Hypothesis Learning Outcome

Flipped Learning: Hypothesis

 Etymology of 'hypothesis'

• hypothesis (n.)

• 1590s, "a particular statement;"

• 1650s, "a proposition, assumed and taken for granted, used as a premise," from French hypothese and directly from Late Latin hypothesis, from Greek hypothesis 'base, groundwork, foundation," hence in extended use 'basis of an argument, supposition,"

• literally "a placing under," from hypo- "under" + thesis "a placing, proposition" (Harper, https://mv.v.et.vrnonline.corn)

Hypothetical as verb and adjective ...

• "to form hypotheses,"

1738, from hypothesis + ize. Hypothetize is an alternative form, preserving of the base.

Greek consonant

Related: Hypothesized; hypothesizing.

• The adjective hypothetical, meaning "having the nature of a hypothesis", or "being assumed to exist as an immediate consequence of a hypothesis", can refer to any of these meanings of the term "hypothesis"

Current usage of the term 'hypothesis'

• In common usage in the 21st century, a hypothesis refers to a provisional idea whose merit requires evaluation.

• For proper evaluation, the framer of a hypothesis needs to define specifics in operational terms.

• A hypothesis requires more work by the researcher in order to either confirm or disprove it.

• In due course, a confirmed hypothesis may become part of a theory or occasionally may grow to become a theory itself.

What is Hypothesis?

• A hypothesis is an educated guess or prediction about a relationship between variables.

• It is a statement that can be tested through scientific research.

• In scientific research a hypothesis is used to make predictions about what will happen under certain conditions.

• It is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon that is based on limited evidence and subject to further testing and verification.

Variables

• Variables are called variables because they vary, i.e. they can have a variety of values. Thus a variable can be considered as a quantity which assumes a variety of values in a particular problem.

• There are three main variables: independent variable, dependent variable and controlled variables.

• Independent variable - What you can decide to change in an experiment.

• Dependent variable - What you observe or measure

• Controlled variables - Things you keep the same —do not change

What is NOT a hypothesis?

• It is important to note that a hypothesis is not a fact or a proven theory.

• It is simply a starting point for further investigation. If the results of the research do not support the hypothesis, it may need to be revised or abandoned.

• It is not a question. It is simple statement. It may be complex state if the independent and dependent variables are more in number.

Richard Feynman & Ray Hilborn / Marc

• For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.

• Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.

• Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used interchangeably, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory.

• As per the observations made by Feynman and Hilborn, a working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research in a process beginning with an educated guess or thought.

The Function of Hypothesis

•- brings clarity to the research problem.

• - provides a study with focus. It tells us what specific aspects of a research problem to investigate.

•- informs what data to collect and what not to collect

•- enhances objectivity

•- enables to conclude specifically what is true or what is false (Falsifiability and Verificationism)

Falsifiability and Verificationism

• • Falsifiability is a standard of evaluation of scientific theories and hypotheses that was introduced by the philosopher of science Karl Popper in his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery.

• He proposed it as the cornerstone of a solution to both the problem of induction and the problem of demarcation.

•A theory or hypothesis is falsifiable (or refutable) if it can be logically contradicted by an empirical test that can potentially be executed with existing technologies.

• Verificationism, also known as the verification principle or the verifiability criterion of meaning, is the philosophical doctrine which maintains that only statements that are empirically verifiable (i.e. verifiable through the senses) are cognitively meaningful, or else they are truths of logic (tautologies).

• Verificationism thus rejects statements related to metaphysics, as well as fields such as theology, ethics and aesthetics, as "cognitively meaningless".

• Such statements may be meaningful in influencing emotions or behaviour, but not in terms of conveying truth value, information or factual content.

Video 2: Ph.D. Coursework - Hypothesis 02

Purpose of hypothesis in qualitative research and quantitative research

Qualitative

Qualitative research is used to formulate a hypothesis

 If you need deeper information about a topic you know little about, qualitative research can help you uncover themes. For this reason, qualitative research often comes prior to quantitative. It allows you to get a baseline understanding of the topic and start to hypotheses around correlation and causation.  

Quantitative research is used to test or confirm a hypothesis

Qualitative research usually quantitative. You need to have enough understanding about a in order to develop a hypothesis you can test. Since quantitative research is highly structured. You first need to understand what the parameters are and how variable they are in practice. This allows you to create a research outline that is controlled in all the ways that will high-quality data.

Analysis will also differ in both types of research

Qualitative

For qualitative data, you'll end up with data that will be highly textual in nature. You'll be reading through the data and looking for key themes that emerge over and over.

Quantitative

For quantitative data, you'll end up with a data set that can be analyzed, often with statistical software such as Excel, R, or SPSS. You can ask many different types of questions that produce this quantitative data, including rating(ranking questions, single-select, multiselect, and matrix table questions.

Interconnectedness - Research Questions and Hypothesis

Research Questions

A research question is what a study aims to answer after data analysis and interpretation.

