SOME ADVICE ON CARRYING OUT AND WRITING DISSERTATION FOR MASTERS DEGREE Andrew Basden. University of Salford. Disclaimer: This advice is offered merely to help you in carrying out your dissertation. It has been compiled from my experience and reflection. There will be bits missing, so do not rely 100% on it; use your commonsense in applying it. Give priority to all advice given by the Module Leader, where it conflicts with this advice here. Discuss with me. Also, please see Briony Oates' book (in library) for a lot more. 1. OVERALL A dissertation is a report of a piece of research you have undertaken with critical discussion of that research. Research answers a question, a 'research question', such as "What are the five most important factors in determining whether an information system fails or succeeds?". There are two main activities for a master's dissertation: » doing the research, to give something to write about » writing about it, to create the dissertation that is handed in. Unfortunately, you only get marks for what you write, so the writing about it is very important. See below for what gives good marks. 1.1 What Not To Do Often a student approaches their dissertation with an idea of a topic they want to research (for example, e-government or tacit knowledge), and immediately jump to thinking whom to interview or survey about it. Don't do that! That is premature. Before thinking about how to carry out research, you need to establish a clear idea about what you want to find out. That is, the 'research aim' or 'research question'. That takes a lot of work in the first few weeks of a dissertation to do this, because a research aim/question is NOT a research topic, and must be made very precise by reading to see what others have done about the topic. So here is what I suggest you do ... 1.2 Summary of What To Do Think of three main phases of this work: 1. Planning the research: decide research question, underlying theory and research methods; 2. Doing the research; 3. Writing the dissertation. In a three month dissertation, assume each phase takes one month - yes, even the writing takes a long time if you do it properly. Please see Appendix I for a suggested detailed project plan over these three months. 1.2.1 Create Initial Research Questions/Aims Start with a topic that interests you (example: tacit knowledge). Then first ask yourself: "What is it about my topic (tacit knowledge) that I want to find out by doing this research?" Just saying 'about tacit knowledge' is not enough. You must be specific, and should formulate a specific 'research question' (RQ) that your research will answer. Here are two examples of possible RQs related to the topic of tacit knowledge: » RQ1: "In what ways does Polanyi's view of TK differ from Baumard's or Nonaka's etc." » RQ2: "How does Polanyi's [or Baumard's or Nonaka's] view of TK stand up in practice?" At this stage, try to think of three possible RQs for your project, because you do not yet know which one will 'work' best. 1.2.2 Read Around The Topic But you cannot be specific enough until you have read and studied what others have already discussed about your topic (TK). They might have already answered the RQs you have come up with. If so, you cannot really do your dissertation on them. So you would need to find a (slightly) different question for your research to answer. When you come to write your dissertation, you will need to be able to justify why your research question/aim is important and worth researching. Reading at this stage helps give you that justification. This reading will be part of, but by no means all of, your literature review. On the basis of this reading, select one of your initial RQs, modify if necessary to take account of what people have said about your topic, and then formulate objectives (see below). At this stage you should have a RQ and some objectives. 1.2.3 Decide What Theories You Will Use This is where you do most of the Literature Review. You need to get to know the theories that are relevant to your research. For example, if you choose RQ1 example above, the theory will those of Polanyi, Nonaka and Baumard. If you choose RQ2, you will need to know two types of theory: you need to know Polanyi (or one of the others) about TK, BUT ALSO you will need theory about how test a theory against real life. To find out the theories you need to read good academic books and journal articles. See Appendix III.1 for an example of advice I gave to one student about literature review. Hint: begin with Wikipedia, and get to know the topic, but then find the references the Wikipedia articles give you at their end, and read those. Then read articles that those articles cite. After you have read the theories, you might need to rethink your research question and objectives. 1.2.4 Think About Research Methods It is only then that you can say what kind of research methods you will use. For example Q2 could involve interviews or case studies. But Q1 would not, and would be secondary research (i.e. reading). After you have more or less fixed your research question, then you decide objectives (what you need to achieve in order to answer your RQ). After that, you decide research methods. Sometimes it is circular. In that you might find that the research method you need for a given RQ is impossible. So you then go back and alter your RQ. But you don't do that first. The order is: » decide a rough topic e.g. tk » literature review to find what people have said and what is worth researching for diss; find issues of the area, and scope them down to something manageable in 3 months » decide RQ (and justify it in terms of literature) » decide objectives » decide research methods, including in detail of whom to interview etc. » check that research methods are feasible; if not, go back and alter RQ and objectives. I usually ask my students to have all this sorted out in the first month of their dissertation. 