Organising Research Reading and Writing

Embarking on a research project can often feel like diving into an ocean of information, with the added pressure of synthesising it into a coherent piece of writing. here Kalyani Vallath in her talk on organising research reading and writing, clearly illuminates that how many researchers face the common problem of feeling overwhelmed by extensive reading and struggling to begin writing. 

Video Resource used for this Blog

Here are some of the Stretegies discussed by Kalyani Vallath Ma'am in her talk,

The Collaborative Nature of Research

As Kalyani ma'am puts her remark research is fundamentally a dialogue with existing knowledge. It involves understanding the work that countless others have already done in your field, drawing insights, and then contributing your unique perspective. Your aim is to personalise findings, apply them in an original way, and ultimately, your well-organised work should serve as an inspiration for future scholars.

Strategies for Effective Research Reading

1. Define Your Direction with Preliminary Reading:

Start by gathering and reading articles relevant to your broad topic. This initial preliminary reading is crucial for deriving your research questions. Having 3 to 5 clear questions will focus your subsequent reading and guide your writing.

2. Embrace the Journey to Clarity:

It's entirely normal for the research process to feel complex and unclear at the outset. Clarity is a gradual process that emerges from diligent reading and consistent application. The more effort you put in, the clearer your understanding will become.

3. Delve Deep and Branch Out:

Read to gain a comprehensive understanding of your topic. Identify smaller branches or sub-topics within your broader research area. For example, if you're researching 'banditry', you might explore 'banditry in China', 'banditry in India', or its depiction in 'popular culture'. Remember, you cannot cover everything; instead, focus on specific, manageable aspects.

4. Cultivate a Multifaceted Perspective:

Explore your topic through diverse cultural, national, and historical lenses. Seek insights from all angles to gain a richer understanding. For instance, analysing how 'bandits' are portrayed in different regions (e.g., China, Africa, Australia, Latin America) can reveal fascinating cross-cultural nuances. Consider the application of broader sociological theories such as those related to class, gender, colonialism, or modernity to enrich your analysis.

5. Utilise a Spectrum of Sources:

While scholarly articles are paramount, don't limit yourself. Explore creative writing, films, web series, video games, and even personal accounts or historical data. These can offer fresh perspectives, even if they aren't primary academic sources. History is indispensable for every topic. Understanding the historical evolution of your topic, changes in perception, and relevant historical data is vital for a robust analysis.

Strategies for Organising Your Material

1. The Continuous Power of Questioning:

Throughout your reading, constantly ask questions. Your research questions serve as anchors, and the answers you uncover will directly form the paragraphs and chapters of your thesis. For example, "How does banditry intersect with issues of national security?" or "How do depictions of bandits differ across historical contexts?".

2. Systematic Note-Taking and Categorisation:

Whether you prefer traditional notebooks or digital tools like OneNote, Evernote, mobile phone apps, or even voice messages, ensure you capture key summaries, ideas, and initial analyses. Categorise your notes based on themes, sub-topics, or the type of material (e.g., 'films', 'theories', 'historical accounts'). This prevents confusion and streamlines retrieval. Implement a coding system for your files and articles. For instance, C1 for Chapter 1 material, T1 for a specific theme, and unique codes for individual articles, making filing and retrieval efficient.

3. Mastering Material Discovery:

Always review the bibliographies of articles you read. They are treasure troves that can lead you to further critical resources. Leverage Google Scholar for academic articles and general Google Search for broader keywords. When dealing with lengthy texts, use the table of contents and index to pinpoint relevant sections. The 'find in page' option (Ctrl+F or Cmd+F) is also invaluable for quickly locating keywords within a digital document. Tools like Kindle are highly recommended for digital reading, allowing you to highlight, mark, and add comments directly within the text, which aids significantly in organisation.

4. Interconnecting Your Ideas:

Use hyperlinks in your digital notes to connect to online resources or related articles. This creates a powerful web of interconnected information. Add comments or cross-connection notes within your readings to link ideas from different sources or chapters.

