't easy specially since these people are probably friends and classmates.

But truth is, the essence of Spartan training isn't simply about being strict. It's quality itself.

My group doesn't do notes, we discuss in a weekly basis on a regular schedule.

Anyone who can't, will of course not be able to contribute.  They're excused, but they also get nothing since they miss the discussion

Before, we had the official contingency that members take duplicate parts so that if one can't attend, then somebody else can cover.

But the thing is, the Spartan group is working well and everyone is seeing the results so much so that none wants to miss meetings and everyone does their part.

Quality over stress.

Hunt

It's officially called "gutting" strategy (thanks to my classmate, Marvin, for informing me of the name), I call it hunting. It's just one word, but this skill developed from training under Dr. Nachman, my professor in being an International PhD in Asia Pacific Studies, and also from Dr. Work, my professor in Research Theory of Ethnology.

Remember in a previous post, we have ACE-Fa from Dr. Work 

• Argument
• Conversation
• Evidence

Dr. Nachman had a similar albeit more detailed outline.  Here it included: variables, method, data (which in a way coincides with evidence), findings, and takeaway.

Let's have something tasty to better process. We have a nice delicious noodle dish in the Philippines called palabok. It's got rice noodles and a seafood sauce topped with (depending on the province) either bits of seafood like shrimp and squid or ground pork, but either way there's also pork crackling crumble on top. Nice right?  Relevance, the mix of toppings eventually became a name for people who add too much details on what they say eventually to the expression: "You say a lot of palabok!" to people who give long winded statements. In editorial jargon, we call this in English as "fluff." 

Relevance? The readings usually have a lot of fluff.

But if you begin the reading by hunting, you can skim to find what's needed and in a short time, consume the material.

So if you hunt, you are looking for WHAT and WHERE?

• Problem/Puzzle - usually at the introduction and/or abstract.
• The answer/argument - usually same location, also iterated in the conclusion.
• Conversation - RRL
• Method - you should know this by now
• Data - see previous bullet, but seriously, when we look for data, then tat means we're hunting for the evidences that the reading is using to prove the argument, so hunt based on this.
• Takeaway - look inside yourself 👀

Sniff and taste the blood, the sport of hunting will give you a nice prize at the end.

Ignore the bluff

We usually feel intimidated by the length/volume/breadth/number of the readings.

If you divided and conquered, multiple readings is dealt with.

If you hunt, you then ignore the number of pages of an article or book. Who cares, what you need are the actual gems that you're hunting for, and you know where they are. Bonus if the writer used signposts (i.e. My argument, this is because, evidenced by... - just samples).

In the end, you will realize that you understood the reading and didn't think of the page numbers.

Ignore the threat, it's a bluff. Chill and enjoy the hunt.

Photo Copyrighted to Wizards of the Coast, Inc., https://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=83133&type=card

Jargon, Method, Design

Matches

It’s quite possble that we can have brilliant ideas but the panel of experts to whom we submit a proposal find the proposal unacceptable and gives us a ton of, “why not do this instead.”

This can mean that either you’re encountering “reviewer 2” (there’s a current FB group now who makes fun of the personas of “reviewer number 2.”)

Or

The way the proposal was constructed did not easily convey the brilliance that was being communicated.

Let’s get the easier one out of the way first: grammar and composition.

• Make sure to have checked with Grammarly (even with the free one).
• Maker sure to double check using MS Word Editor (even if you used a paid version of Grammarly).
• Make sure to have someone else reread for you (you can make a mistake and not see it when you reread simply because you thought what you did was correct, so be humble and ask a friend to be critical and be thankful for critical comments).
• Make sure to reread since it’s you who wrote it and restating certainb parts or not should be your decision.

Now for the more adavanced: Jargon.

Jargon is the secret handshake of the discipline where you hope to be accepted as either a bachelor of, a master of, or a doctor of.

Each discipline has their own way of wording and saying things (note “wording” as using terms, and “saying” as way of composing sentences and even paragraphs). Each discipline also has their own writing style i.e. APA, MLA, Chicago (those are not just for citations).

Research also has its own nuances when it comes to communication.

There’s the design of the research (which is technical, like case study, phenomenology, hypothesis testing, descriiptive profiling) and the design of the manuscript (the organization of the manuscript content, which can be a bit creative but yet should be tempered logically).