1.2.5 Carry Out The Research After this, the second month, do your research and collect all results. Interpret them. Read Briony Oates' book about how to do this. 1.2.6 Write Draft of Dissertation Then in the third month, you write up your research. But this often involves changing your RQ and objectives, because what you *actually* found out by your research is not what you expected or intended. So, at this stage, I recommend: » Write up your results » Interpret them to highlight what is meaningful and valid, and get rid of useless stuff. » Refer back to your literature review (and often you will need to do more literature review) to find out how what you found out fit against what others have found. Write a discussion about this. » Discuss how your research has met the objectives. If not, then might it have met different objectives? What are they? (usually only slightly different from your originals) » Ask yourself: has my research actually answered my RQ, or has it in fact answered a different one, perhaps a better one? If so, rewrite your RQ, and ensure that your (new) objectives fit with it (see below). » Ask yourself: "So what?" What has my research contributed to the world? Write a discussion of this in your Conclusion. Go back to Introduction and rewrite it so it introduces these issues about which you have made a contribution (see below; this will be in Introduction §1.1-1.3 mainly). This draft should be shown to, and discussed with, your supervisor. 1.2.7 Write the Final Version Now you need to get the draft right. Your supervisor will tell you what else needs to be done. And also you need to collect all the references, make sure all the tables and diagrams are correct, attend to spelling and presentation, etc. 1.3 Good Marks The writing in your dissertation should express everything about the doing of the research that is of good quality. To ensure good quality, both doing and writing need to be guided by the 'W' questions (see below). What Gets Good Marks? If you would like a 'rule of thumb' about what makes a dissertation of good quality (and hence worthy of good marks) it would be this: Think of yourself leading a reader on a journey through that research and the discussion about it. You should make that journey as easy and interesting for the reader as possible, so that the reader emerges at the end thinking "That was a journey worth taking". (Two of the readers will be the two examiners.) - Because the reader is busy, s/he needs to be motivated to read it. - Because the reader might not know your field well, a good and clear explanation is required. - Because the reader has a right to be mildly sceptical, you need to give them confidence that what you say can be trusted (and is not simply your own biased, ill-thought-out opinion), and that the research you have carried out can be trusted. This means you should be 'critical' all the way through and justify all that you say, and demonstrate that you know the topic you are talking about. There will be more on these below. 2. DOING THE RESEARCH Please read Briony Oates' book, and refer to your Research Methods module, to find out how to do the research. I do not give many details here. First, you should take your Objectives, and decide which ones require you to do research in order to achieve them. Then, for each of those objectives (might only be one), do the following, whether it is secondary or primary research: » Obtain 'data' » Analyse the data » Think about and discuss the results of the analysis, If you take a month for this, then make sure that you take one week for each of the second and third steps. In secondary research, the data is what others have written. For example, RQ1 above should be done by secondary research, and the 'data' is what Polanyi, Baumard and Nonaka have written about TK. Secondary research is very good if you are doing a conceptual research. In primary research, the data is what people say. This can come from several sources: » questionnaires » interviews » reading blogs etc. on Internet. Whichever you choose, you need to think very carefully about the questions you ask (reading blogs involves coming with questions you ask yourself about what you read). Your questions must be designed to produce the results you need to achieve your objectives. To design your questions, I suggest you work from your objectives, working out what you need to find out in order to achieve the objectives. Create some questions from this, then imagine yourself asking them and see what kinds of results you might get. Are these the kinds of results that would be helpful to you? If not, think of better questions, and imagine again. Once you have a set of questions, then do a pilot study to try them out and improve the questions. Then do the main study. See Appendix III.1 for an example of applying a theory to blogs. See Appendix III.2 for advice on collecting data together during analysis. 3. THE DISSERTATION REPORT NOTE: This text that follows here is written earlier than the text above. In particular, the thing about the W questions above might be different from what I say below. If so, please use your common sense to try to see what I am getting at and what fits your own situation. Please DO NOT take either the above or the below as mandatory or absolute; YOU are responsible for interpreting all this. Please read Appendix II to see the main contents I advice you to have in a Dissertation Report. What Should a Dissertation Contain? If you would like a 'rule of thumb' about what a Dissertation should contain it would be: You should aim to answer most of the 'W' questions about the research: why, where, what, how, who, when, whether, by the end of the Dissertation. Why: Why is this research important or of interest to readers; this provides motivation to reader. Where1:Where are we (you plus reader) starting from? That is: what is the current thinking about the topic of this research? Where2:Where would you like the reader to end up? That is: the Aim of the research; this provides clarity to reader about what 'Research Question' your research is trying to answer. What1: What do we need to achieve in order to end up there? That is: the Objectives. What2: (a) What was discovered during the research? (b) In what way is it relevant? How: How did you achieve these? That is, you should discuss and justify research methods you use, and tasks you undertake in these methods. This provides clarity and justification to reader. When: When did each of these tasks take place, in which order? This clarifies to reader how your research progressed. Who: (a) Who your research is relevant to. (b) Who provided the data, information or knowledge you need? This includes whom you will interview, and who are authors of the literature you will read? This helps the critical justification. Whether: (a) Whether you ended up where you intended. (b) Whether the research could, in retrospect, have been done differently (self- critique and Future Work). This shows reader the importance of the research, and also assures reader you have been sufficiently self-critical that they can trust you. Often, most of the main sections can be seen as each contributing an answer to one of these questions. Why: Why is this research important or of interest to readers; this provides motivation to reader. Answered in Introduction and Conclusion. Where1:Where