week 3 dq post

I have read bad articles before, but this one is amongst the top 20. Rambled, unfocused, and just wow.

Evaluate the authors’ use of literature.

each use of literature was unfocused and unneeded.

Evaluate the research problem.

It appears this study was to write something (anything) which would pass the peer review process in order to achieve the “publish or perish” academic requirement. The title was contradictory to every word from the first to where the survey questioned started.

Explain what it means for a research study to be justified and grounded in the literature; then, explain what it means for a problem to be original.

This is not research, this is something other than anything remotely connected to a serious scientific examination. Original is to take an idea, usually in science you take an existing scientific concept and through the process of “Basic Scientific Criticism” find a variable or a collection of variables which you want to question. You or your group want to put under further criticism. Original ideas are few and rare but it is finding some aspect of science everyone else has either ignored or the facts have been purposely erased. Once those ideas are found, explore those ideas with rigorous testing.

Now rambled is a different concept and definition to unfocused. When I am making some of my larger more intense points have to ramble between different points to in effect place puzzle piece after puzzle piece. After dozens of puzzle pieces in seemingly random placement, the larger picture comes into focus and the pieces begin to appear as gears in a larger system of working parts. The first few pages were rambling and without a single directed voice. No continuity of theme, it appears to have 3 semi major and 5 predominant minor points to make. But does not focus on any type of gear mechanism in the sentence structure. To write in a rambled voice their absolutely has to be a focus to the puzzle pieces.

“The main idea of a paragraph is often called a topic sentence”

Unfocused in academics is an overall voice to the situation. A voice which the reader focuses on as the puzzle pieces are brought in. The puzzle pieces have to be part of a literary gear structure, the voice creates the gear structure. No voice, no gear structure, no focus, the pieces have no point.

Every word, sentence, paragraph is a mathematical equation. The exact same mathematics to driving a car or operating a computer. You as the operator know to get in the car, check the mirrors, turn on the car, check around the vehicle for obstacles, then plan the journey.

Pressing on the skinny pedal to the right approximately x amount to make the vehicle move at y speed. Turning the wheel, a b c degrees in order to alter the trajectory of the vehicle. All that is mathematics. From geometry, trig, moving from point a x distance in b direction, for f amount of time, etc. it is all mathematics.

Sentences are the same, you as an author are using words to drive your audience to a specific destination.

Each point that is brought up obviously is a different variable, a different puzzle piece. In a day’s errands, you might have to stop at 50 places to pick up supplies or drop off other supplies. In a paper you will have to pick up any number of points that might seem to be random and without purpose, you then combine any one of those points with other points to make larger points.

Example I have talked a bit about the function and structure of the schema of Rome Janus. Janus is the Pyramids of Egypt. However random subject schema, combined with random subject with the city of Rome., combined with the concept of Janus (which is a double headed deity in the Roman Pantheon. which is actually by definition more of a schema than a theology. The same thing about Janus and the Pyramids of Egypt. The voice connects them as being the same subject, but until the lynch pins are put together the teeth of the gears are just random points. The voice of consistently implores the reader to know they are the same subject.

Then you combine them into a single equation, map, puzzle pieces, navigation map. The Pepi I pyramid’s causeway bisects the cave of the nativity. The nativity itself started in Egypt, birth in Levant Lands, but most if not all the major players ended up in Rome proper. Start with Rome, the schema of Rome, variables to =x Rome. Rely on the mathematics of navigation to transform the behaviors of driving a vehicle into words, sentences, etc. form. The well-crafted paper is a well-planned out errand trip.

This paper shows few to none of these tools. The points are random, no voice, no focus, and 3 pages into the article I still had no idea what the point was other than some vagueness about PhD students’ progress to their degree. The name of the article and the subjects in the first 3 pages hold little togetherness. No voice. Sexual harassment was used a couple times, but no definitive sentence, just the non sequitur words.

The questions and the answers. I have no idea what the purpose of this was other than to make it look like this article had some validity to it. It uses Qualitative data, but askes questions which are quantitative in nature. Which is not unlike souping up a Yugo to race with (total waste of time) or using a Kentucky derby horse for pony rides (equal waste of time). I see no practical application for this study. The questions are out of context, and the overall “what is the =x of this study” is missing.

References

Ibarra, P. R., Gur, O. M., & Erez, E. (2014). Surveillance as casework: Supervising domestic violence defendants with GPS