Oftentimes, these should mix like a nicely chosen set of clothes in order to work well.

Take for example, using the phrase “to prove” is usually quantitative jargon specially if you are trying to etablish that your independent variable does affect the dependent variable.

This does not mean that qualitative does not prove. So, you also have to dig deep on what you are trying to prove.

Measure is also a word that tends to be quite quantitative. It’s going to be weird if you are describing the impact (i.e. Fragmented, unified, facilitated, corrected) and then you use the word measure when you are not even measuring (high, low). Again, what are you using the evidence for?

We talked about “beginning at the end” last week, and it’s a good thought also for today.

What are you trying to do?

So, make sure that your jargon, your method, and your design matches with what your envisioned purpose of the research is.

A larger purpose

Speaking of purpose, there's another end which should be considered when you think of why you are writing. Each of the three ranks of higher education produce an magnum opus (Trans. from Latin = Great Work," opus for short).

• Bachelors (undergrads) and the Masters (1st rank of postgrad) both produce their own thesis.
• Doctors (PhDs) write a dissertation. 

Here's a trivia. Universities are defined as a community of scholars. Individuals who produce knowledge.

The Bachelors produce knowledge by testing existing theories (I will consider that as a minimum, if you can produce the ones in the next rank, why not). 

Doctors produce knowledge by formulating theories and even laws within the discipline (I.e. Huntington's Theory on the Clash of Civilizations, Michel's Iron Law of Oligarchy).

Masters are in between, they can either test theory or create one.

How does this factor in on your research?

Knowing that you are either producing or testing theory helps you develop your review of literatures.

• It helps you in how to treat your theoretical framework and conceptual framework.
• It helps you in finding out what evidence (data) you need,
• It helps you determine what method and design to use in gathering and analyzing the evidence.
• It helps you know what jargon to use.
• It gives you a bigger purpose. Don't write for submission, write because you have something to say (as what I've said in Principles of Writing, and in the first post last October).

Just look at this link for inspiring examples so that you can have a perspective on why in the nine hells are you taking your degree. This is not to pressure, it's to inspire.

Also check out our MTG card for today below. It's Minamo School of Wizards, the Japanese MTG version of Hogwarts, nicely situated above a waterfall. Check out the quote in the card.

Photo credit to Wizards of the Coast, Inc.,    https://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=79179&type=card

Begin at the End

There was a nice discussion on differences on dependent variable treatment yesterday in Dr. Nachman's class where we talked about choosing dependent variables.

You see, dependent variables are the end half of an argument's equation.

Independent Variable (ID) -> Dependent Variable (DV)

The ID impacts on the DV,

      or the ID causes the DV... etc...

In quantitative research, you don't select sample cases based on the dependent variable for the reason that quantification usually means you are trying to prove the relationship that the ID cased or has an effect on the DV.

But in qualitative, you can sometimes make the sample choices based on the DV because you are not proving that the ID did impact on the DV but rather what you are trying to discover is on how.

But that's not why we are here today, I simply used that to introduce our topic. Begin with the end in mind (which in a way related to making choices based on DVs 😀 ).

What we've been focusing on in the past few weeks are things that help us write or help us begin to write, or even the ingredients that we can use as we do so.

For today we have these important life-research lessons, akin to my predilections on being practical and economic in any action that I do.

Esteemed educator and researcher Dr. Allan De Guzman speaks of the tenet - "When the why is clear, the how is easy."

So, keep that in mind as you begin to even think of writing. What's your end goal?

Let's further translate that here into practical samples.

Why write if the only goal is submit in class? There's a weirdness to this. Professors usually have "publishable" as the top quality for the highest scores for class papers.

Here's a scenario, we usually have insight or good manner of expressing ourselves or both. These things get us recognition on the potential of our work. But, are they journal ready?

That's our goal for today because it's sad that sometimes it's such an effort to revise after submission that papers with good potential already get pushed on the side and seldom get submitted,

Here are important strategies to note.