are we (you plus reader) starting from? That is: what is the current thinking about the topic of this research? Answered in Introduction and Literature Research. Where2:Where would you like the reader to end up? That is: the Aim of the research; this provides clarity to reader about what 'Research Question' your research is trying to answer. Answered in the Aim or Research Question. What1: What do we need to achieve in order to end up there? That is. Answered in the Objectives. What2: (a) What was discovered during the research? Answered in the Results. (b) In what way is it relevant? Answered in the Discussion. How: How did you achieve these? That is, you should discuss and justify research methods you use, and tasks you undertake in these methods. This provides clarity and justification to reader. Answered in the Research Approach/Methods section. When: When did each of these tasks take place, in which order? This clarifies to reader how your research progressed. Answered in the Research Methods section. Who: (a) Who your research is relevant to. Answered in the Literature Review. (b) Who provided the data, information or knowledge you need? This includes whom you will interview, and who are authors of the literature you will read? This helps the critical justification. Answered in the Research Methods and Results section. Whether: (a) Whether you ended up where you intended. (b) Whether the research could, in retrospect, have been done differently (self- critique and Future Work). This shows reader the importance of the research, and also assures reader you have been sufficiently self-critical that they can trust you. Both answered in the Conclusion. Notice the pattern: # the first and last sections (Intro and Concln) go together, # the second and second-last sections go together (Aims and Discussion), # the third and third-last (Objectives and Results) go together. This ensures that what you 'promise' the reader (even implicitly) in the early part you actually do (and deliver your promise) in the end. Now I suggest what each chapter of a normal dissertation might contain, including sections in each chapter. If you follow this you will not go far wrong. But some research might benefit from a different structure - be guided by your supervisor. Please read Appendix II to see the main contents I advice you to have in a Dissertation Report, which are: CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION §1.1 Introduction to Topic §1.2 Own Reasons for Researching This Topic §1.3 Main Reasons Why Topic is Important §1.4 Main Issues in Topic §1.5 Scoping the Topic §1.6 Research Aim/Question and Objectives §1.7 Structure of Dissertation CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW §2.xx (sections as needed) CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODS §3.1 Review of Research Methods. §3.2 Chosen Research Methods. §3.3 Research Work Carried Out. CHAPTER 4. RESULTS §4.xx (sections as needed) CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION §5.1 Discussion of Results in relation to Objectives. §5.2 Discussion of those in relation to Aim/RQ. §5.3 Discussion of these in relation to the Theory. §5.4 Discussion of Main Issues. CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION §6.1 Summary of Findings §6.2 Evaluation of Research §6.3 Future Work §6.4 Contributions of Research REFERENCES APPENDICES (if any) Appendices contain material that is not necessary to the dissertation but which you believe the reader might wish to read for deeper understanding. For example the results or questions of a long questionnaire might be placed in an appendix. References: See Appendix IV about referencing. 4. FINALLY. Advice is useful, but can be ignored. If you feel anything above constrains you too much, or leaves something important out, then think about it, and if necessary ignore it. I trust this is useful. All the best as you complete your dissertation. Andrew Basden. APPENDIX I A SUGGESTED PROJECT PLAN Make up a project plan. I suggest something like the following, if we have 11 weeks before hand-in - but your individual plan should be modified from this and discussed with supervisor: Week 1 (this week): Write early draft of Introduction. To do so, read at least ten articles. Write out a three-line Aim/RQ. Write out 4-6 Objectives. Send this to Supervisor. Week 2: Read up on research methods (perhaps you have already had a taught module on this, in which case, this could be simply a refresher). Write up the first (general) part of Research Methods chapter. Supervisor replies. Revisit aims and objectives accordingly. Then select appropriate research methods for each objective. (Bear in mind you only have 6-7 weeks in which to carry out the research.) Write rest of research methods chapter. Email supervisor with research methods chose for each objective. Week 3: Plan all the research methods: # Literature in journals or books: research which journals and books you should read (you can use Internet for this). # Exploration of Internet: seek out Internet sites, and make lists of those that you need to explore. # Questionnaires. Draft a set of questions that will help you achieve the objective. Discuss these with a colleague, to get a better set. Then do a pilot study with a few people, so see how the questions 'work'. Then revise the questions. At the same time, decide whom to send the questionnaire to, how many, etc. and how you will distribute the questionnaire. # Interviews: Draft a set of goal-questions for the interviews, which will help you achieve your objective(s). Try them out on a colleague or someone as a pilot, and revise them. Also, this week, decide which people to need to interview. contact the people you wish to interview to seek interview. Contact twice as many as you need because some will say 'no'. # And so on. Any other type: discuss with me or use your common sense. To help decide what issues, questions, goal-questions etc. to focus on, you might find it useful to consider Dooyeweerd's aspects; see Appendix V. Note: If you have several research methods (for various objectives), plan them all. Note: Plan a pilot if appropriate. Weeks 4-7: Carry out the research as planned above. Write it all up as you go as 'results'. Reflect on the results obtained. Keep eye on how well they achieve objectives, and alter your research as needed. Remember: if you have literature research for objective 1, qnr for obj 2, interview for obj 3, literature for obj 4, then you have a huge amount of work to do these weeks!! # Literature research: Do all the reading. I would expect you to read around 50 articles or 5-10 books, or some mix of these. ('Article' = journal paper or chapter in edited book.) Keep track on: Is it giving you the information you need to achieve the objective; if not, select other articles. # Internet research: Do all the exploration. 