Hypotheses

On the other hand, a research hypothesis is an educated statement of an expected outcome. This statement is based on background research and current knowledge. The research hypothesis makes a specific prediction about a new phenomenon or a formal statement on the expected relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable. It provides a tentative answer to the question to be tested or explored.

Video 3: Ph.D. Coursework- Hypothesis Part 3

Hallmarks of Good Research Questions and Hypotheses

The sources outline key characteristics that define robust research questions and hypotheses:

·         Excellent Research Questions: Should be specific and focused. They are designed to integrate collected data and observations, serving to confirm or refute the subsequent hypotheses.

·         Good Hypotheses: Must be empirically testable. This concept of testability or falsifiability, referenced from Carl Popper, is fundamental. Good hypotheses should also be:

• Backed by preliminary evidence.
• Testable by ethical research.
• Based on original ideas.
• Supported by evidence-based logical reasoning.
• Predictable.

The Crucial Distinction: Quantitative vs. Qualitative Approaches

One of the most significant insights from the sources is the fundamental difference in how research questions and hypotheses function within quantitative versus qualitative research.

·         Quantitative Research: Typically involves fewer types of research questions but many types of quantitative research hypotheses.

o    Question Types: There are three main types: Descriptive, Comparative, and Relationship research questions. Descriptive questions measure responses to variables, comparative questions clarify differences between groups or effects of variables, and relationship questions define trends, associations, or interactions between dependent and independent variables.

o    Hypothesis Types: Quantitative research can yield almost a dozen different types. These include:

Simple Hypothesis: Predicts a relationship between a single dependent and single independent variable (e.g., higher dose of medication lowers blood pressure).

Complex Hypothesis: Predicts a relationship between two or more independent and dependent variables (e.g., multiple therapies increase survival rate).

Directional Hypothesis: Identifies a specific direction based on theory towards a particular outcome (e.g., privately funded projects have larger international scope than publicly funded ones).

Non-directional Hypothesis: Does not identify an exact study direction or nature of the relationship between variables (e.g., men and women are different in terms of helpfulness).

Associative Hypothesis: Describes variable interdependency, where a change in one causes a change in another (e.g., more vaccinations reduce infection incidence).

 Causal Hypothesis: Based on cause and effect, predicting an effect on a dependent variable from manipulating an independent variable (e.g., high fiber diet reduces blood sugar level).

Null Hypothesis: A negative statement indicating no relationship or difference between variables (e.g., no significant difference in reaction severity between a new drug and current drug). Framing a null hypothesis is often considered easier.

Alternative Hypothesis: Follows a null hypothesis, predicting a relationship between variables (e.g., the new drug is better on average than the current drug).

Working Hypothesis: Initially accepted for further research to produce a feasible theory (e.g., different formulations fed to cows produce different milk amounts).

Statistical Hypothesis: An assumption about a population parameter or relationship among characteristics, tested statistically (e.g., mean recovery rate is not significantly different between populations).

Logical Hypothesis: Proposes an explanation with limited or no evidence, based on logical connection (e.g., more education on contraception leads to fewer pregnancies).

Testable Hypothesis: The overarching requirement for quantitative hypotheses, linked to the use of deductive reasoning to test predictions against data.

  Qualitative Research: Contrasts sharply by having many types of research questions but typically leading to only one main type of hypothesis: hypothesis generating.

o    Question Types: A wide variety of question types are suited for qualitative research, often representing different modes of looking or approaches open to various interpretive strategies. Examples include:

 Contextual Research Question: Asks about the nature of existing phenomena or how individuals/groups function within their natural context (e.g., experiences of nurses working night shifts during Covid-19).

Descriptive Research Question: Aims to describe a phenomenon (e.g., different forms of disrespect experienced by women giving birth).

Evaluation Research Question: Examines the effectiveness of existing practices or frameworks (e.g., effectiveness of decisions in choosing birth location).

Explanatory Research Question: Clarifies a previously studied phenomenon and explains why it occurs (e.g., why teenage pregnancy is increasing).

Exploratory Research Question: Explores areas not fully investigated to gain deeper understanding (e.g., factors affecting mental health of medical students during Covid-19).

Generative Research Question: Develops in-depth understanding by asking "how would" or "what if" to identify problems and solutions (e.g., how extensive experience impacts success of new initiatives).

Ideological Research Question: Aims to advance specific ideas or ideologies (e.g., ability of nurses to promote humanised care).

Ethnographic Research Question: Clarifies people's nature, activities, interactions, and outcomes in specific settings (e.g., characteristics and outcomes of people with post-Covid complications).

Phenomenological Research Question: Seeks to understand phenomena that have impacted individuals (e.g., lived experiences of parents caring for children with autism).

Grounded Theory Question: Focuses on social processes, asking what happens and how people interact (e.g., problems pregnant adolescents face regarding social norms). These are particularly appropriate for literature research.