Strategies for the Writing Process

1. Crafting an Insightful Literature Review:

Your literature review should answer fundamental questions:

What research has already been done?

What is currently known about your topic?

And crucially,

What remains undiscovered?. 

Organise your review strategically – perhaps chronologically or thematically – to demonstrate your comprehensive understanding and analytical skill. Highlight unique or ground breaking research that has significantly impacted your field. Incorporate the history of your topic by briefly outlining past developments or changes in perceptions, often forming part of your introductory chapter.

2. Nurturing Originality:

 Constantly reflect on what makes your research project unique and how it differentiates itself from existing work. Don't shy away from connecting your research to your personal experiences or interests; this can infuse originality into your work.

3. Start Writing Early and Iterate Consistently:

Begin writing from the very outset of your research journey. Do not wait until you believe all your reading is complete. In your initial drafts, focus on developing your own ideas rather than merely quoting others extensively. Regularly recheck and edit your written work. As your reading progresses and your understanding deepens, your ideas will evolve, making continuous review essential. Effective time management is critical throughout the entire research and writing process.

Dispelling Common Misconceptions

1. "No Material on My Topic": This is a widespread misconception. There is always relevant material available for any topic, no matter how new or niche it may seem. Your creativity lies in exploring connections, drawing parallels, and applying new contexts to existing information.

2. History vs. Contemporary Relevance: Both historical and contemporary perspectives are vital. Even when studying historical subjects, your analysis should reflect a 21st-century perspective, incorporating modern theories such as cultural studies.

‘Hypothesis’ and its importance in academic research.

This blog is written as part of the Ph.D. Coursework task assigned by Dr. Dilip Barad on the topic of Hypothesis in the Academic Research.

Part 1- The first session  discusses ‘Hypothesis’ and its importance in academic research.

Etymology and Usage of "Hypothesis"

The word "hypothesis" in English is derived from a Latin root. In the 1590s, it referred to a kind of particular statement and by 1650s, it was used in connection with a proposition that is assumed and taken for granted, used as a premise in research work. It comes from the French "hypothèse", Latin "hypothesis", or Greek "hypothesis".

Looking at the etymology from Greek, which means the base or groundwork, indicates that writing a hypothesis requires groundwork and foundation work for research. Literally, "hypo" means placing under something or placing before something. "Hypo" (under) and "thesis" (placing a proposition) together suggest placing a proposition under something. The etymology suggests there is a kind of research problem within which we try to make our hypothesis.

Current Usage and Definition

 In common usage in the 21st century, a hypothesis refers to a provisional idea whose merit requires evaluation. So anything stated as a hypothesis requires evaluation and cannot be accepted as a statement of fact without it. For proper evaluation, the framer of a hypothesis needs to define specifics in operational terms, requiring variables. A hypothesis requires more work by the researcher to either confirm or disapprove it. This includes more research work, observations, field work, literature review, etc..

A confirmed hypothesis may become a theory or occasionally grow to become a theory. It is not a theory now, but can be accepted if proven in a proper context.

Definition 

A common definition is that ‘a hypothesis is an educated guess or prediction about a relationship between variables.’

The term "educated guess" implies scientific thinking, it is not based on mere assumptions. It is well thought, questioned, and examined. The prediction is based on research observations and literature review. A hypothesis is a statement that can be tested through scientific research. Scientific research requires testing, so a hypothesis is falsifiable. In scientific research, a hypothesis is used to make predictions about what will happen under certain conditions.  Hypotheses are tested or verifiable under different conditions; different conditions may lead to different conclusions about a hypothesis. Hypotheses are about the relationship between variables. A variable can be considered a quantity which assumes a variety of values in a particular problem.

There are three main 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 that do not change.

Variables decide the simplicity or complexity of the hypothesis statement.

What a Hypothesis is NOT?