100 sites or more, depending on size. Keep track on: Is it giving you the information you need to achieve the objective; if not, select other sites. # Questionnaires: send out, receive back, tabulate results, write down any written comments. Think: are you getting the information you need to achieve the objective? If not, revise the questions, and send out to more people, receive them and tabulate. # Interviews: Carry them out. Transcribe the interviews. Reflect on them: are they giving you the information you need to achieve the objectives; if not, do more interviews with new goal-questions. Note: your reflection should take place at end of week 5, so you have time to alter your research. Week 8: Reflect on all results, and carefully see what they give for each objective. Do more literature reading to find out what results others have. Write this up as Discussion part 1 ('What 2'). Think: Is this enough? If not, then do a bit more research. Also reflect on how all this answers the RQ/Aim. Write this up as second part of Discussion ('Where 2'). Week 9: Continue week 8, especially if you needed to do more. Then write up Discussion Part 3 ('Whether'). Week 10: Write Conclusion. Then completely rewrite the Introduction and Aims and Objectives, in line with Results, Discussion and Conclusion. You might need to refer to some of the articles you read. Then revise Discussion and Conclusion slightly to give good answers to Aims and Objectives and Intro. Week 11: Read Dissertation thoroughly, attend to how it is presented, do the admin stuff and deliver. APPENDIX II. SUGGESTED CONTENTS OF DISSERTATION Here is a suggested contents and chapters for a dissertation. You might need to alter this, but following this you will not go far wrong. Here is the overall list, followed by description of them: CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION §1.1 Introduction to Topic §1.2 Own Reasons for Researching This Topic §1.3 Main Reasons Why Topic is Important §1.4 Main Issues in Topic §1.5 Scoping the Topic §1.6 Research Aim/Question and Objectives §1.7 Structure of Dissertation CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW §2.xx (sections as needed) CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODS §3.1 Review of Research Methods. §3.2 Chosen Research Methods. §3.3 Research Work Carried Out. CHAPTER 4. RESULTS §4.xx (sections as needed) CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION §5.1 Discussion of Results in relation to Objectives. §5.2 Discussion of those in relation to Aim/RQ. §5.3 Discussion of these in relation to the Theory. §5.4 Discussion of Main Issues. CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION §6.1 Summary of Findings §6.2 Evaluation of Research §6.3 Future Work §6.4 Contributions of Research REFERENCES APPENDICES (if any) YOUR CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Chapter 1, the Introduction, can be seen as a report on Phase 1 of your dissertation research - the phase where you were coming to choose what the research is about, justifying it, scoping it, choosing and justifying objectives, and planning how to meet those objectives. Complex? Yes, so let us think of it as giving the reader answers to a number of 'W' questions. The Introduction explains 'why' the Dissertation is important and 'why' it takes the shape it does. The Introduction is probably the most important part of your dissertation and thus deserves more effort than other chapters. You should expect to write a draft Introduction early on, in order to clarify your research, keep the Introduction updated throughout the research as things change (as they will!), and then at the end rewrite the Introduction to reflect what you actually did. If Introduction is Chapter 1, I suggest the following sections (suggested sections are identified here by the character '§'): §1.1 Introducing the Topic This should explain briefly what this dissertation is about, in general terms. §1.2 Personal Interest / Motivation Explain *Why* you yourself were motivated to research this. §1.3 Importance of Topic *Why* the topic is worthwhile researching, in the eyes of others. Use quotations from others. §1.4 Main Issues Set out the main issues and concepts that are believed by others to be relevant to the topic, including definitions if needed. Explain *why* each issue is important, i.e. how each issue contributes to the whole picture. §1.5 Scoping the Research Usually you cannot research all the issues and concepts that are relevant, and you are not expected to, so you must narrow down the scope of the project. In this section, explain which issues or concepts you have chosen to research, and *why* you have chosen those and ignored others. §1.6 Aims and Objectives See below. §1.7 Dissertation Structure Give list of chapters, explaining what each will do, explaining *why* each chapter is there. To write the Introduction, you should read literature in order to provide sufficient material for 1.3 and 1.4. Example, if the topic is the use of information systems in sports, §1.1 would introduce the idea, §1.2 would explain why you chose this topic, §1.3 would discuss what other people have said that shows this is an important topic, §1.4 might include the following issues: the different types of sports, the types of tasks in sports that can be aided by IS, what types of task are found in all types of sports and which are unique to certain types, what factors (e.g. economic, social, technical, legal, ethical) make an IS successful in use as opposed to a harmful failure or nuisance, how these factors relate to sports, and so on. §1.5 (Scoping) could explain that only certain types of sports are researched, and that only certain types of success factors are researched (e.g. social, legal, ethical, omitting technical) - but explain why it is valid to do this. (NOTE: That is purely an example, and you should NOT simply translate it into your own Intro.) Your Section §1.6. Aim and Objectives: Where and What The Aim and Objectives are the centre-point of the dissertation, the fulcrum on which it hinges, and so you should put a lot of effort into making them clear. The Aim states *where* you want the reader to be by the end of the dissertation. It is usually best to phrase this as a *research question* (RQ), i.e. a question that your research hopes to answer. Should normally be 2-3 lines. e.g. Example: "This Dissertation aims to answer the following research