Listen to the podcast, and consider how the issues raised might be reflected (or not) in the Block 1 readings. Use the forums to check whether others in your tutor group forum share your views.
Several issues are raised regarding research funding, writing to receive funding or writing for the funders as an audience/readers, as well as writing for different communities of research, for students and at conferences, in books and via journalists, to the general public.
One interviewee talks of being vetted by a panel from the funders before publication if being allowed under the contract to publish at all. Setting out your case in a way that makes it attractive to funders.
Even before the research begins you may write a proposal with expectations of seeking external funding.
Reporting expectations drives the way research is delivered.
Research can be driven by policy. If this doesn't impact the content per se, then delivery timing are effected, with the potential of delivering extracts verbally early rather than waiting for the detail and written research- so not simply writing for a specific audience, but talking to/ ‘performing’ to such an audience too and sticking to what they want to know.
Policy makers, we learn, tend to want to know what they should do (rather than simply being presented with the findings) Chris Jones gave three kinds of report:
- one- or two-sided briefings.
- reports that can be circulated amongst practitioners, which might have some more detail.
- practitioner journals,
Then there is writing for books and indirectly to the general public, via journalists quoting a conference or reviewing a book. Generally desirable, especially where both you and the funder want the findings to be known.
Writing to present at conference may lead to writing for a journal
Here you may escape the text with audio, video or moving graphics - ‘bringing it to life’.
With the FIVE papers from Block 1 it was generally possible to see for whom the authors were writing, though only in the case of Hiltz and Meinke (1989) are the funders identified and named - insightfully, and surely indicating considerable potential bias in the paper it is seen the their own institution were financing the prototype they go on to 'test', what is more they take the opportunity to say the the Version of the Virtual Classroom they have created on an IBM Mainframes is available for lease.
Wegerif and Mercer (1997) is aimed tat fellow research academics and presumably funded interenally by the Open University.
Laurillard (1994) was making a conference presentation - which explains the light even journalistic style, and means that the chart or image that is no longer available is more important part of the presentation than may usually be the case.
Oliver et al (2007) is a chapter in a book. Written for academics and students - so havinga broader audience.
Rouen and Eliahu (2000) is a conference presentation too, financed by the Centre for Education.