초보연구자들의 논문쓰기: 무엇을 어려워하고 무엇을 필요로하는가? 

Scientific Writing of Novice Researchers: What Difficulties and Encouragements Do They Encounter?

Jatin Shah, BAMS, Anand Shah, MD, MPH, and Ricardo Pietrobon, MD, PhD, MBA





PURPOSE:

초보 연구자들에게 논문작성은 겁나는 일이다. 본 연구에서 연구자들은 초보연구자들이 논문을 작성하는 과정에서 겪는 경험을 평가하여 주된 어려움이 무엇이며 어떤 도움이 필요한지 알아보았다.

Writing scientific articles is a daunting task for novice researchers. In this qualitative study carried out in 2007, the authors evaluated the experiences of a group of novice researchers engaged in the writing process, to elucidate the main difficulties and sources of encouragement they encountered.


METHOD:

16명의 초보연구자들을 면담하였다. 대부분 여성이었으며, 의학, 간호학, 물리치료 학위 소지자 순서로 많았다. 인터뷰 대상자는 온라인 논문작성 강의 수강에 대한 RCT에 참여한 사람들 중에서 Convenience sampling 방법을 활용하여 선정하였으며 각각 4명의 학생을 한 단위로 하여 포커스그룹 인터뷰를 진행하였다. 면담 결과는 녹취하여 두 명의 저자가 독립적으로 읽은 다음 grounded theory 원칙에 따라서 코딩하였다. 여기서 드러난 카테고리를 주요 주제로 변환시켜서 참여자들로 하여금 확인하게 하였고, 다섯 명의 글쓰기 교육 전문가들과의 토론을 통해 triangulation을 하였다.

Sixteen novice researchers were interviewed. Most were women (10), and most were enrolled in programs of medicine (9), followed by nursing (4) and physical therapy (3). These were drawn via convenience sampling from a randomized control trial in which 48 of them were equally assigned to either an online or a face-to-face course of instruction. On completion, interviews were conducted in focus groups of four students each. The interviews were transcribed and read independently by two of the authors, who then encoded the material based on the principles of grounded theory. Initial categories were converted to major emerging themes, which were validated when participants were asked to review the findings. Triangulation of results was carried out by discussing the emerging themes in an online forum with five specialists in college writing education.


RESULTS:

네 가지 주요 주제가 드러났다. 인지적 부담(cognitive burden), 공저자들의 지원과 멘토링(group support and mentoring), 구조와 내용을 모두 갖추는 것의 어려움(difficulty in distinguishing between content and structure), 원고의 후향적 설계(backward design of manuscript).

Classifying the diverse responses of participants led to the emergence of four major themes: cognitive burden, group support and mentoring, difficulty in distinguishing between content and structure, and backward design of manuscripts.


CONCLUSIONS:

본 연구에서 드러난 주제들로부터 초보연구자들이 어떤 어려움을 겪는가를 알 수 있었으며, 이러한 것들을 해결해줌으로써 논문작성에 큰 도움을 줄 수 있을 것이다.

The themes produced by this study provide some insight into the challenges faced by novice researchers in their early attempts at scientific writing. Remedies that address these challenges are needed to substantially improve scientific writing instruction.





  • Instruction in scientific writing and subsequent publication in peer-reviewed journals will help novice researchers refine their ideas and increase their expertise, because the act of writing is itself a valuable tool for learning and for fostering the scientific thought process2—this aligns with the principles of the “writing to learn” movement.3,4



  • Virtual writing environments were created with the application Writely, now known as Google Documents,10 which allowed documents to be shared among study participants and investigators. Local environments included word processors residing on participants’ computers, such as Microsoft Word or Open Office. Text structure templates were defined as a set of templates specifying the role of each text block (a subsection of a scientific manuscript that deals with a single idea or argument). For example, the template for the introduction specified that it should have four distinct subsections, or “text blocks”
    • (1) a statement of the topic’s significance, 
    • (2) a description of the information gap that the study addresses, 
    • (3) a literature review to support the claim of an information gap, and 
    • (4) the study objective.




Qualitative study

 

  • Following the convenience sampling method, a total of 16 novice researchers, who were students from the second and fourth years of their courses of study, were enrolled in the present qualitative study. Most students were women (10), and most were enrolled in medicine programs (9), followed by nursing (4) and physical therapy (3). Two of the students in medicine had previously worked on published manuscripts but had made only minor contributions and were not primary authors.
  • On completion of the writing task, we conducted interviews in four focus groups of four students each. To compare the experiences of the intervention and nonintervention participants, the focus groups combined participants from both groups. Students not available for face-to-face interviews participated through conference calls, although we did not combine face-to-face and telephone interviews within a given focus group, to avoid the unintentional exclusion of conference call interviewees. Two students who could not participate in the focus groups were interviewed individually. All interviews were audiotaped for future reference.
  • Interviews lasted between 73 and 95 minutes. Participants were informed that the study would not influence their grades or the likelihood of their manuscripts’ acceptance for publication. They were told that the objective of the focus groups was to learn about the challenges they encountered while writing the manuscripts and their strategies for completing the project. We did not conduct pilot interviews; rather, we used open-ended questions for the first interview and subsequently updated it as the contents of each interview were analyzed. Initial open-ended questions focused on (1) factors that made the writing process either easier or more difficult, (2) interaction with the mentor and other peers during the writing process, and (3) specific factors within the participant’s allocated section (e.g., introduction) that posed difficulties or facilitated the process. Because qualitative analyses were performed after every interview, after a time, questions tended to focus more on what seemed to be emerging themes, clarifying them and obtaining further details on how these themes affected participants. After interviewing 14 of the participants, we determined that we had reached a saturation point at which all emerging themes had been extracted and consolidated.12 Despite this, we continued until we had interviewed all 16 participants.