question: What are the most important factors that determine the success and failure of information systems in sports and why are these factors important?" (NOTE: This is not a very good aim, because it is too general.) The Objectives set out *What* needs to be achieved in order to answer the Research Question (or get the reader to where you want them). I would normally expect between 4 and 6 of them. It is often useful to begin an objective with a verb. Common ones are "To find out ..." or "To design ..." or "To compare ..." "To propose ..." etc. Example: "To answer this research question it is necessary to achieve the following objectives: 1. To find out in more details the issues that really affect the chosen sports and the tasks undertaken in relation to these issues 2. To explore which of the tasks are already assisted by IS. 3. To discuss which which tasks not currently assisted by IS could be assisted by IS in the future 4. To evaluate both of these according to the social, legal and ethical aspects of using IS for these tasks 5. To draw up a succinct evaluation of the current situation of use of IS in the chosen types of sport and make strategic recommendations for the future." In this section you should also *explain* and *justify* each of your objectives, not just list them. Explain what each entails. Justify why each is necessary in terms of the Aim/RQ. *Why* is it necessary to 'find out', 'explore', 'discuss', 'evaluate', 'draw up' and 'recommend'. Notice how the Objectives present a flowing argument, in which each depends on the achievement of earlier ones (for example, you could not do (4) until you had done (2) and (3). Notice also how the final Objective should usually give the reader some 'added value' which is your own contribution by doing the research; it should relate to why the research is important or interesting. Notice thirdly that this does NOT include research-tasks such as 'Discuss research methods', 'Undertake literature review', 'Take questionnaires', 'Interpret results', 'Discuss future work'. These research-tasks are assumed to be present in almost all dissertations; so mentioning them in the Objectives is simply mentioning the obvious and is wasting not only your space, but also the reader's time. I advise: Set out aims and objectives early on, but at end rewrite them according to what you have actually delivered and written up in the Discussion chapter and Conclusion. I also advise that until your final version, it is better to keep Aims and Objectives as a separate chapter, but then perhaps incorporate it at the end of chapter 1 (after § on Scoping), if you wish. Keeping them separate throughout the research helps you keep them clear, and also updated. YOUR CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORY The Literature Review usually has two main aims: - To show what has already been discussed about the topic, and by whom, and to critically discuss it. - To explain and discuss any theoretical background to your research - any theory that you will use. Usually they are interwoven, in that those who discuss the topic will do so in relation of certain theories that they like. NOTE: The Literature Review does NOT include source material of your research that is of a literary sort. That would be usually included in Results chapter. You are expected to make reference to many academic articles in this section. See below about Referencing. Also see Appendix III.1, which gives some specific advice about Literature Review given to one student in 2007. YOUR CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODS, TASKS, RESOURCES AND PLAN This chapter answers the *how*, *who* and *when* questions; sometimes they are divided into separated chapters. Research Methods and tasks are *how* you achieved your objectives; Resources explains *who* were your resources; Plan exaplains *when* each research-task was carried out. I suggest the following main sections: §3.1 Review of Research Methods. §3.2 Chosen Research Methods. §3.3 Research Work Carried Out. Your Section §3.1 Review of Research Methods. You should first review all the research methods that are available, in general terms, stating their strengths and weaknesses. To do this you need to either refer to a Research Methods module or to literature on research methods. This shows the reader you know how to research, and thus increases their confidence. (Note: Sometimes it is appropriate to split §3.1 into two, being Research Approach and Research Methods. But if this seems appropriate I should be able to guide you.) Most of the research methods will not be appropriate for your research, so you will select some ... Your Section §3.2 Chosen Research Methods. Then, for each objective, state which research method you used, and *why* it was appropriate. Note that you might use more than one research method in an objective, though usually each uses only one, and also that several objectives might be achieved with the same research method. Example. "Research method for Objective 1: To find out ... a detailed literature research of what happens in the chosen sports was undertaken; also some input was obtained from the interviews employed for the next objectives. Research method for Objective 2: To explore which tasks are assisted by IS, interviews were undertaken of a wide range of people connected with the chosen sports (these also turned up tasks not mentioned in the literature). Research method for Objective 3: To discuss how other tasks might be assisted by IS, a further literature review was undertaken, and also some of the later questions in the interviews were orientated to future possibilities. Research method for Objective 4: To evaluate the social, legal and ethical aspects of these, desk research was undertaken involving Dooyeweerd's theory of normative aspects. Research method for Objective 5: To draw up an evaluation and recommendation involved desk research, but also the draft evaluation and recommendations were tested in one further interview." NOTE 1: That is purely an hypothetical example. Your own list of research methods per objective is likely to be different. Some dissertations involve no primary research at all, but more intensive literature searches. Note 2: This section should usually expand on the above, being much longer. Your Section §3.3 Research Work Carried Out. Each research method involves a number of research-tasks. This is NOT the Results chapter. It tells, rather, what you actually did and what resources you accessed and when you did these. For most primary research you should expect to undertake a small pilot version first, to get the questions right, and