A hypothesis is not a fact or a proven theory. A fact like "sun rises in the East" is not a hypothesis because it's not verifiable further or changeable. It is simply a starting point for further investigation. If research results do not support the hypothesis, it may need to be revised or abandoned. A hypothesis is not a question statement. While connected to a research question and possibly emerging from it, there is a clear difference.

 Richard Feynman, Ray Hillborn, and Mark observe that, A scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research. It begins with an educated guess or a thought.

Functions of Hypothesis

A hypothesis shall bring clarity to the research problem. It helps move from vagueness or fog around the problem. It provides a study with focus. It tells us what specific aspects to investigate. It informs what data to collect and what not to collect, preventing wasted time on unnecessary data collection. It will enhance objectivity or neutrality. It enables the researcher to conclude specifically what is true or what is false.

Falsifiability and Verificationism Proposed by Karl Popper

Falsifiability is a standard for evaluating scientific theories and hypotheses, introduced by philosopher of science Karl Popper in "The Logic of Scientific Discovery". He proposed it as a solution to the problems of induction and demarcation. A theory or hypothesis is falsifiable or refutable if it can be logically contradicted by an empirical test. The empirical test must be potentially executable with existing technologies or ways of looking at things. Technology changes over time, strengthening empirical observations.

Verificationism, also known as the verification principle or verifiability criteria of meaning, is a philosophical doctrine. It maintains that only statements that are empirically verifiable (verifiable through the senses) are cognitively meaningful. Otherwise, they are considered truths of logic (tautology). Verificationism rejects statements related to metaphysics, theology, ethics, and aesthetics as cognitively meaningless under this criterion. Quantitative research hypotheses may pass under this criterion because they use data and statistical analysis leading to objective conclusions. Qualitative research hypotheses may find problems under this criterion because they are often not empirically verifiable or their truths are logical/tautological.

Part 2 

This session  focuses on the purpose, analysis, and difference pertaining to hypothesis and research questions within the context of quantitative research and qualitative research. 

The content draws on an article published in a Korean medical science journal titled "A practical guide to writing quantitative and qualitative research questions and hypothesis in scholarly articles".

Purpose of Hypothesis in Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research

Qualitative vs.	Quantitative
the purpose of hypothesis is to formulate a hypothesis. It can help give general findings that might lead to a hypothesis.	For quantitative researchers, the purpose of hypothesis is to test or confirm a hypothesis.
Qualitative research is useful if you need deeper information about a topic you know little about, helping to uncover themes	Quantitative research is usually informed by qualitative research; you need sufficient understanding of a topic to develop a testable hypothesis
Qualitative research often comes prior to quantitative research. It helps get a baseline understanding of a topic and start formulating hypotheses around correlation and causation.	Quantitative research is highly structured, requiring an understanding of parameters and how variables behave in practice. This allows for the creation of a controlled research outline to produce high-quality data
when interpreting and analysing data, thinking about hypothesis involves formulating a kind of theory that might have wider acceptance	Quantitative research is described as being more systematic, statistically, and mathematically meticulous compared to qualitative research. Hypothesis plays a vital role, helping quantitative researchers narrow down their variables

Analysis in Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research

The approach to analysis differs between the two research types.

Analysis in Qualitative Research	Analysis in Quantitative Research
In qualitative data, the data is typically highly textual in nature.	In quantitative data, the data is a dataset that can be analysed, often using statistical software like Excel, R, or SPSS. This data is typically gathered through question types like rating, ranking, single-select, multi-select, and matrix table questions
Analysis involves reading through the data and looking for key themes that emerge repeatedly. There are no facts, figures, or statistical figures in qualitative data	Quantitative analysis involves statistical figures and software, which can provide graphical presentations and allow different statistical analyses from various angles.
A qualitative researcher trying to frame a quantifiable hypothesis might not be able to conclude their research.	Similarly, quantitative researchers cannot rely solely on assumptions, theories, and themes; they must be more particular with their hypothesis