Qualitative Case Study Question: Assesses a phenomenon using different data sources to answer "why" and "how" questions, considering contextual influence (e.g., how changing roles impacts women's lives).

o    Hypothesis Type: The primary outcome is hypothesis generating. Qualitative research uses inductive reasoning, collecting data to develop formal hypotheses that may then serve as a framework for testing, potentially in a future quantitative study. The conclusions may lead to theoretical propositions or generate new hypotheses for further testing with different variables.

Identifying Your Research Type First

This detailed breakdown underscores why it is essential to first identify whether your research is qualitative or quantitative before you even begin formulating questions and hypotheses. Your research type will dictate the nature and function of these core elements.

Video 4: Ph.D. Coursework - Hypothesis framework and formation 04

Essential Frameworks for Robust Research

Before you even begin writing your questions and hypotheses, it's vital to ensure your research idea is sound. The sources introduce several frameworks to test the quality of your research plan:

·         The FINER Criteria: This framework helps assess if your research is Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, and Relevant. Applying this test helps ensure your research question and hypothesis are appropriate and viable.

PICOT/PEO Frameworks: Often used in specific research areas, these frameworks provide structure.

PICOT: Breaks down a research question into Population, Intervention (or Indicator), Comparison group, Outcome of Interest, and Time frame.

PEO: Focuses on Population, Exposure to pre-existing conditions, and Outcome of Interest.

·         FINER MAPS: An expanded framework encompassing Feasibility, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, Relevant, Manageable, Appropriate, Potential value, Publishable, and Systematic. This provides a comprehensive checklist from the feasibility to the systematic nature of your research question or hypothesis.

Six Steps to Constructing Effective Research Questions and Hypotheses

The sources outline a clear, step-by-step process for moving from a broad idea to specific questions and predictions:

1. Clarify the background: Start by understanding the existing knowledge related to your area of interest. This might stem from previous studies or unanswered questions from earlier academic work.
2. Identify the research problem: Pinpoint the specific issue or gap in knowledge you intend to address within a defined time frame.
3. Review or conduct preliminary research (Literature Review): Engage in extensive literature review to gather all available knowledge, studying theories and previous studies. This is crucial for identifying the research gap. If the problem is answered in the literature, further research might not be needed.
4. Construct research questions: Based on the identified problem and gap, formulate the questions you will investigate. These are the stepping stones to your hypotheses. You also need to identify the necessary variables at this stage and define constructs operationally.
5. Construct specific deductive or inductive predictions (Hypotheses): Formulate specific predictions in the form of hypotheses, which can be either deductive (for quantitative) or inductive (for qualitative leading to hypothesis generation).
6. State the study aims: Clearly articulate the objectives and aims of your study.

Avoiding Ambiguity: Lessons from Case Studies

The video highlights common pitfalls in formulating research questions and hypotheses by examining ambiguous examples. Points to be avoided include:

·         Vague and unfocused questions.

·         Closed questions that can be answered simply with yes or no.

·         Questions requiring only a simple choice.

·         Undeniable hypotheses that cannot be falsified (linking back to Carl Popper's concept).

·         Incompletely stated group comparisons.

·         Insufficiently described variables or outcomes.

·         Statements simply expressing facts without testable claims.

·         Research objectives that are unrelated to the questions and hypotheses.

·         Objectives that are unattainable or unexplorable.

Checking your research question, hypothesis, and research objective against these points can help identify and fix simple mistakes.

The General Flow

The six construction steps essentially form a general flow for developing effective research questions and hypotheses prior to conducting research. It moves from understanding the background and identifying the problem to reviewing literature, formulating questions, developing hypotheses, and finally stating the aims. Finding the research gap through literature review is a critical point that facilitates constructing effective research questions.

Algorithmic Approaches: Quantitative vs. Qualitative

Perhaps one of the clearest takeaways is the side-by-side algorithm presented for quantitative and qualitative research. This visually reinforces the fundamental differences discussed in Part 3.

·         Quantitative Research Algorithm:

• Select a topic.
• Clarify background information.
• Identify/state the research problem.
• Formulate research questions.
• Develop hypothesis to predict outcomes. (Notice hypotheses come after questions)
• Specify study aims.
• Formulate a plan to test/verify hypothesis.
• Collect and analyse data.
• Verify hypothesis based findings.
•  Make final conclusions.
• State recommendations.

·         Qualitative Research Algorithm:

• Make observations or note a lack of background in an unknown or unclear area.
•  Select a topic of interest or importance.
• Identify need or gap in the unknown/unclear area.
•  Clarify background information.
• Formulate research questions to investigate a research problem. (Questions are central early on)
• State the study aims.
• Choose methods, sites, subjects for research.
• Collect and analyze data.
• Complete the work and look for concepts and theories. (This is where hypothesis generating happens)
• Revise research questions if necessary or begin to form hypothesis (hypothesis generation).
• Complete conceptual framework and make conclusions.

This comparison vividly illustrates that quantitative research is driven by testing pre-defined hypotheses derived from questions, while qualitative research is driven by exploring questions to generate concepts, theories, and ultimately, hypotheses for potential future testing. It is therefore paramount to first identify whether your research is quantitative or qualitative.

