Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

IS8004 – Seminar 12 Presenting and Reviewing Qualitative Research 1.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "IS8004 – Seminar 12 Presenting and Reviewing Qualitative Research 1."— Presentation transcript:

1 IS8004 – Seminar 12 Presenting and Reviewing Qualitative Research 1

2 Presenting and Reviewing These also may seem to be quite different topics, but actually they are closely linked These also may seem to be quite different topics, but actually they are closely linked In the previous class, we looked at planning and writing In the previous class, we looked at planning and writing Getting these right is critical to good research Getting these right is critical to good research Presenting relates to how you present the research at a conference Presenting relates to how you present the research at a conference Reviewing is how others evaluate what you present – written or spoken Reviewing is how others evaluate what you present – written or spoken 2

3 Presenting Presentation of a written paper means that you have to ensure it is well written, well argued, well justified and pleasant to read Presentation of a written paper means that you have to ensure it is well written, well argued, well justified and pleasant to read You have to write for the audience – and meet their expectations (more or less) You have to write for the audience – and meet their expectations (more or less) You have to use language that they understand – not too much jargon You have to use language that they understand – not too much jargon If you present well, then reviewers can at least understand your message If you present well, then reviewers can at least understand your message 3

4 Presenting at Conferences This is both harder and easier This is both harder and easier You have much less time – typically minutes; perhaps an hour in a seminar. You have much less time – typically minutes; perhaps an hour in a seminar. So you have to miss out much of the detailed content – and focus on what’s really interesting – for the audience So you have to miss out much of the detailed content – and focus on what’s really interesting – for the audience You also have to answer questions – which may be quite difficult You also have to answer questions – which may be quite difficult 4

5 Presenting 1 Although much work went into the planning of the study, you may only assign 1 slide to this! Although much work went into the planning of the study, you may only assign 1 slide to this! You may cite a few key literature sources, and mention the methods You may cite a few key literature sources, and mention the methods What should excite the audience is the results – especially if they are novel or radical in some way What should excite the audience is the results – especially if they are novel or radical in some way This can be usefully discsussed at more length This can be usefully discsussed at more length Interesting future research opportunities can be discussed Interesting future research opportunities can be discussed 5

6 Presenting Layout (10 mins) 1. Title, authors, affiliations 1. Title, authors, affiliations 2. Introduction and Background 2. Introduction and Background 3. Literature 3. Literature 5. Method 5. Method 6. Discussion of results 6. Discussion of results 9. Future research 9. Future research No conclusion or references. They are in the full paper. No conclusion or references. They are in the full paper. 6

7 Dealing with Questions If you know the answer, that’s great. If you know the answer, that’s great. But often you don’t. But often you don’t. So, either you make something up (risky). So, either you make something up (risky). Or you deflect the question, like a good politician! Or you deflect the question, like a good politician! You could say something that is related. You could say something that is related. Or, you say “that’s a great question” and ask the questioner what s/he thinks! Or, you say “that’s a great question” and ask the questioner what s/he thinks! Or ask for input from the rest of the audience Or ask for input from the rest of the audience Usually there is at least one person with a *lot* to say who will be keen to help out! Usually there is at least one person with a *lot* to say who will be keen to help out! It is unlikely that you are the first to be in this state – you can learn from others’ prior experiences. It is unlikely that you are the first to be in this state – you can learn from others’ prior experiences. 7

8 Dealing with Discussants A discussant is a person who has the task of reading and commenting on all 2, 3, 4 papers in a session at a conference and saying something intelligent about all of them. A discussant is a person who has the task of reading and commenting on all 2, 3, 4 papers in a session at a conference and saying something intelligent about all of them. It is not an easy task – and discussants sometimes try to present their own research It is not an easy task – and discussants sometimes try to present their own research They also ask you questions. They also ask you questions. Instead of replying directly, you can try to develop a “conversation” with the discussant Instead of replying directly, you can try to develop a “conversation” with the discussant 8

9 Time Conference time is limited, so you must not overrun your time allocation Conference time is limited, so you must not overrun your time allocation If you do, you may be cut off with many slides not yet presented If you do, you may be cut off with many slides not yet presented The audience then focuses on the next paper and forgets you. The audience then focuses on the next paper and forgets you. You must budget for time very carefully. You must budget for time very carefully. I suggest a maximum of 1 slide per minute I suggest a maximum of 1 slide per minute 9