Research Questions vs. Research Hypothesis

Research Questions	Research Hypothesis
A research question is what a study aims to answer after data analysis and interpretation	A research hypothesis is an educated statement of an expected outcome. This statement is based on background research and current knowledge
In qualitative research, the research question is arguably very important when thinking about or formulating a hypothesis. Future parts of the talk will explore this further, suggesting that qualitative research often has more research questions and fewer research hypotheses	In quantitative research, there are often fewer research questions and more research hypotheses, depending on the variables. Specific predictions are made based on research questions; educated guesses are made based on research questions and then worked out through variables and tested. In quantitative research, the same hypothesis can be read and re-read in different ways simply by changing the variables

Part 3

Characteristics of Good Research Questions: 

Excellent research questions are specific and focused. They try to integrate collective data and observations to confirm or refute the subsequent hypothesis.

A good hypothesis has several characteristics:

• Is empirically testable.

• Is backed by preliminary evidence.

• Is testable by ethical research.

• Is based on original ideas.

• Has evidence-based logical reasoning.

• Can be predicted.

Types of Research Questions and Hypothesis: Quantitative vs. Qualitative:

There is a clear distinction between quantitative and qualitative research regarding the number and types of questions and hypotheses. Quantitative research typically has fewer types of research questions but many types of quantitative research hypotheses. There are three types of quantitative research questions and almost a dozen types of quantitative research hypotheses. While on the other hand Qualitative research typically has many types of research questions but only one type of qualitative research hypothesis. There are almost a dozen types of qualitative research questions and just one hypothesis type and that is Hypothesis generating.

Quantitative Research Questions and Hypothesis 

Qualitative Research Questions and Hypothesis 

Part 4: This Session is focused on  Framework, General Flow, and Algorithm

Framework for Developing Research Questions and Hypothesis:

A primary criterion to apply is the FINER criteria. Your research question and hypothesis should pass this test. 

FINER stands for: Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, Relevant

Other frameworks can also be used, such as

PICO(T): Population, Intervention or indicator being studied, Comparison group, Outcome of interest, Time frame of the study. This moves from population/problem to intervention, comparison, outcome, and time frame.

PEO: Population being studied, Exposure to pre-existing conditions, Outcome of interest.

FINER Maps, which incorporates additional aspects. 

It stands for: Feasibility, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, Relevant, Manageable, Appropriate, Potential value/Publishable, Systematic

This framework helps assess how feasible to systematic your research question or hypothesis is.

General flow for constructing effective research questions and hypotheses prior to conducting research

Algorithm for building research question and hypothesis in qualitative research

Barroga, Edward, and Glafera Janet Matanguihan. “A Practical Guide to Writing Quantitative and Qualitative Research Questions and Hypotheses in Scholarly Articles.” Journal of Korean medical science vol. 37,16 e121. 25 Apr. 2022, doi:10.3346/jkms.2022.37.e121

The Art of Literary Research

This blog is part of the Ph.D. Coursework Task which was to watch videos Prepared by Dr. Dilip Barad sir, based on the Book 'The Art of Literary Research' by Richard D. Altick.

Video 1 Critic, Researcher and Scholar

Academic writing has two ways of looking, the first one is  the technical aspects of writing and data collection and the second is the Mind set, that can be called the ‘software’ part, which involves understanding the roles of the critic, researcher, and scholar. While these terms are often used interchangeably, particularly ‘researcher’ and ‘scholar’, it is possible to differentiate them. One individual can embody all three roles depending on their approach to a text or topic.

Critic vs. Scholar

Some students of literature prefer to see themselves primarily as critics, while others identify as scholars. However, the distinction between the two is described as far more apparent than real, and every good student of literature constantly combines these roles, often without realising it. The difference between a critic and a scholar is primarily one of emphasis.