The Art of Literary Research: Flipped Learning

 

In the world of literary studies, we often hear terms like 'critic', 'researcher', and 'scholar'. While these words are sometimes used interchangeably, particularly 'researcher' and 'scholar', the sources suggest there are nuances that differentiate these roles. Understanding these distinctions can shed light on the multifaceted nature of engaging deeply with literature.

At its core, research in literature involves two main aspects: the technical side (like writing literature reviews or collecting data using specific methods) and the mindset, which is seen as the 'software' part. The roles of critic, researcher, and scholar fall under this 'software' aspect – defining what someone is doing when they engage with texts and topics. An individual can embody all three roles, depending on their approach at any given moment.

The Critic: Focused on the Text Itself

The critic is primarily concerned with the literary work itself. They delve into the text, studying its style, structure, content, ideas, and genre. Think of a critic as someone performing a close reading, examining the intricate details within the confines of the work. Their business is the literary work at hand. The sources mention New Criticism, associated with figures like I.A. Richards and T.S. Eliot (though Eliot also touched upon ideas associated with scholarship like tradition), as an example of an approach primarily focused on criticism.

The Scholar: Seeking the Larger Context

Stepping beyond the critic is the scholar. While the critic focuses within the work, the scholar aims to see the work from without as well as within. Scholars are more concerned with the facts attending the literary work's genesis and subsequent history. They locate the text within a larger context, examining its origins, historical backdrop, and broader theoretical frameworks. This requires a wider horizon than just looking at the text in isolation. Scholars illuminate the work from every conceivable angle by uncovering and applying data residing outside the text itself. According to George Valley, a true scholar possesses critical acumen but also a "poet's eye," constantly searching for something yet unknown within the work, with perceptions heightened by looking.

The Relationship Between Critic and Scholar

Interestingly, the pursuit of the literary scholar and the critic is considered common. Their findings are indispensable to one another. A critic might use interpretations or findings from scholars to inform their reading of a poem, while a scholar relies on the critic's essential act of reading the text itself to perform deeper analysis. The dichotomy between the two roles is described as far more apparent than real. In fact, every good student of literature is constantly combining the two roles, often without consciously thinking about it. The difference is primarily one of emphasis. However, the sources suggest that being a scholar is seen as something "higher" or an expansion beyond being only a critic, as it involves a broader perspective. George Valley's observation reinforces that no critic can afford not to be a scholar, and a scholar needs critical insight to go beyond superficial work. Without scholarship, critical views can become cursory or lack substance.

The Researcher: A Sense of History and Time Travel

The concept of a researcher is closely linked to the scholar, and the terms are often used interchangeably. However, the sources highlight a key trait for a researcher: a vivid sense of history. A researcher must have the ability to cast themselves back into another age, not just in terms of time, but also discipline or subject matter. This involves adjusting their intellectual and imaginative responses to the systems of thought and cultural atmosphere of the past. They need to be able to think and fantasise as people did in different eras to comprehend the attitudes and assumptions guiding an author.

While the scholar is rooted in the present (the 21st century in the source's context) to provide indispensable perspective, the researcher has the ability to time travel into the past and quickly relate that 'pastness' back to the present. It implies a necessary 'double vision' – engaging with the vastness of the past while understanding its use in the present.

Qualities of a Scholar/Researcher

To perform these roles effectively, particularly that of a scholar or researcher, certain qualities are essential. The sources compare the required rigor to that of a scientist. Working like a scientist involves traits such as intellectual curiosity, shrewdness, precision, imagination, and lively inventiveness. These qualities help in suggesting new hypotheses, strategies, and sources of information, and enable accurate interpretation and evaluation of data. Just as scientists collaborate to illuminate a whole field, scholars need to work systematically, locating their work within larger theoretical frameworks and historical contexts rather than just focusing on an isolated text.

Mind and Temperament of Research Scholar | PhD Coursework Sessions

This session of the PhD coursework focuses on the making of the research scholar's mind – exploring the necessary thinking processes and soft skills required to move beyond being just a student to becoming a scholar.

The discussion begins by outlining the necessities for a rewarding research project. 

A truly rewarding project, where you are eager to share your findings because you've done something significant and added to knowledge systems, requires several key qualities. 

These include 

• a fair degree of imagination, 
• originality of approach, 
• and solidity of learning. 

Solidity of learning comes from extensive reading across various disciplines, building a strong base of knowledge. Originality involves finding new perspectives or applying existing approaches to texts in novel ways, a challenging task that requires imaginative thinking. The willingness and will to see literary works and their creators from new perspectives are crucial. The ability for divergent thinking can also contribute to making research rewarding. It's noted that while these qualities are essential abstractions, the 'how' of achieving them should not be overly streamlined; scholars need mental space to explore and apply these concepts in their own unique ways to maintain originality.