• What discipline or sub-discipline are you writing for? This will impact on several things that may need to be redone if you did not have this in mind.
• If you know the discipline, then you will know two things (or find out). 1. What journals do publish such material as you have in mind to write. 2. What's the writing style?
• Most disciplines have their own style. For example, most political science researches use APA, but political theory use Chicago (and usually footnote rather than parenthetical in-text citations).
• There's also another factor, sometimes the journal itself has a preferred citation style, so after you determine the discipline, look for your target journal.
• But how about if you get rejected and need to shift journals and the new journal has a different preferred style? That's where citation tools are useful. I checked with a prominent journal and even they say that people should not be doing manual method of writing bibliographies/references anymore. This is because if you need to shift, then all you will need to do is change the format of the tool and the entire list of references (along with the in-text) will be updated. Remember our last magic card, use the tools!
• TAKE NOTE THOUGH! I used the wording "writing style" awhile back on bullet 2. APA, Chicago, MLA... those are not just citation formats. They are Manuals of Style. The way they organize written text contain unique nuances that say "hey, this is written for this particular academic community who happen to speak the same academic language." So, the heading style, outline numbering, and even captioning may be different. Not all of these cannot be automated, though there are tutorials on YouTube on how to automate (I wouldn't say they're complete though). The rule here is know the style and adjust as necessary. 
• Another element of writing style is what mode of English do they use? American or British? So, best to begin with this in mid too.
• More often than not, the "sciences" use third person in writing. But there are particular subdisciplines in political science which doesn't do so. Again, if you know the journal, then you're better off.

Those are but a few, but they can help save you a big chunk of time and even help you publish.

Don't let your ideas go to waste as simply submissions that end up only in your hard drive.

Check out the systematic system on how goblins use artillery in today's MTG card (I don't agree in using people as cannon fodder though, just be systematic please).

Image copyrighted to Wizards of the Coast: https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=45467

Arguments and Variables

 Let’s the the basics of the building blocks of an argument - varaibles.

We always talk about this when reading, analyzing, or doing research, but what are they?

One way to see them are as subjects and predicates of a sentence.

If you’ve undertook logic classs before, it’s also similar.

I.e. Something is ______.

The most basic format of a statement. Mind you not all statements are argumentative statements.

Basically, there’s at least three in political science.

1. Sample - you argue, women should not expect men to treat them like delicate flowers (Wollstonecrafts argument). This is a normative argument, it’s not testable, but it’s arguable. Your purpose here is to give support for you argument on why a certain gender (women) should act based on a particular norm (being treated delicately).
2. Sample - you argue, more women in government reduces corruption. This is a positive statement, it’s arguable, and can be tested (you can check a number of governments and see if they do). What you are doing here is try tp prove that governments with more elected women officials really do reduce corruption. Notice a difference, normative arguments say how things should be, while positive arguments try to describe the world.
3. Sample - you argue, Philippine civil society is on a decline. This is an evaluative or assessment argument. You’re making judgement on something based on a particular set criteria.

Variables are the components of the argument that have “variations.”

Let’s see,

1. In the first sample, if we simply look at the specificity of the argument, there might not seem any variation. But when we look at the classes over which the two parts belong, women is a variation of gender. Expectation of treatment is another and is a variation of s norm. You can also frame your variable in terms of what kind of women should abide by this proposed argument? Strong women? Though that can cause a different for of debate. But rermember, the quality is arguable, then expect a debate on the topic.
2. The second example is where Independent and Dependent Variables are usually used. The idea of dependence and independence ais a relationship etween them. The Independent variable usually has an impact on the dependent. Hence, in the example, Corruption is a variable, it’s the dependent. It’s affected by the kind of gender that officials have (or even the number of a kind of gender, multiple variations). Gender here is the independent variable. So what’s the variations for corruption? In the case of this argument, it’s degree, so we’re talking about a potential quantitative study. The same for woemen, the variation ca be the high or low number of women officials.
3. In the third sample, there was only one variable, and we’retrying to see the variation in terms of the Philippine’s civil society. Sometimes you can just do it this way, but may seem incomplete. You can instead evaluate the civil society’s effectiveness in advocating for human rights. So here you already know what category it’s being evaluated.  You can check variations of civic activity (i.e. Rallies, social media engagement, membership), it’s your independent variable. How did we know t’s independent though? Check out the operational connector between them - “effectiveness” so who (IV) afects who (DV). Another variation that you ca research here is the degree of effectiveness.