Critic	Scholar
The literary scholar and the critic are engaged in a common pursuit. Their pursuits are common, and the findings of one are indispensable for the other.
A critic might use the findings or interpretations of scholars,	While a scholar cannot interpret without reading the text, which is what a critic necessarily does.
The critic is primarily concerned with the literary work itself	The scholar, on the other hand, is more concerned with the facts attending the literary work's genesis and subsequent history.
They study the style, structure, content, and ideas of a literary text.	A scholar locates a particular work in a larger context, seeing it from "without as well as within".
The critic's concern is seen as having a narrow insight into the work, although this is necessary for any reader or scholar.	They seek to illuminate the work from every conceivable angle by uncovering and applying data residing outside the work itself.
Being a scholar is something Higher or expanding the horizon compared to being only a critic.

The activities of the critic ultimately benefit criticism, while the activities of the scholar ultimately benefit literary history.

New Criticism or Practical Criticism being more aligned with the critic's role, focusing on particular criticism or developing theories. Northrop Frye, who sought a common skeleton in world literature and a larger context, is offered as an example aligning with the scholar's approach.

George Whalley, in his work ‘Scholarship and Criticism’ (1959), observes that 'No true scholar can lack critical acumen; and the scholar’s eye is rather like the poet’s – not, to be sure, “in a fine frenzy rolling,” but at least looking for something as yet unknown which it knows it will find, with perceptions heightened and modified by the act of looking. For knowing is qualitative and is profoundly affected by the reason for wanting to know. Again, it is clear that no critic can afford not to be a scholar – even a scholar in a pretty impressive degree – if his work is to go much beyond delicate impressionism, penumbral rhetoric, or marginal schematism. Without scholarship every synoptic view will be cursory, every attempt at a synthesis a wind-egg; without scholarship the criticism of a poem may easily become a free fantasia on a non-existent theme (Whalley).' 

At the end we can say that a scholar's work requires a theoretical framework and the ability to locate work in the larger context of theories, discourses, genesis, or history. Starting research from the genesis or historical perspective is presented as more important than merely starting from a text based on personal liking.

What is essential to be a Researcher

• The researcher must have a vivid sense of history. This is the ability to cast themselves back into another age, which includes time, but also discipline or subject

• Researchers must adjust their intellectual insights and imaginative response to the system of thought and social/cultural atmosphere of the past. This involves being able to think and fantasise as people did in those times to comprehend current attitudes or artistic assumptions that guided an author. Intellectual insights are needed to support interpretations with evidence, avoiding mere fantasia.

• While the researcher travels back into the past, the scholar must retain their footing in the 21st century for the sake of indispensable perspective. The essence of the past needs to be understood and used in the present. This implies the researcher, who also has scholar’s qualities, must have a double vision: the vastness of the past and its use in the present.

• The researcher is one who is rooted in today but can time travel into the past, understand the "pastness of the past," and quickly see this pastness in the present time. They need both complete attachment with the past and detachment to quickly move between the past and the present.

Qualities that a Literary Scholar/Researcher Must have 

The literary scholar/researcher needs to be as rigorous as scientists in their method and that  requires certain qualities, which are also valuable for literary research and that are,

• Intellectual curiosity, 

• Shrewdness, 

• Precision, 

• Imagination

• and lively inventiveness.

These qualities help in suggesting new hypotheses, strategies, and sources of information, and enable the accurate interpretation and evaluation of data.

Video 2 Mind and Temperament of Research Scholar

Someone who is engaging in Research , they must have ‘making of the mind’ of the research scholar, dealing with the mental capacities and soft skills needed for research. A rewarding research work is one you are eager and keen to talk about, where you know you have done something significant, added to knowledge systems, or contributed in a newer way. It involves someone being interested in inviting you to speak and listen about your work.

For a rewarding research project the researcher must have- 

• A fair degree of imagination. Imagination is more crucial even in scientific and technological advancements.

