OU blog

Personal Blogs

Design Museum

H809 Activity 6.2: Effects of audience on research (1 hour)

Visible to anyone in the world

 

Activity 6.2: Effects of audience on research (1 hour)

In the light of Activity 6.1, look again at the research question you chose for TMA01.

  • What kinds of audience were you assuming for the research findings?
  • How might this research question, and/or the methods you chose, be different for different audiences?

Post your thoughts in your tutor group discussion forum.

REPLY

The suggestion is that I am writing to a community of fellow researchers working towards the 'cutting edge' of e-learning in health care, in this instance to support patients and improve patient outcomes, through drawing on literature where various interventions have been successful with doctors.

If written for potential funders then, like the elevator pitch' for a movie script then my inclination would be to spice it up, certainly to push what is unique harder, but also to flag up those few papers that suggest that research of this nature is now required as the next step. i.e. to sell the logical progression of building on what has gone before, using my own experience and skills to say to funders 'you would be backing a safe pair of hands'.

The audience none of the papers talk about are the participants themselves. This is where an inevitable shift is occurring as patients chose to be better informed and in one piece of research I was reading the interviews were compromised as earlier interviewees had posted the questions and their responses online. Currently, from what I have read, the general public are reached via the press. In future, not just through books, radio and TV appearances, but also in blogs and other social media, academics will find they have an audience that includes students (not just their own), and other interested parties.

Just as a conference paper can lead to writing an article for a journal in future there are likely to be other audiences to be written for.

Rather than tailoring niche research for different audiences, as a hypothetical exercise I have presumed the funding would permit a broad approach that would generate material that would, edited and written and expressed in an appropriate way, suit a variety of audiences. Under Creative Commons some content might be offered to a community on the Internet to mash-up, share, curate on other platforms and so on - if the Social Media purpose is to 'spread the word' let those who are best at doing it do it.

 

 

 

 

 

Permalink Add your comment
Share post
Design Museum

H809 Activity 6.1: Audiences podcast

Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Jonathan Vernon, Sunday, 24 Mar 2013, 13:13

Activity 6.1: Audiences podcast (2 hours)

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:
  1. one- or two-sided briefings.
  2. reports that can be circulated amongst practitioners, which might have some more detail.
  3. 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.

Permalink Add your comment
Share post

This blog might contain posts that are only visible to logged-in users, or where only logged-in users can comment. If you have an account on the system, please log in for full access.

Total visits to this blog: 5475615