These are the basic building blocks of an argument. So check it out for yourself, think of current issues, identify variables and their potential units of variation. Are the units numeric? Then your research will be quantitative. Are the units words and ideas? Then your research will be qualitative.

It’s part of the science, you don’t choose the method because you like or don’t like math. You choose it because it matches your argument. Then you recruit a statistician or a data analyst if you have a particular weakness on the method.

This links us back to niche. As I mentioned last time, your niche is your expertise or even your passion or concern. And this can be either your dependent or independent variables.  I.e. Gender, corruption, environment, pollution, etc. Or your expertise can be on a particular method.

This coincides with flavor text for our Magic: The Gathering card for today, check it out below.

(Photo credit to Wizards of The Coast, Inc., https://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=175138&type=card)

Your Niche

I was thinking whether or not to write on this topic since it can cause problems if mishandled. But it's still an important element of why we write so, let's disentangle the puzzle.

The "niche" or research niche is your academic expertise. The problem is, not everyone has a clear cut vision on where they want to go. Some students are not even sure of their own course, or some family reason is why they're not in the course that they want. I won't answer those directly but rather with this discourse: 

• It's always better to have a plan. Education is expensive, best to maximize the years spent on your course. 
• BUT
• If you don't have a plan yet, BE STILL, get a moment where you can talk to yourself and find out your plan.
• BUT
• If your "self" is being silent, or you don't have a moment to BE STIL, then ask yourself for now, what is your take away from where you are now? I.e. your course/program.
• BUT
• If you're not having any takeaway, there's something terribly wrong going on. You have to address this.
• BUT
• If you can't address it, then just have fun. This is the counterpoise in the not everyone has a plan yet. Don't stress yourself, don't overburden with yourself with drama queen stuff like "I'm just trying to get through." Laugh at the ridiculousness of the situation and find something fun to do while doing the reality of "getting through."

- - - 

Let's now focus on the practicality of a niche, maybe this can help guide you find yours (if you don't know yet), or help you plan along yours (if you already have).

Your thesis whether college, master's or PhD (dissertation) is the crowning glory of that level's academic life. That's the reason why I have a bias against courses that don't do a thesis. Take note, even students at the Conservatory of Music may not have a "thesis" per se but they have a recital, which is just the same - the test and outcome which proves that you have mastered that level.

We have to go through a tour of an institution in Robert Jordan's The Wheel of Time novels in order to do this (no worries, no spoilers).

This institution is the White Tower, headquarters of the Aes Sedai (trans. from the Old Tongue = Servants of All). The Aes Sedai are humans gifted with the power to channel power, but what's most important is aside from the fictional supernatural power that they train to use, they also specialize in two other powers: knowledge and politics (that's why the prequel, New Spring is usually first reading for political science freshmen when I used to teach Political Science as a Profession). At present in the timeline of the books, Aes Sedai were all women (I won't go into the details), and in order to attain the rank of "Aes Sedai, a girl enters the White Tower and becomes a Novice. Novices are expected to attend their classes, follow the prescribed lessons, follow instructions, and not to question their teachers (I kind of disagree with the last one). After years of training and a difficult test, the novice is promoted to the rank of Accepted. The Accepted gain a certain degree of freedom, they get to choose what they want to study, choose their time for lessons with specific teachers, and are expected to question things. Again, grueling years of training and a test (the political science freshmen usually encounter this in New Spring) called the Hundred Weaves, then woman is raised to Aes Sedai, and one Aes Sedai (Cadsuane Melaidhrin, Aes Sedai of the Green Ajah) comments while reminiscing her years after her "graduation" that that is the point when one truly learns.

There was a huge fan run website called WoTmania and it contained a rich collection of fan activity. Seriously, RICH. There was a section on theories where site registered members can post well thought of theories, and you will suspect that the people posting are either college or post-college level students.

I found an article there that likened the 3 ranks as college, master's and PhD's (sadly WoTmania has been closed after the devastation of Jordan's death). Another argued that the three ranks are elementary, high school, and college.

So, you have x years before writing your research, usually it's on your second or third year. 

• IF you treat your brains like a temporary computer memory rather than a hard drive, then we have a problem, because where's the mastery?

