What is good research?
"... to see what everybody else has seen, and to think what nobody else has thought."
Kerry introduced the triad thesis-antithesis-synthesis to assist us in forming good arguments and developing reasoning based on evidence. He mentioned that thinking or writing in terms of thesis-antithesis-synthesis can also help us position ourselves in the flow of scholarly discourse regarding our topic. Additionally, he mentioned that existing literature is essentially an on-going argument, so if we can show such a pattern of thought in a literature review, the literature review is likely to be comprehensive, thorough, and sophisticated.
The thesis is essentially an idea that we propose (e.g. high social self-efficacy enables a person to be successful in dating). In research, the thesis is the proposition. The antithesis is a response to the thesis asserted, a negation of the thesis (e.g. Z argued that people with high social self-efficacy tend to be flirts instead, hence people tend to avoid dating them). As illustrated in both examples, a conflict exists between the thesis and the antithesis. Based on the antithesis, a person with high social self-efficacy would not be successful in dating since he/she is usually known as a flirt. Perhaps social self-efficacy is one of the necessary traits for a person to be good in dating, but we also have to consider the person's appearance, personality, and experience to determine if he/she will be successful in dating. I have positioned the new idea as a synthesis of the thesis-antithesis dyad. In other words, the synthesis solves the conflict between the thesis and antithesis by reconciling both and forming a new thesis, thereby starting a new cycle of thesis-antithesis-synthesis.
Applying the thesis-antithesis-synthesis thought process has given me a better idea of how I can go about formulating good, robust, and persuasive arguments. Despite Kerry's constant emphasis on making good arguments, I have struggled considerably in this aspect. This was evident in the first literature review assignment of this course in which Kerry remarked that I have not addressed the gap, even though I have found and indicated that there is a gap in existing self-efficacy literature. Consequently, I decided to practice using the thesis-antithesis-synthesis approach on my current qualitative research project on self-efficacy beliefs and perceived career options. The exercise is shown below:
(1) Thesis: Current literature suggests that gender is by far the most important demographic factor that influences a person's self-efficacy beliefs, and his/her subsequent perceived career options.
(2) Antithesis: However, in most of the interviews which I have conducted (which involve full-time ANU CBE students), a person's social capital appears to be the most influential demographic factor that affects his/her self-efficacy beliefs and perceived career options.
(3) Synthesis: A possible explanation is that the traditional gender roles have already evolved such that the influence of gender on a person's self-efficacy beliefs and perceived career options is diminished. Consequently, a person's social capital has become the most important demographic factor in determine the level of self-efficacy a person possesses, and the formulation of his/her perceived career choices (possibly as a result of greater social inequality).
I found this exercise to be extremely useful in helping me understand what is lacking in a salient argument. From now on, I will definitely be using the above approach when constructing arguments!
"... to see what everybody else has seen, and to think what nobody else has thought."
Kerry introduced the triad thesis-antithesis-synthesis to assist us in forming good arguments and developing reasoning based on evidence. He mentioned that thinking or writing in terms of thesis-antithesis-synthesis can also help us position ourselves in the flow of scholarly discourse regarding our topic. Additionally, he mentioned that existing literature is essentially an on-going argument, so if we can show such a pattern of thought in a literature review, the literature review is likely to be comprehensive, thorough, and sophisticated.
The thesis is essentially an idea that we propose (e.g. high social self-efficacy enables a person to be successful in dating). In research, the thesis is the proposition. The antithesis is a response to the thesis asserted, a negation of the thesis (e.g. Z argued that people with high social self-efficacy tend to be flirts instead, hence people tend to avoid dating them). As illustrated in both examples, a conflict exists between the thesis and the antithesis. Based on the antithesis, a person with high social self-efficacy would not be successful in dating since he/she is usually known as a flirt. Perhaps social self-efficacy is one of the necessary traits for a person to be good in dating, but we also have to consider the person's appearance, personality, and experience to determine if he/she will be successful in dating. I have positioned the new idea as a synthesis of the thesis-antithesis dyad. In other words, the synthesis solves the conflict between the thesis and antithesis by reconciling both and forming a new thesis, thereby starting a new cycle of thesis-antithesis-synthesis.
Applying the thesis-antithesis-synthesis thought process has given me a better idea of how I can go about formulating good, robust, and persuasive arguments. Despite Kerry's constant emphasis on making good arguments, I have struggled considerably in this aspect. This was evident in the first literature review assignment of this course in which Kerry remarked that I have not addressed the gap, even though I have found and indicated that there is a gap in existing self-efficacy literature. Consequently, I decided to practice using the thesis-antithesis-synthesis approach on my current qualitative research project on self-efficacy beliefs and perceived career options. The exercise is shown below:
(1) Thesis: Current literature suggests that gender is by far the most important demographic factor that influences a person's self-efficacy beliefs, and his/her subsequent perceived career options.
(2) Antithesis: However, in most of the interviews which I have conducted (which involve full-time ANU CBE students), a person's social capital appears to be the most influential demographic factor that affects his/her self-efficacy beliefs and perceived career options.
(3) Synthesis: A possible explanation is that the traditional gender roles have already evolved such that the influence of gender on a person's self-efficacy beliefs and perceived career options is diminished. Consequently, a person's social capital has become the most important demographic factor in determine the level of self-efficacy a person possesses, and the formulation of his/her perceived career choices (possibly as a result of greater social inequality).
I found this exercise to be extremely useful in helping me understand what is lacking in a salient argument. From now on, I will definitely be using the above approach when constructing arguments!
No comments:
Post a Comment