then the full version. For example: # Questionnaires and Interviews: Task: working out questions for pilot Resource: from what did you work out the questions Task: taking pilot Resource: How many people, and what type, did you try the pilot on? Task: revising questions. What were the questions asked in the full version. Task: taking full questionnaire or interviews Resources: How many people, and what type. Justify why these people and types. When?: Give dates for each such task. # Literature Exploration: Resources: What journals were explored, and why these journals, what books, and why these books. If Internet exploration, what sites and why those sites? How many books, etc. Task: How you found the journals, books, sites, etc. and what criteria you used. Tasks: What specific things you tried to find out from each, and why those. Task: How much of each book, article, site did you read? Did you skim it or read it in full? Give dates for the tasks you carried out. YOUR CHAPTER 4. RESULTS Here you give the results of your research, i.e. what you actually found out in doing what you described in §3.3. In this chapter you should normally present the results in a sequence of analysis: - State the *quantity* of results: how many questionnaires returned, how many useful answers did you obtain for each question of interview or questionnaire, how many journal articles or websites actually gave you useful information, etc. - Set out the raw results. For interviews, if only a few interviewees, you could give answers to all questions. For questionnaires or many interviews, it is usually better to give statistics for each question. For example, if question 6 was a Likert scale 1..5, you could give the proportion of answers which were 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. For literature searches, the type of raw results you give will depend on the type of research. - Prepare the results for interpretation. For example, should you remove outliers? Sometimes this stage not needed. - Interpret the results. Discuss what each question (from primary research) or piece of information (from literature searches) says in relation to the objective(s) to which it is relevant. This is what is sometimes known as the Findings. However, the actual structure of the results might vary widely from this. That is a matter to discuss with supervisor. YOUR CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION In the Discussion chapter you generalise from your research. That is, you discuss what general lessons can be learned from your research, which can be helpful to others. As you write the Discussion, always be asking yourself "What would other people find helpful from my research that they can apply in different situations from the ones I studied?" I suggest at least four main parts, each having a section: §5.1 Discussion of Results in relation to Objectives. §5.2 Discussion of those in relation to Aim/RQ. §5.3 Discussion of these in relation to the Theory and Literature. §5.4 Discussion of Main Issues. Your Section §5.1. Discussion of Results in relation to Objectives. In this part of Discussion you generalise from the results. That is, you discuss what general lessons can be learned from your results themselves that might be helpful to others. To write this part, it is often useful to refer back to the objectives and aim. For example, # For a 'Find out' objective summarise what you have found out, and also discuss how it might apply in different kinds of situation or to different people. # For a 'compare' objective, summarise the main similarities and differencies between the things you compared, and also discuss how it might apply in different kinds of situation or to different people. # For a 'design' objective, summarise what you have designed, and also discuss how it might apply in different kinds of situation or to different people. # and so on Note the common "and also discuss how it might apply in different kinds of situation or to different people". This means you need to think with imagination: try to imagine different kinds of situation. Your Section §5.2. Discussion of those in relation to Aim/RQ. Then discuss what these say for the aim/RQ, and to what extent the aim was met. If the aim is couched as a RQ, this part would discuss what now is the answer to the RQ that your research gives. And, as for objectives discussion, also discuss in what ways this matches or contradicts what others found out in their research. Your Section §5.3. Discussion of these in relation to the Theory. Here you can discuss to what extent your general findings from §5.1 and §5.2 agree or disagree with existing theory, as you compiled in the Literature Review (and perhaps in the Introduction). What you do here will depend on your aim. - If your aim was to compare two theories, then discuss to what extent your findings support or contradict each. - If your aim was to extend and refine an existing theory, then discuss to what extent your findings contradict it and thus indicate that the theory should be altered; and discuss in what way to alter it so that it would fit your findings. - If your aim was to build a picture of a situation, then you can discuss to what extent the various theories mentioned in chapter 2 help give you insight into the theory. Whichever it is, your discussion here should: » bring together the general findings from your research with those from the literature review, by discussing to what extent your findings match those in the literature; » critically examine this, by addressing questions like "Why is this finding so?", "What else might have contributed to this finding?", "Whether this finding is always so, or when it might not be so?" » discuss some implications of this (though this could be in the conclusion). In additon, sometimes you might be able to bring together different theories that you discussed in the literature review, in ways that others have not done so. Your Section §5.4 Discussion of Main Issues. Refer back to the main issues you identified in the Intro (§1.4), and discuss briefly what your research has to say for each (or most) of them. Discuss to what extent each objective has been achieved and if not why not (a 'whether?'). To give depth to the discussion, here is a useful tip, which often works (but not always): Try to write it so that each paragraph, as far as possible, provides a message that the reader can take away, which: » is a general lesson that they could apply to their own cases, » is significant (even if small) rather than obvious or trivial, » discusses reasons why this might be so, » they could only have found out from this