• IF you are not taking something away for your future plans, then we have a problem (I say we because sometimes, it's not the student but something else which is the cause, yes TEA 😎 ).

• IF you get nothing in each course that's useful to your future writing, then again, problem.

So, keep in heart the lessons, the readings, and all discussions, because you will need them.

It's from here where you might be able to find your niche.  Attend to your lessons.

Another is, like the Accepted, find an expert and learn from them. It's like an apprenticeship. Being a Research Assistant (RA) or Teaching/Teacher's Assistant (TA) is an example.

And always remember what Cadsuane Sedai said, after graduation is when you truly learn. Hence, after High School graduation, you are a student in college, open your mind and use the previous lessons, don't make them hindrance to fill in your brain. If the muscles of the body get toned by working out, then do the brain workouts.

Let's end today with the quote from the card below. A quote with so many layers. An Adept is someone who has attained expertise (PhD) in a field (a niche). There is often a temptation that makes people arrogant, avoid that temptation. In the quote, don't follow the idea of taking something that is not yours though, let it be a proscription (not to do). Never plagiarize, get your takeaway from the lessons, "the things that will be yours" when you write your own ideas. And make your own ideas, propose them and support them with evidence. That's the essence of an original thesis.

Image from Wizards of The Coast, Inc., https://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=4729&type=card

The Elementary Chicken and Egg Question

It's day 2 of the cold period of Autumn here now and it's difficult to get out from wanting to stay in bed and just enjoy the cold while under a warm comforter.  So, I'll do my brain warm-up with this blogpost before proceeding to do my writing tasks today.

***

There was a style during the dinosaur era of thesis writing when the main problem in the Statement of The Problem and the Title of the thesis reflect each other syntactically, that is, the former is in a statement which is like a question made into a declarative sentence of what ought to be answered while the latter is either a description of how you have answered such question or a teaser the answer itself..

Let's have samples

Statement of the Problem: This research seeks to answer how federalism is applicable to the Republic of the Philippines.  (Note that the question is embedded in the declarative sentence.)

Title: Federalism and Its Potential Application to the Republic of the Philippines (teaser answer, a bit more modern than the time of the dinosaurs)

Title: An Comparative Constitutional Analysis on the Potential Application of Federalism on the Republic of the Philippines (tells how you answered the question).

Note: These samples are in my successfully defended Master's thesis.  Just Google Castillo Philippines Federalism (yes, flex that I'm googleable 😅 )

Now from this exercise, what we can notice are important elements of what makes an argument.

Concept Note: Sometimes we forget the breadth and depth of the terms that we use. My esteemed professor on the Philosophy of Man, Dr. Florentino Hornedo, reminded our class on what element is: something that constitutes another thing, or the basic building blocks of a thing.  Without them the thing is either incomplete or it is already something different.

So, we have:

• problems/puzzles
• arguments/theses 
• and the how you bridged them or how you answered them - your methodology

The question on what goes first among the three is a triadic version of the chicken and egg version, and my answer is "it depends." What we're here for today is how do we begin, in this case for each.

Let's begin with the unique one (therefore less likely, and in a way, more advanced, plus easier to describe for this blog).

When you use method as part of a title, even modern titles still do it (but you will see points of difference from the true dinosaurs) it's the part of the method uses is usually the design.  I.e. case study, regression analysis, fuzzy models, ethnography, etc. There are unique researchers who's research niches are not on specific topics, i.e. public policy, leviathans, IR, American politics, clientelist politics, environment, etc., but rather on the method. They have a mastery of a specific design and they usually or always use it. 

There's an important takeaway from there, familiarity. It;s a person's familiarity with the method which makes it a good first step for each research undertaking.

Let's look into disciplinary topics rather than methods: puzzles and arguments.

I once said in the "Principles of Writing" previously posted on this blog that you write  because you have something to say - an argument.

But what makes a valid argument?

This is can be tempered by the puzzle that you are tinkering on.

One thing that can block us is that we don't have a clear puzzle because we are unfamiliar with the world of our discipline.

