Blog post #4
After the peer review, the first thing that I realized I need to edit was the fact that my study is going to essentially be one small drop in a nearly empty bucket. I need to better emphasize that I am mostly calling attention to the need and showing how Annett's (1982) list may or may not be relevant in a more modern era. This study is more of a prologue than an introduction.
I also have some citation errors to fix. I tried to do narrative citations, but I didn't do them properly. Thankfully Professor Bacabac pointed out where I went wrong!
Finally, I think I need to give a better overview of Annett's list. It was incredibly informal with no methods, discussion, results, nothing. Basically, he got a bunch of editor friends together, analyzed student work, and came up with ten items. I want to express how informal that study was and how I want to do the same thing but through a more academic process than just me and my friends.
Frances, these look like good starting places! It's good to reevaluate some sources and see how they might fit in a more modern scope (especially one from forty years ago), but if the information is still relevant and useful then it's still relevant and useful no matter when it originated. Agreed that citations are hard. I feel like your goal is good, to put together a more professional study from one already done and have your own spin to it. It'll be important to see where Annett failed and where you can succeed, especially since there is that forty year gap in research. I'll be looking forward to seeing how you put together your proposal!
ReplyDeleteHi, Frances!
ReplyDeleteMany thanks for sharing. Yeah, I can see why it would be both novel and frustrating to realize midway through that your research topic has barely been defined or discussed yet (especially when we're still Master's students instead of professional scholars and researchers). Ditto with the lack of rigor in Annett's (1982) list: I don't have context for that myself, but judging by what you've said, I hope there's a way to codify it and pick up where he and his students left off.
In which case, it seems to me your "prologue" of an introduction will need to be lengthier and more comprehensive than the usual abstract. When there's this little existing research, there's need for context that would otherwise be implicit or easy to find elsewhere for more well-studied, well-established areas.
And yeah: damn those pesky citations! Speaking for myself, they've always been my most glaring and obvious weakness. Thankfully, I could've certainly had it worse (being a subpar writer instead of a reasonably good one, for starters), though the rules and mechanics of different citation conventions and which types of references require information to be cited in which way has always tripped me up. At this point, I just look up how to cite a certain type of reference when I'm not sure... which, as it turns out, is pretty much all the time these days.
In any case, happy to see you've uncovered which areas need expansion or clarification. Best of luck filling those in and finalizing your research proposal. As frustrating as they are, little-studied areas have the most untapped opportunity to actually come up with something new and original. Established research has enough derivatives and deviations as is, so here's to yours breaking that trend.
All the best,
Ethan
Here’s a thoughtful peer response in your voice:
ReplyDelete⸻
I really like how self-aware your reflection is—you do a great job acknowledging that your project builds on a foundation that’s still developing, and I think framing it as “one small drop in a nearly empty bucket” is actually powerful. It shows humility while also underscoring the importance of your work in expanding the conversation. Emphasizing that your study acts as a prologue rather than a full introduction will help situate readers’ expectations and highlight your contribution as groundwork for future research.
Your plan to clarify Annett’s (1982) process sounds smart, especially since his approach was so informal. By making that contrast clear, you’ll show how your methodology strengthens and updates the original idea. Also, the citation fixes you mentioned will definitely help with readability and credibility—those narrative citations can be tricky, but it sounds like you’ve got a solid handle on what to revise. Overall, your revisions seem intentional and aligned with making your argument stronger and more transparent.
I think citation errors are going to be huge for everyone so good luck! I also have some to review
Delete