dissertation and not elsewhere. Ask yourself at each paragraph of your Discussion: Could the reader take away from this paragraph a general lesson that they could apply to their own cases, especially something that they could only have found out from this dissertation and not elsewhere? YOUR CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION This chapter looks at the research as a whole within its context. This answers the reader's question "So what?" about your dissertation, or "Why was this research important?". To do this, I suggest the following sections. §6.1 Summary of What You Did in Research. Very briefly summarise what you did in your research. One short paragraph is enough. §6.2 Summary of General Findings. Make a short summary of what you found, especially in Discussion chapter sections §5.1, §5.2, §5.3 and §5.4. §6.3 Evaluating the Research. Discuss the quality of the research: what could have been done better. Good researchers are always self- critical, always aware of what they could do better. A 'whether'. You could discuss: # what benefit is obtained from the way you did it # what problems you had # in what ways your research was limited # whether you might have done it differently, and if so how. §6.4 Future Work. With reference to §6.2, give suggestions for how someone might take the research further. §6.5 Contributions of Research. Discuss how your findings might make a contribution to the world (especially if some of the 'future work' you recommend was done). It is useful to relate it to the main motivators in Intro: why your research was important in general. Discuss how the outcome addresses what motivated the research. This is usually the part that answers "So what?" You can, if you wish, discuss your own motivation and briefly say what your research has done for you. Finally, end of a high. Usually select one of the most general motivational points from Intro. APPENDIX III. VARIOUS ADVICE This Appendix contains some advice I gave to students, which might be helpful. III.1 ADVICE ON LITERATURE REVIEW (This is some advice I gave to one student about doing a Literature Review. The student's research involved applying Speech Act Theory to blogging, so some of the text below refers to this. This text below must be seen as only an example, and you should generalise from this and adapt it to your own situation. Andrew Basden, 9 August 2007.) "For a good literature review, you usually need a few major sources plus a number of minor sources, almost like planets around a sun. The major sources are from writers who explain and discuss the main ideas or issues that you deal with in the dissertation. The minor sources are those which modify or slightly add to these ideas or issues in ways relevant to your dissertation. "You have the major sources in Austin, Searle and Bach. You can find minor sources later, as your research proceeds. "The order in which the major sources appear in your literature review should reflect a process of development from one to the other. For example, - Austin introduced the idea that language is human action, - Searle developed this into Speech Act Theory and suggested what the main types of illocutionary intention are, and - Bach modified this and made the types of illocutionary intention more 'workable' for you. So in your case I would expect you to write about Austin, then about Searle then about Bach. (This is indeed the order you already have.) "But what you write about each must be (a) substantial (b) related to the needs of your dissertation. You have some of the latter, in that you insert 'Thinking about Blogging' at various points. But you do not have the former. "To write substantial stuff about the major sources, you should usually summarise what they say, showing the argument *they* made, in a step-by-step argument. The one you do best with is Searle, but you miss out some things. You begin nicely with Searle, in citing the questions he asked himself about langauge. You should then summarise briefly his reasons why previous theories about language are not able to answer those questions. Then introduce his idea of speech acts; you do this to some extent (with the quotations from pages 16, 18. But you do not follow it up with the next step, which is to explain his idea in a little more detail sufficient to your dissertation; for example, I would expect you here to explain Searle's five types of illocutionary intention. Finally, for a major source that is to be followed by another, I would expect you to outline some problems with the major source, referring either to other literature sources or to your own difficulties in applying it; for example, you did not find Searle's five types very easy to understand. That gives the reader the reason for considering the next major source. " To summarise, for each major source (which I would expect to be 500 - 1000 words, though it might be more): a) Summarise briefly how they argued why their new idea is needed. b) Introduce their new idea. c) Fill out the new idea with some detail that is relevant to the needs of your dissertation. d) Discuss problems with their idea, both cited by others and from your own experience to trying to apply their ideas as appropriate. (This might be missing from the final source.) "I suggest you do this for each of Austin, Searle, Bach; you have already done a lot, so just need to expand it. For example, for Bach (c), I suggest you list out his four types with the lists of things he includes in each. To achieve all this, it is often a good idea to quote actual text from the major source, as you did with Searle and Bach. "Minor sources: These weave into what you have written on the major sources. Often they would occupy only one or two sentences, inserted just after (a), (b), (c) or (d) in the major sources. But minor sources are often good for getting material for (d)." III.2 ADVICE ON PREPARING COLLECTED MATERIAL FOR A DISSERTATION (This advice was given to one student who sent me a chapter for a dissertation on document management. The chapter held a collection of material he had obtained from various sources, but it was haphazard and gave no clear message. So I sent him the following advice. Please generalise this and adapt it to your own research if you find it helpful. Andrew Basden, 9 July 2010.) "You have collected a lot of good material on technologies for document management, and are aware of different categories in it. But you need to separate out what is relevant from what is not, and what you write lacks structure and critical evaluation. So » you need to rewrite it to structure it, so that the reader can understand where you