So, check yourself:

• Have you conversed with both the classic and the contemporary masters? (the writers who were the classic references on the topic, and the most recent celebrities being talked about on that particular topic) i.e. if you're doing Federalism, have you read the Federalist Papers, Elazar for classic and international sources? Have you read Pimentel, Abueva, and Tayao among the contemporary Philippine sources? This tells you the state of the discussion. Imagine, there's this debate and you butt in with a statement which has already been said. The shame.  So what's new with yours?  What do you bring into the debate?  Is there something unanswered in the debate?
• Have you been out and about or have you simply been going to school-home-gimmick/hangouts cycle and no other exposure? I.e. do you go out for community engagement? Have you been to congress? Have you attended a rally?  You don't need all of these but have you participated in on what you plan to write on? Sometimes we have no problem because things are tyoo abstract for us.
• Have you been reading the news? This is a twin to the previous one.  It helps you look into what's going on in the world.
• Are you familiar with history? 

Check out the flavor quote on this card in my favorite card game.

Image from Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

Don't just do one.

The other thing that can block us in arguing is the degree of our familiarity with our discipline.

So, let's look at elemental components of the discipline as a study, since arguments become knowledge within the field (it's science).

Look at these arguments:

• Justice should be fairness (Rawls).
• What makes a strong state is the formation of elite pacts in response to the critical juncture of contentious politics (from Slater's "Ordering Power").
• Policy salience causes a thermostatic response on voter behavior (Chris Wlezein).

The first one is a normative argument. It proposes a mode of behavior,  This is done through politically theorizing on the concepts of justice and fairness. It doesn't mean that it is done without field work or any systematic method.  There's a qualitative method for these.

The second one is an empirical qualitative argument describing the foundation of state power. It described historical events on the formation of states.

The third one is an empirical quantitative argument. It can statistically test if policy salience does makes voters change their vote from one election and the next election.

There are many other possible variations. But, what can we take away from that exercise? Here are some key points?

• Is your argument too specific such that only people in your barangay, town, or country might be interested?  I.e. "Duterte is a an efficient chief executive." Is too specific as a study and better as a news opinion page article. But if you make a study on what makes chief executives inefficient, then you are on to something.
• Is your argument debatable? To say that "All chief executives should prioritize public service." Is a generalizable statement but it's undebatable (since it's already acceptable).  But if you can make can propose, x,y, and z constitute the qualities of a good leader, then it's more debatable since I can argue a different set or I can propose an addition to your list. 
• Is your argument testable? The previous example is also untestable, it is something that says something should be done.  The counterposed one that I gave is testable, let's see, let's go to this leader who is supposed to be a good leader, do they have such qualities? Wow, the list is incomplete.  Ok, new paper.
• Is your argument positive? It should say what something is rather than what it is not.  I.e. "The Philippine government is not a true democracy." Ok, so what is it?  

Ok, that's it for now.  Up next week is a short one on niches and publishing, to be followed by thinking of variables.

All that talk on theory and where do we begin writing...

I haven't posted since I left Manila almost a year ago.  It will actually be 1 year in 5 days from today.  I guess the auspice of today being International Teacher's Day is a good start to share things.  Some quick blog nuances.  You might notice a pattern on the authorship of each blogpost as you go down the archives.  Sometimes it's my moniker in Spart - Empress - and sometimes it's the more formal full name with the official pre/suffixes.  The blog was born from my old personal email, which got associated to the moniker. I've added the formal email for the sake of the accreditations that Sparta encounters, a bit of homage to our honored guests.

But for the time being, I'll be using the one with the moniker since I'm writing as a faculty on leave and currently studying here in Taiwan. 

With that, let's go to the heart of today's post.

I've been pondering on the puzzle of my own upcoming dissertation writing life, and thus my research questions.  This part is a constant reminder to me by my adviser, Natalie (Wong, one of the coolest and insightful professors ever, don't ever call her by full name nor address her with 'professor' that's how she jams).  Part and parcel of having a topic is having a set of research questions. 

The answer to your research question is your thesis, the word thesis being synonymous to argument.

Not addressing this ends up with the usual, we have a topic but no argument.

Note: as a way of illustrating I'd sometimes refer to my topic, but since I don;t like broadcasting ideas until it gets published, we will affectionately call it WITNHIT (short for what in the nine hells is that!?)

Going back, so we have questions and the argument we pose to address that question.