• Then there is Originality of approach- (thinking of approaches not yet applied or seen in a particular context) 

• Solidity of learning. (extensive reading)

• A wish and will to see works of literary art and their creators from new perspectives. (Retellings and adaptations, it brings new perspectives)

You have to think deeply and be imaginative in your approaches, like those that are not already applied in the text. This must come from the solidity of your learning and a strong base in the discipline. Reading for research and writing for research are completely different from the pleasure we find in normal or casual reading.

Academic pleasure is very different from the aesthetic pleasure that comes from reading a literary work. In research, our only true likeness must be the desire to know more. Only then will we begin to enjoy the real work of research. When we want to know the area or the  theory, our will and wish to look at the writer and the work from a new perspective becomes very rewarding.

Divergent thinking is very important to make research projects rewarding. The new perspective or the novel idea must be one’s own and original. There is openness and scope to display the new perspective and divergent thinking but the Researcher must have to find it on their own.

‘Publish or Perish’

The concept of ‘Publish or Perish’ is described in the video and it is a pernicious and very harmful idea that researchers have to continuously publish works in their field. Scholarship produced under duress or pressure is less likely to be qualitative. This idea, linking promotion and job security to publication output, originated in American universities in the 1960s. It also means that making research or publication compulsory can lead to a lack of qualitative work. It poses a hurdle for aspiring teachers, especially if their research area doesn't directly align with their teaching subject.

Forcing publication for promotion can create Problems like,

• scholars simply rush to publish without genuine eagerness to know more, hindering the growth of knowledge.

• Presenting incomplete work at seminars is a way to get feedback and questions, prompting further research and contributing to knowledge growth.

• "Publish or perish"  is ideally problematic, especially for young scholars building their careers.

This pressure Publishing research works can lead to an ‘unhappy scholar’, while it is important to build the academic career and gain promotions but if it is not done properly, to think with different perspectives, to reinvent the wheel, to gain new knowledge it will eventually be of no use.

Chief qualities of mind and temperament for a successful and happy scholar can be learned from two occupations,  law and journalism. If the literary researcher can apprentice with them they can learn which is important for the making of mind.

From law: 

• Understanding the principles of evidence is critical. 

• Every statement in research must be supported by evidence or proof, not just assumptions or sudden ideas.

From investigative journalism: 

• Resourcefulness is important. 

• This includes knowing where to go for information and how to obtain it

• The ability to recognize and follow up leads, and tenacity in the pursuit of facts. 

• Investigative reporters must rely on facts, as misinformation has serious consequences.

From both what can be learned is organisation skills and the ability to put facts together are vital for structuring research and writing effectively. So, following the legal stories, and Journalism works can also result in the development of insight. 

In the past researchers, skills like communication were important for accessing resources like physical libraries and traveling to faraway places to access resources was important. Still  in the digital age, knowing how to interact and ask questions of people remains useful when digital resources are insufficient. The journey of research, including discovering the "how" and creating a new path, is the responsibility of the research scholar. Supervisors and Guides will be their but to add new dimensions to your research will be of your doing only.

Human scholarship

Humane scholarship moves and must move within two worlds at once – the world of scientific method and the world, in whatever degree, of creative art (Lowes) .

The world of scientific method and the world of creative art are both different; they are a combination that is needed for the Human Scholarship. Research serves as a scientific tool, but researchers may sometimes become too absorbed in methodology, losing sight of the ultimate purpose. In literary research, this purpose is interpretation. Interpretation functions as the equivalent of a laboratory for scholars in the humanities, where diverse approaches are tested and explored. However, for interpretations to be meaningful and credible, they must be grounded in evidence and supported by factual analysis.

Altick, Richard Daniel. The Art of Literary Research. Norton, 1975.

Lowes, John Livingston. “1933: The Modern Language Association and Humane Scholarship.” PMLA, vol. 115, no. 7, 2000, pp. 1806–17. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/463576. Accessed 7 June 2025.

Whalley, George. "Scholarship and Criticism." University of Toronto Quarterly 29.1 (1959): 33-45.