Publish or Perish

A significant portion of the discussion is dedicated to the concept of 'publish or perish'. This idea is described as very pernicious and very harmful to any kind of scholarship. The core argument is that scholarship undertaken under any kind of duress or pressure never leads to qualitative work. When publication is forced upon faculty for promotion or job security (a system noted to have emerged in American universities in the 1960s), people will publish, but the result is unlikely to be qualitative research. This system leads people to be "just running to publish" for career advancement rather than being driven by an "eagerness to know something more". 

The discussion highlight that this pressure can create a hurdle for those who primarily wish to be teachers but are required to conduct research and publish, raising questions about how research in one field adds value to teaching practice, especially when the two are disconnected. Ideally, teaching and research go hand in hand, perhaps through action research that is practically useful for teachers in their actual work. However, in the 'publish or perish' environment, teachers may prioritise research activities over teaching itself. The focus shifts from genuine inquiry and knowledge growth to meeting publication quotas (e.g., specific journals). 

A major consequence is that publications may not effectively raise questions or prompt further scholarly dialogue, leading to no growth of knowledge. The 'publish or perish' environment is said to normally lead to unhappiness and makes for an unhappy scholar. It can suppress genuine curiosity – the intrinsic desire "to know more" – which should ideally drive a researcher. Despite its harmful effects, it is acknowledged as the reality of today's academia and research environment, especially for young scholars building their careers. The ability to criticise the system often comes only after one has achieved a secure academic position.

What are the chief qualities of 'mind and temperament' that go to make a succesful and 'HAPPY SCHOLAR' 

To cultivate the necessary qualities of mind and temperament for a successful and happy scholar, the discussion draws lessons from two seemingly disparate fields: law and journalism. Specifically, time spent apprenticing with criminal lawyers or investigative reporters can teach valuable skills. From law, the crucial learning is the principles of evidence and proof. 

In research, just like in court, every statement requires evidence and citation; assumptions or ideas that "suddenly dawned upon" the scholar are insufficient. Statements of fact must be supported by evidence, not mere assumptions or beliefs. 

From investigative journalism, the key takeaway is resourcefulness. This involves knowing where to go for information, how to obtain it, and the ability to recognise and follow up leads. It also requires tenacity to pursue facts. Investigative journalists rely on facts, as wrong reporting can have severe consequences. Both law and journalism demonstrate the importance of organisation skills and the ability to put facts together in a coherent way. Strong organisation is vital for structuring research and writing effectively. While the digital era has made information more accessible, negating some need for physical travel as in earlier days, dealing with people and knowing how to ask the right questions to get information remains necessary when standard sources are insufficient. The research journey is often like walking in wilderness, not a clearly mapped path, and supervisors are primarily guides, not companions at every step.

Reading John Livingston Lowes

Finally, the discussion touches upon the nature of human scholarship, suggesting it must operate within two worlds at once: the world of scientific method and the world of creative art. While distinct, successful scholarship requires a combination of both, just as scientific or mathematical advancements often stem from imagination. Research, being the primary instrument of science, can lead scholars to become too enamoured with methods and techniques, potentially forgetting the ultimate ends of their work. In humanities research, the ultimate end is often interpretation. However, interpretations should not be based on mere assumptions but must be supported by evidence and the pursuit of facts. Just as labs are crucial for science, interpretations are vital for humanities, and scholars should constantly explore different interpretations, ensuring they are grounded in evidence.

Flipped Learning Task: Mastering Academic Writing - Reflection and Application

This blog is a flipped learning task on academic writing. The reflection and application written below will be my understanding of the video lectures on academic writing.

1. "Academic Writing - Kalyan Chattopadhyay"
2. "Academic Writing: The Basics: Atanu Bhattacharya"
3. "Academic Writing: The Mechanics: Atanu Bhattacharya"

What is Academic Writing?

Academic writing is a structured process aimed at generating new knowledge through analysis and evidence. Unlike informal writing, which flows freely, academic writing is formal, objective, and precise. Key features include

• Formal Vocabulary: Uses terms like "posing a challenge" or "replicated" instead of everyday language. Other formal terms or phrases mentioned in examples include "replicated," "confined to," "appear," and "findings appear". This contrasts with the everyday language often used in informal writing

• Objective and Cautious Tone: Avoids emotive or strong opinions; uses hedging (e.g., "may suggest," "appears to be") and passive voice to maintain neutrality.

• References and Citations: Cites sources using formats like MLA, APA, or Chicago to support claims. Padding should be avoided in all research writing. Instead, researchers should critically engage with existing arguments—either accepting or rejecting them—and support their own positions with well-reasoned, evidence-based arguments (Academic Writing - Kalyan Chattopadhyay).

• Definition of Terms: Clearly defines key concepts to establish research context.

• Structured Organization: Follows clear paragraph patterns (topic, support, conclusion) with logical connectors (e.g., "however," "therefore") to guide the reader.

Academic writing is typically structured, with clear paragraph organization often following a pattern of a topic sentence, supporting sentences (evidence/extracts), and a concluding sentence that summarizes the argument or shows progression without merely repeating the topic sentence. Signalling expressions like "however," "although," or "therefore" are used, albeit selectively, to guide the reader through the argument's flow.