10 Presenting Qualitative Research Qualitative research is more about words and observations, so you need to use that kind of evidence in the presentation Qualitative research is more about words and observations, so you need to use that kind of evidence in the presentation It is nice to cite what people said as evidence to support your findings It is nice to cite what people said as evidence to support your findings But make the cites short and precise But make the cites short and precise 2-3 lines at most, ideally less. 2-3 lines at most, ideally less. You could include a diagram, photograph or other media to make a point You could include a diagram, photograph or other media to make a point Examples from your own observations are nice Examples from your own observations are nice You can easily expand on them if the audience is interested You can easily expand on them if the audience is interested They can be the entry to a conversation – with audience or discussant They can be the entry to a conversation – with audience or discussant 10

11 Reviewing After you submit, then you have to wait After you submit, then you have to wait Some reviewers are fast, others slow Some reviewers are fast, others slow Most reviewers are critical and some are really nasty Most reviewers are critical and some are really nasty Editors have the job of managing the review process Editors have the job of managing the review process You can’t appeal to a reviewer (usually blind) but you can appeal to an editor You can’t appeal to a reviewer (usually blind) but you can appeal to an editor You are an author – and will also be a reviewer You are an author – and will also be a reviewer You see both sides of the situation You see both sides of the situation When you are the reviewer, try to be constructive and helpful When you are the reviewer, try to be constructive and helpful 11

12 Reviewing & Reviewers How do reviewers think and work? How do reviewers think and work? Evaluation criteria Evaluation criteria Rejection criteria Rejection criteria Reviewing is common. Reviewing is common. What are the advantages and disadvantages? What are the advantages and disadvantages? Is there potential for bias or favouritism? Is there potential for bias or favouritism? Developing competence in responding to reviews Developing competence in responding to reviews So as to increase your chance of being accepted So as to increase your chance of being accepted 12

13 Attributes of Good Reviewers Competent and Constructive Competent and Constructive Reasonable, Unbiased and Open Minded Reasonable, Unbiased and Open Minded Ethical in their behaviour Ethical in their behaviour Conflicts of interest Conflicts of interest Respect for your creativity and copyright Respect for your creativity and copyright Not too critical, nor too lenient Not too critical, nor too lenient Persuasive in their arguments/comments Persuasive in their arguments/comments Diligent and timely Diligent and timely 13

14 Attributes of Good Reviews The paper should be summarised The paper should be summarised To show that the reviewer understood the paper To show that the reviewer understood the paper The strengths and weaknesses of the paper should be identified The strengths and weaknesses of the paper should be identified All advice for improving the paper should be actionable All advice for improving the paper should be actionable If there are weaknesses, precisely what should the author do about them? If there are weaknesses, precisely what should the author do about them? Which references should the author read? Which references should the author read? Respect for the fact that it is the author’s, not the reviewer’s, paper. Respect for the fact that it is the author’s, not the reviewer’s, paper. 14

15 Evaluation Criteria for Papers Ethics Ethics Did the researcher act ethically? Did the researcher act ethically? Did the researcher act to protect the interests of data subjects (individuals or organisations)? Did the researcher act to protect the interests of data subjects (individuals or organisations)? Research methods Research methods Are the research methods used appropriate given the nature of the research problem? Are the research methods used appropriate given the nature of the research problem? Are the data collection and analysis methods appropriate? Are the data collection and analysis methods appropriate? 15

16 Evaluation Criteria for Papers Are the references correct, and up to date? Are the references correct, and up to date? Is the presentation clear, concise and grammatically correct? Is the presentation clear, concise and grammatically correct? Are the concepts and arguments well organised, structured and defensible? Are the concepts and arguments well organised, structured and defensible? Are the findings/contributions appropriately positioned with respect to the existing literature in this area? Are the findings/contributions appropriately positioned with respect to the existing literature in this area? 16

17 Rejection Criteria The article is uninteresting and no one would want to read it The article is uninteresting and no one would want to read it The problem researched is trivial, irrelevant or not a problem at all The problem researched is trivial, irrelevant or not a problem at all The article is so poorly constructed that a completely new start is required The article is so poorly constructed that a completely new start is required Or the arguments are so weakly/subjectively developed as to be meaningless Or the arguments are so weakly/subjectively developed as to be meaningless There are serious ethical concerns about the way the research was conducted There are serious ethical concerns about the way the research was conducted E.g. plagiarism, use of deception, illegal/unethical practices, failure to protect research subjects’ privacy E.g. plagiarism, use of deception, illegal/unethical practices, failure to protect research subjects’ privacy 17