There's another cool prof that I have this semester, Dr. Lev Nachman. One of the cool parts is that he graduated from UCI, so I can imagine myself as being mentored by a professor from the mythical CalSci (hi Daniella and Lolit :) ) in the Numb3rs TV series :D.

But he's got a really nice engaging way of class discussions.  During these he calls the question or what is generally called "problem" as PUZZLE/S.

Let use that for our own mindwalk. 

As political or social students, let's imagine ourselves at a place, our potential study site?

Imagine the phenomenon, the event we're interested with, i.e. an election, a protest, a something happening at a market place, an accident, a disaster, or a fan meet?

Is there anything puzzling?

Here's where one of my favorite quotes in magic the gathering comes in :D

(Photo from Wizards of the Coast, Inc.)

Yes look and observe, see the building blocks: who, what, when, where.

Then check the higher order parts: why and how?

There was a great war in the the early and mid 1900's, who were involved? what was done? 

But why? and how?

Now let's take it a bit further.  Is this how and/or why causal?

It's from this where you can proceed even toward your methodology - is there a systematic way on how I can prove this how/why?

But we're not here today for method, we're here on the germ from which we begin research.

And we have puzzles, theses, and also a third one: theory.

You could've began thinking of your topic because you saw a puzzle (question/problem).

You could've began thinking of a topic because you have an argument (we'll do a separate one on the ramifications of this next week).

And you could also begin with theory.

How best do we use theory?

A theory is already an existing argument in the body  of literature.

I.e. Weber's, Tilly's, Castillo's (ehem, just kidding on the third).

One way is...

Since a theory exists, then if there's already a detailed set of variables on that theory, you can test it.  This is conducted quantitatively.

This reminds us also of systematic thinking.  You can't just choose quanti over quali because math is your weakness or you like math over reading long interviews.

Just like any part of a thesis, can you defend it? I.e. this study quantitative because the author is testing X's theoty, which was originally used in North America, and we are now testing it's universality by testing it across the Pacific, in Southeast Asia.

Another way is 

You are either challenging the theory or expanding on the theory by qualitatively looking at possible variations of the original variables.  I.e. An argument says that state failure (dependent variable) is caused by the loss of monopoly of the use of force (independent variable).  Is it possible that there may be other causes other than the loss of this state capacity?  Notice now that I classified "monopoly of the use of force" under "state capacity." (this is where your excellent grasp of concepts and jargons after more than two years in the discipline comes in).  

Since one concept can belong under the umbrella of another, and there's possibility of other concepts within that same umbrella, then a possible pathway for the analytic methodology is classification.  I.e. this paper intends to classify variations of causes of state failure in the Middle East.

Or, you might instead map out the process on how "capacity to monopolize use of force" is lost.  In this case you are discovering processes rather than categories. 

A variation of this way is

You have an alternative theory to clash with the first theory or your possible findings will create a new theory.

Before we close for this post, a reminder.

One reason why you have tons of readings is that it gives you insights on the vast body of literatures that there are within the discipline.  This in a way is your preparation which leads you either to a puzzle, an argument, or a counter theory for your own writing.

Another is field exposure, that is why going out of the four corners of the classroom is important.

Field trips are not often but...

Every time you read the news, you are going out to the field (note that reputable news, magazines, and books are literatures too.

Every time you go out to engage with communities, i.e. community development activities.

So go out and about.  Observe, take notes in your mind or jot them down in a JOURNAL of your own, like some field researching Indian Jones.

And think of readings a puzzles that you are unlocking:

Let's end with another cool prof.  Dr. Courtney Work, my powerful professor of ethnology who gives us ACE-FA

That's the:

Argument

Conversation (how did the author talk to other authors - that's his/her/their review of literature, so that you know how to do yours)

Evidences (how did the paper prove the argument? what evidences?)

Those three are at the heart of the readings.

FA are for checking out quality (for when you are the one picking up references)

Funding - so you know if the author is biased or has real clout.

Author - let's you know of the reputability of the article (also check out the quality of the journal, more on this in future posts)

That's it for now.

Happy International Teacher's Day to me, my mentors, and my colleagues.

My presentation at KISA 13/APISA 15

<iframe title="vimeo-player" src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/651852191?h=d81755a399" width="640" height="360" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>