Structure and Organisation: 

Effective paragraph structure is crucial in academic writing. A typical paragraph develops a particular aspect or idea. It often begins with a topic sentence that states the main point or problem. This is followed by supporting sentences which provide evidence, extracts, or arguments to develop the point made in the topical sentence. The paragraph concludes with a concluding sentence. Importantly, the concluding sentence should not simply repeat the topical sentence but should either summarize the argument or show the progression made within the paragraph. Signalling expressions, such as "however," "although," "because of," or "therefore," are used to guide the reader through the flow of the argument. They can indicate the end of an argument or a shift in thought. However, these expressions should be used selectively and carefully. Overuse of signalling expressions can make the writing seem too mechanical and can indicate that the argument is not flowing naturally. They should be used strategically, for instance, when shifting from one argument to another or when presenting supporting evidence.

Critical Writing: 

Writing Critically means making the best use of the material consulted and it involves four steps

1. Careful Thoughts

2. Analysis

3. Comparison

4. Decision Making

 Critical writing involves several processes: careful thought, analysis, comparison, and decision-making. It requires you to question existing opinions or positions presented in the literature. You analyse these opinions, compare them with others, and then make a decision about which perspective you will accept or reject, or how you will build upon them. Establishing your own "voice" or position in your writing is essential. This voice doesn't come from stating personal feelings or subjective opinions directly. Instead, your voice is established through the analysis and interpretation of the sources you have consulted. By carefully thinking about, analysing, and comparing the views of other critics or researchers, and then deciding on your own perspective based on this engagement, you build your unique position. Your argument is then supported by drawing on these sources and evidence. It involves presenting your claims and supporting them with evidence from the sources. You must justify your position or the reach of your research based on the analysis.

Literature Review and Justification: 

The literature review plays a vital role in academic writing. It involves consulting and reading existing scholarly work related to your topic. This process provides you with new ideas and opinions. It is crucial because it is directly related to your research question and helps you to develop your own argument. (Academic Writing - Kalyan Chattopadhyay).

You engage with the opinions and arguments found in the literature, analysing and comparing them to build the foundation for your own work.  (Academic Writing - Kalyan Chattopadhyay) (Academic Writing: The Mechanics: Atanu Bhattacharya).

The literature review also helps to justify your research questions and arguments by showing how your work connects to, builds upon, or diverges from existing scholarship. It contextualises your research within the broader field. The process involves integrating existing research into your argument, not just providing a simple summary.

Research Methodology:

Triangulation is mentioned as a method to strengthen findings, especially in social sciences, by looking at the research from multiple angles, which could include using different types of data, theories, methods, or perspectives. The distinction between primary and secondary sources is discussed. Primary sources are the main texts or data you are analysing (like a syllabus or a novel), while secondary sources are the scholarly works (papers, books) that discuss these primary sources or your topic. Data collection methods like questionnaires and interviews are also mentioned. Questionnaires can be used to gather opinions from a large number of people, but interviews can provide deeper, more nuanced insights into perspectives. These methods are linked to academic writing as they provide the evidence and data used to support the arguments and findings presented in the research paper or thesis.

Clarity and Accessibility: 

Clear and accessible language is paramount in academic writing. Academic writing should not be overly dense with jargon or technical terms that make it difficult for the intended audience to understand. Lack of clarity can have "very, very serious consequences". It's important to use language that is understandable and to clearly define key terms and concepts. While formal vocabulary is used, it should not come at the expense of clarity. 

Learning outcomes:

• Practicing the Mechanics: The importance of consciously practicing the principles of academic writing, starting with assignments and gradually applying them to larger works like a thesis.
• Structured Writing: Understanding and applying effective paragraph structure (topical, supporting, concluding sentences) to build clear arguments.
• Critical Engagement: Learning to read and engage with sources critically – analysing, comparing, questioning, and making informed decisions – rather than just summarising. This is fundamental to establishing one's own voice.
• Literature Review Integration: Recognising the literature review not as a separate summary task but as an integral part of building and justifying one's own research and arguments.
• Justification: The constant need to justify claims, choices, and the research topic itself based on evidence and logical reasoning.
• Defining Scope: Clearly defining the scope and rationale of the research from the outset.
• Clarity and Audience: Striving for clarity, avoiding unnecessary jargon, and ensuring the writing is accessible to the intended scholarly audience.
• Utilising Resources: Leveraging available resources such as libraries (physical and digital), online tools, and consulting with supervisors or experienced academics.
• Learning from Examples: Reading published academic articles and journals to learn different writing styles and approaches.

1. Academic Writing - Kalyan Chattopadhyay

2."Academic Writing: The Basics: Atanu Bhattacharya"

3. Academic Writing: The Mechanics: Atanu Bhattacharya

References:

Academic Writing - Kalyan Chattopadhyay. Directed by Kalyan Chattopadhayay and MKBU DoE, 2020. YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT3mk0ufTdA.

Academic Writing: The Basics: Atanu Bhattacharya. Directed by Atanu Bhattacharya and DoE MKBU, 2020. YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpVre1V6cxw.