18 IT&People Criteria Criteria for papers are not bound to a particular methodology, but rather to: 1. is the topic relevant? 2. is the treatment new or newsmaking? 3. is the lit review adequate to support the framework presented? 4. Is the framework clear? 5. Is the evidence, discussion, description clear and convincing and does it match the framework? 6. Does the paper apply standards appropriate to method (if quantitative then defensible, if descriptive then thorough enough to reflect academic responsibility) 7. Is the paper well-written, well organized If no to any of the above, what is needed? However if the paper is so bad it tires you to even think about it, then just reject. It is OK to reject, we have a lot of submissions. If promising theme but not well developed, make some general statements for revise and resubmit; if pretty good, then thorough critique to help authors. 18

19 How to Respond to Reviewers? Make sure that you address everything that they ask for Make sure that you address everything that they ask for Even if you choose to dispute their view Even if you choose to dispute their view Provide a detailed presentation of your changes in a two-column format Provide a detailed presentation of your changes in a two-column format Left column – Reviewer Comments Left column – Reviewer Comments Right column – Author revisions Right column – Author revisions Revision notes may be pages long! Revision notes may be pages long! Even longer than the paper itself. Even longer than the paper itself. 19

20 What if… The reviewer totally disagrees with your choice of method – and rejects for this reason alone? The reviewer totally disagrees with your choice of method – and rejects for this reason alone? You can’t change the method now! You can’t change the method now! So you may have to go to the editor (AE, SE, E) and ask for a different reviewer So you may have to go to the editor (AE, SE, E) and ask for a different reviewer Sometimes it is the editor who says this, so you learn not to send this kind of article to this journal again Sometimes it is the editor who says this, so you learn not to send this kind of article to this journal again 20

21 Remember! Most journals accept 8-15% of submissions Most journals accept 8-15% of submissions And therefore reject about 85-92% And therefore reject about 85-92% Conferences may accept 30, 50 or higher % Conferences may accept 30, 50 or higher % It is easier to reject (find fault) than accept (appreciate). Less experienced reviewers and editors tend to reject more – so if you have the chance to nominate a reviewer or editor, don’t pick a PhD student or recent graduate! It is easier to reject (find fault) than accept (appreciate). Less experienced reviewers and editors tend to reject more – so if you have the chance to nominate a reviewer or editor, don’t pick a PhD student or recent graduate! 21

22 Decisions If the editor offers a review and resubmit (R&R) decision, be very happy! If the editor offers a review and resubmit (R&R) decision, be very happy! If you can get past the first round of review and stay in the process, that is 50% of the way to acceptance If you can get past the first round of review and stay in the process, that is 50% of the way to acceptance Because 50% of papers don’t make it through. Because 50% of papers don’t make it through. The R&R may be major, but you must do as much as you can and explain your changes carefully. The R&R may be major, but you must do as much as you can and explain your changes carefully. Don’t fight with the reviewers – you will lose, even if you are right! Don’t fight with the reviewers – you will lose, even if you are right! To get 2, 3 even 4 R&Rs happens. Don’t give up! To get 2, 3 even 4 R&Rs happens. Don’t give up! 22

23 Journals Each journal has its own culture, its own values Each journal has its own culture, its own values You need to learn about this – it will save you much time You need to learn about this – it will save you much time MISQ, ISR, ISJ, CAIS, JAIS, JMIS, I&M, DSS MISQ, ISR, ISJ, CAIS, JAIS, JMIS, I&M, DSS 23

24 References Davison, R.M., Vreede, G.J. de and Briggs, R.O. (2005) On Peer Review Standards for the Information Systems Literature, Communications of the AIS, 16, 49, Davison, R.M., Vreede, G.J. de and Briggs, R.O. (2005) On Peer Review Standards for the Information Systems Literature, Communications of the AIS, 16, 49, Davison, R.M. (2003) Discussants and the Quality of Interaction at Conferences, Communications of the AIS, 11, 7, Davison, R.M. (2003) Discussants and the Quality of Interaction at Conferences, Communications of the AIS, 11, 7,


Download ppt "IS8004 – Seminar 12 Presenting and Reviewing Qualitative Research 1."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google