Data analysis

 

  • Interviews were transcribed and read independently four times each by two of us. One of us (R.P.) was trained in qualitative research from his PhD and had previous exposure to phenomenology. The other (A.S.) had previous experience with one qualitative study and participated in study groups discussing methodological aspects of grounded theory as well as ethnographic studies. Each of us independently coded the transcripts following principles of grounded theory.13 After each coding, the coders exchanged files and discussed points of disagreement in a Web conference. Although it was not our primary aim to reach agreement on every portion of code, successive reviews led to greater agreement in coding. Initial categories were converted to major emerging themes, agreed on by both coders. Our initial emerging themes were then respondent-validated by asking all study participants to review the findings. Each emerging theme was accompanied by a brief explanation and anonymous quotes. This comparison led to a few clarifications of meaning for one quote, which was incorporated into our results, though we were careful not to let participants’ individual observations interfere with the emerging themes drawn from data obtained from the group as a whole. We considered respondent validation an error-reducing measure rather than a strict validation. We triangulated our results by discussing the emerging themes in an online forum with five specialists in college writing education. Triangulation was used not to generate hypotheses about emerging themes but to validate them once they had been found. Rather than an attempt to achieve consensus, our aim in triangulation was to increase the comprehensiveness and reflexivity of our analysis. (Reflexivity acknowledges a researcher’s contribution into the construction of meaning in a qualitative study by highlighting his or her assumptions and values that might influence the interview. It helps in ensuring that both data collection and interpretation are well within the premises of the researcher’s knowledge.14) Hence, not all suggestions from these two sources (i.e., respondent validation and triangulation) were taken into account, and we did not use any further methods to achieve consensus. We also described negative cases in which emerging themes seemed not to be in complete agreement with outlier observations.
  • To provide adequate reflexivity regarding our analysis, we describe ourselves below. All of us are clinical researchers with prior experience mentoring novice researchers. None of us sponsor any particular educational school of thought, and none of us had strong preexisting opinions about the themes that would emerge from this qualitative analysis. Each of us, however, to a greater or lesser degree, had had experiences during our research careers that reflected the emerging themes described in our study.
  • This study received approval from Duke University’s institutional review board. Informed consent was obtained from all participants before participation.



    • Cognitive burden: The participants differed greatly in their perceptions and management of the writing task.
    • Group support and mentoring: Most of the respondents were open to, and even in favor of, the idea of group writing. This was reflected in responses that favored group loyalty—responsibility, comfort zone, and encouragement. The responses point toward the role of colleagues, friends, and mentors in aiding the writing task
    • The role of mentors in guiding, encouraging, and supporting novice researchers was also substantial. Many researchers looked to mentors for support and reassurance.
    • Difficulty in distinguishing between content and structure: Many participants’ reflections regarding the distinction between content and structure revealed initially diverse views that converged to agreement. Slow yet significant steps were taken toward overcoming initial difficulties, understanding assigned roles, and drawing on similar past experiences.
    • Backward design of manuscript: For some participants, comprehending the overall perspective of the manuscript was a turning point, whereas others lost focus when they began to write. Those participants who were able to have the overall perspective and visualize the completed manuscript were then able to work backward from that goal to plan and implement the steps of writing the manuscript, hence the theme “backward design of manuscript.”
    • Negative cases: Some responses highlighted critical aspects of the study that needed to be addressed. Missing important data could lead to an inaccurate article, and plagiarism was perceived as a serious threat.




  • Making the distinction between structure and content is crucial.
  • Awareness of structure in scientific articles affects readers’ reactions and feedback.23
  • Visualizing the completed manuscript and working backward from that goal to devise a series of manageable intermediate steps is crucial to the scientific writing process, as explained by Wiggins and McTighe.25 The backward design method has been credited to be beneficial in writing logically organized research papers.26




 2009 Apr;84(4):511-6. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31819a8c3c.

Scientific writing of novice researchers: what difficulties and encouragements do they encounter?

Abstract

PURPOSE:

Writing scientific articles is a daunting task for novice researchers. In this qualitative study carried out in 2007, the authors evaluated the experiences of a group of novice researchers engaged in the writing process, to elucidate the main difficulties and sources of encouragement they encountered.

METHOD:

Sixteen novice researchers were interviewed. Most were women (10), and most were enrolled in programs of medicine (9), followed by nursing (4) and physical therapy (3). These were drawn via convenience sampling from a randomized control trial in which 48 of them were equally assigned to either an online or a face-to-face course of instruction. On completion, interviews were conducted in focus groups of four students each. The interviews were transcribed and read independently by two of the authors, who then encoded the material based on the principles of grounded theory. Initial categories were converted to major emerging themes, which were validated when participants were asked to review the findings. Triangulation of results was carried out by discussing the emerging themes in an online forum with five specialists in college writing education.

RESULTS:

Classifying the diverse responses of participants led to the emergence of four major themes: cognitive burden, group support and mentoring, difficulty in distinguishing between content and structure, and backward design of manuscripts.

CONCLUSIONS:

The themes produced by this study provide some insight into the challenges faced by novice researchers in their early attempts atscientific writing. Remedies that address these challenges are needed to substantially improve scientific writing instruction.

PMID:

 

19318791

 

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


+ Recent posts