Academic Writing: The Mechanics: Atanu Bhattacharya. Directed by Atanu Bhattacharya, 2020. YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHCikaKKm48.

Smart Researcher: How I Mapped My Citation Landscape

 AI Tools for Literature Review

This blog is an activity assigned by Prof. (Dr.) Dilip Barad as a part of the PhD course to explore AI tools while doing a literature review. During myer's, I was using tools like Elicit AI, Google Scholar, Zotero, Research Rabbit, LitMaps, and Open Alex. Since then, all these and other tools have been upgraded a lot. In this blog, we will present all the necessary details in a concise and engaging manner.

Part 1

Research Rabbit

Main Function:

Visualizing citation networks and helping researchers discover related literature. Its key strength lies in exploring research papers through connections—co-authorship, citations, and topic similarity.

Interface and Usability:

I would not go so far as to say that Research Rabbit offers you a more user-friendly interface. When I first used it two years back, it was easy to use, but now they have added a lot of options, which may confuse you if you have not used any such tools before and directly jump to Research Rabbit. But all of those options are useful if you know what you are doing.

Output of Research Rabbit

While this tool is known for its visualization through graphs, it also excels at providing networks of co-authors and citations, paper collections, paper previews with abstracts, similar work, and early and later works of the field. The option to import data from Zotero is a must-use.

My topic is related to contemporary popular culture and media studies (Japanese anime studies in particular). I had to begin with "Contemporary Popular Culture, Cultural Studies, Media Study, Japanese Anime." 

I also imported the bibliography from Zotero, and the results did not disappoint me. It suggested some works that other tools, like Citation Gecko, were not suggesting.

There are some Limitation of this tools

Lacks full-text access (PDF) (only abstracts and links to publishers); no AI-generated summaries or annotations.  May not cover very recent or obscure papers not indexed in major databases. 

Citation Gecko

• Main Function/Strength:
  Finds papers cited by or citing your seed papers—perfect for citation chaining with customizable control.

• User Interface:
  Functional but less visually modern; basic but effective.
  
  
  

• Outputs:
  Lists of papers with citation links, visualization of networks, and exportable reference lists.

• Search Input Used:
  Popular Culture

• New/Unexpected Resources:
  NO. Not while researching with this keyword/field. Paper Recomendation 

• 
  

• Limitations:
  No rich visual maps like Research Rabbit or Litmaps, minimal UX design. It gives the ooption to import from citation managers but it doesn't work. it aslo has a feature to apply filter but that doesn't work either

LitMaps

Main Function/Strength:

Tracks research over time and creates "live" literature maps; strong for collaborative work.

User Interface:

Visually appealing, drag-and-drop functionality, easier for sustained project tracking.

Outputs:

Literature maps with timelines, collaborative collections, alerts for new papers.

Search Input Used:

Cultural Studies, Popular Culture, Japanese Anime, Media Studies, Contemporary Japanese Studies

New/Unexpected Resources:

Yes—especially helpful when set up to track new publications around your topic.

Limitations:

Freemium model limits some features (limited to 5 results); requires more setup compared to Connected Papers.

Part 2:

Citation Landscape of “Anime fandom and the liminal spaces between fan creativity and piracy" by Denison (2011).

Backward citations: Who does this article cite?

Reference:

Sr. No.	Title	Authors	Journal	Year	Cited By	References
1	Japanese Horror Cinema	Jay McRoy	N/A	2005	33	0
2	Ringing the changes: cult distinctions and cultural differences in US fans: readings of Japanese horror cinema	M. Hills	N/A	2005	29	0
3	Splitting the Difference	Brian Knutson, G. E. Wimmer	Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences	2007	110	41
4	Pirates and Samaritans: A decade of measurements on peer production and their implications for net neutrality and copyright	Johan Pouwelse, Pawel Garbacki, Dick Epema, Henk Sips	Telecommunications Policy	2008	39	27
5	Fan Cultures	Matthew Hills	Routledge eBooks	2003	651	0
6	'Lost in Translation': Anime, Moral Rights, and Market Failure	Joshua M. Daniels	Social Science Research Network	2008	6	0
7	File sharing activities over BT Networks: pirated movies	S. Kwok	CIE	2004	14	2
8	Anime Fans, DVDs, and the Authentic Text	Laurie B. Cubbison	N/A	2006	70	6
9	Fans, bloggers, and gamers: exploring participatory culture	Henry Jenkins	Choice Reviews Online	2007	1198	0
10	Video and DVD Industries	P. Mcdonald	N/A	2008	55	0
11	The subcultures reader	K. Gelder, Sarah Thornton	N/A	1999	364	0
12	From Impressionism to anime: Japan as fantasy and fan cult in the mind of the West	Susan J. Napier	Choice Reviews Online	2008	120	0
13	The Americanization of Anime and Manga: Negotiating Popular Culture	Antonia Levi	Palgrave Macmillan US eBooks	2006	16	0
14	FANSUBBING ANIME: INSIGHTS INTO THE ‘BUTTERFLY EFFECT’ OF GLOBALISATION ON AUDIOVISUAL TRANSLATION	Luis Pérez González	N/A	2007	153	0
15	Progress against the law	Sean Leonard	N/A	2005	124	12
16	Splitting The Difference	Kairen Cullen	N/A	2017	24	0
17	Of Otaku and Fansubs: A Critical Look at Anime Online in Light of Current Issues in Copyright Law	J. Hatcher	N/A	2005	48	0
18	PERSPECTIVES: STUDIES IN TRANSLATOLOGY	F Farahzad	N/A	2009	30	0
19	Fandom: Identities and communities in a mediated world (second edition)	C. Sandvoss, J. Gray, C. Harrington	N/A	2007	143	0
20	The ‘Third Wave’	B. Koros	N/A	2001	633	0
21	Fansubs: Audiovisual Translation in an Amateur Environment	Jorge Díaz-Cintas, P Muñoz Sánchez	N/A	2006	255	6
22	Beyond the Multiplex: Cinema, New Technologies, and the Home	B. Klinger	N/A	2006	155	0
23	Tune In, Log On: Soaps, Fandom, and Online Community	N. Baym	N/A	1999	709	0
24	Of Otakus and Fansubs: A Critical Look at Anime Online in Light of Current Issues in Copyright Law	Jordan Hatcher	Script-ed	2005	20	0

Forward citations: Who has cited this article?

Citation:

Note: There are more than 100 articles in this table, here you will see most cited articles.

Sr. No.	Title	Authors	Journal	Year	Cited By	References
1	Abridged anime and the distance in fan-dubbing: Interpreting culture through parody and fan appropriation	Jacob Mertens	International journal of cultural studies	2023	1198	31
2	‘Is it always so fast?’	L. Zhang, Daniel Cassany	Spanish in Context	2019	709	54
3	Cult cinema in the digital age	Iain Robert Smith	Routledge eBooks	2019	651	9
4	Exploring the intersection of translation and music: an analysis of how foreign songs reach Chinese audiences	Lingli Xie	N/A	2016	633	159
5	The Translator 18(2) - Speciall Issue (Non-professionals Translating and Interpreting: Participatory and Engaged Perspectives)	Şebnem Susam‐Sarajeva, L. Pérez-González	N/A	2012	364	41
6	Creative freedom in the digital age	Violetta Budak	N/A	2016	255	68
7	Transnational Fandom: Creating Alternative Values and New Identities through Digital Labor:	Felícitas Baruch	Television & New Media	2021	155	26

Summary of Findings

While exploring Denison’s influential article “Anime fandom and the liminal spaces between fan creativity and piracy” (2011) and mapping its citation landscape through AI tools, a few patterns and academic leanings clearly emerged.

What patterns or schools of thought emerge?

There’s a clear convergence of ideas from fan studies, participatory culture, media piracy, and transnational media flows. Many of the works Denison cites, and those that cite his article in turn, engage deeply with Henry Jenkins’ theories of fandom and participatory culture. There’s also a strong influence from cultural studies, especially where fan practices intersect with global media industries and questions of authenticity, authorship, and legality.

Another noticeable pattern is the focus on fansubbing and the blurred lines between fan labor and piracy. This shows how anime fandom has been central in academic debates about digital media ethics, informal economies, and cultural translation.

Which authors or journals appear most frequently?

Henry Jenkins is by far the most frequently cited and influential voice across both backward and forward citations. His foundational work continues to shape this field.

Matthew Hills and Susan J. Napier are also recurrent, both well-known for their contributions to fan and anime studies.

On the publishing side, journals like Television & New Media, International Journal of Cultural Studies, and interdisciplinary collections from Routledge seem to be common platforms for these discussions.

Are there any surprising gaps or contradictions?

Yes—what stood out was the absence of more recent Japanese-language scholarship or works directly from scholars based in Japan. Given the subject matter (anime fandom), one might expect more engagement with local perspectives or non-Western scholarship, but the network leans heavily on Anglophone discourse.

Another gap was in AI-generated insights, none of the tools provided automated summaries or qualitative evaluations of the works, which would have been useful. Also, some tools like Citation Gecko didn’t suggest anything new for my field, which shows their limitations when dealing with niche or interdisciplinary topics like anime studies.

Part 3: Reflective Writing

Using tools like Research Rabbit, LitMaps, and Citation Gecko has changed the way I look at academic research. These tools help me go deeper into the literature by showing how papers are connected, through citations, co-authors, and themes. This makes the review process more focused and efficient.

Out of all, I would continue using Research Rabbit & Litmaps because it gives a clear visual of related papers and works well with Zotero. It also helped me find papers that other tools missed. LitMaps is also useful to track new publications over time.

These digital tools also help reduce bias. Normally, we search only what we know, but these tools suggest papers we might not think to look for. This expands the scope and brings in fresh perspectives, especially useful in interdisciplinary fields like anime and media studies.

Overall, these tools save time, improve quality, and support deeper research.