are going in your argument » and you need to add critical evaluation of it rather than just accepting what the sources of your material without question. "Let me give you an example of what to do, and you need to apply this to the entire document. Take the section on 'Technology solutions and issues'. In it you tell the reader a lot about the technology of the special paper of Fuji-Xerox, but the reader gets no overall picture about it that is relevant to management of documents, because what you say is unstructured. What you need to tell the reader is: 1 the document-management issues or problems which the technology aims to address or solve 2 how the technology works (you have some of this) 3 how the way the technology works is expected to solve the problems or address the issues 4 how well it addresses the issues and solves problems (especially compared with other ways of addressing them) 5 what possible downsides the technology has 6 how the world will be better if this technology is adopted 7 how the world might be worse if this technology is adopted. "These are seven 'messages' you need to give the reader about each technology you discuss. Messages 4 to 7 are critical evaluation, with 5 and 7 being negative and 4,6 being positive. "For this paper technology, you have some of those, especially 2. But you need to discuss them all with respect to this technology. What I suggest you do is: » split the text you have written about this technology up into separate sentences » decide which of the messages each sentence gives (many will be 2, but you also have some for 1 (confidentiality issues)) » rearrange them in order of message number. (sentences with more than one message number: split them or duplicate them.) » sentences that have no message number against them, are probably not needed: save them away in case you need them later. But before you do, ask yourself if you meant something else by it, which is relevant to a message. » your aim now is to get a good paragraph for each message » for messages where you have lots of sentences, then reorder and rewrite the sentences so that they 'fit together' well into a good paragraph » for the messages that have no sentences so far, or only one or two, do more research to find out. for example, you could specifically seek to find out what are the downsides of this technology (and give references). » finally, read it through and make sure it reads well. That should give a good section for your dissertation. "Then do the whole exercise for other technologies you have described. "If you do this well, that will give you a good section on technologies. And do the same for techniques or 'solutions' that you have researched." APPENDIX IV. REFERENCING Good referencing is vital to a good dissertation. There are three main things you should bear in mind: - What types of literature it is appropriate to use in each part of the dissertation - How to make references within the text - Style of references in the reference lists. IV.1 Types of Literature Appropriate To Each Part It has often been said that you should not use web sites as references. That is not quite true, and here I want to clarify when and where it is useful to use each type of literature. Note that this is only general advice, and often you might do it differently, but if you follow this advice you will not go far wrong. There are at least the following types of literature: Books: - Academic monograph books, such as 'The Tacit Dimension' by M. Polanyi; these are books whose purpose is to introduce and discuss new ideas. Usually good for LR. - Textbooks: these are academic, but are intended to teach existing ideas rather than introduce and discuss new ideas. Most course texts are of this kind. - Reference books (encyclopaedias, dictionaries, etc.) - Factual stories or narrative books: For example, a book that tells what happened in the London Ambulance System IS disaster. These are good as literature source. - Company reports. - Government documents. Articles: - Academic journal papers, such as Int. J. Human-Computer Studies (in library); these are articles intended to introduce and discuss new ideas. Usually good for LR. - Professional journals; these provide serious, reflective material which is news, comment and opinion. Usually good for Introduction. - Magazines: these contain lighter articles. Usually good only as Literature Sources for primary research. - Newspapers: Internet Sources: - Web pages, sites: these can be used in Introduction and as Literature Sources, but should hardly ever be used in LR. - Emails: these can be used as sources for primary research. Other Media: - Radio, TV, Video clips (transcripts of). Now, all these types are best used in different places: - Introduction 1.1, 1.2, 1.3: Public non-academic material such as newspapers, government statement, web pages, professional statements, etc. Often you will give actual quotations of what people have said. Sometimes this part will include academic material too. - Introduction of the Issues, 1.4: As above, but also often references textbooks too. - Rest of chapter 1: as needed. - Aims and Objectives: Not usually any references, but use any as needed. - Literature Review - in-depth discussion and critical exploration of the issues: Use mainly textbooks, academic monograph books and journal papers. Other types: use as little as possible unless your research demands it. - Research methods: To discuss general research methods, usually use textbooks. - Resources and Work Carried Out: Refer to all the Literature Sources you used - all types including websites, transcripts of media statements, magazine articles, newspaper articles, government documents, company reports, etc. Also narrative books. These are to be treated as sources for primary research, equivalent to questionnaires, interviews, surveys, etc. - Results: as needed - Discussion: Academic journal papers and monographs are best here. Maybe text books. Occasionally other Sources to compare with or cite. - Conclusion: Any, as needed; usually academic monographs and professional articles. IV.2 Citing in Text There are various ways to cite in text, and you can use any you wish as long as you are consistent. But I suggest cite by Author(s) plus Date. Here is an example: "There is a bewildering diversity of philosophies from which to choose and different ones are appealed to from within different I.S. disciplines. For example, in artificial intelligence, appeals have been made to the rationalist Leibniz (Brachman and Levesque, 1985) and the neo-positivist Brentano (Newell, 1982), in human factors appeals have been made to the existentialist Heidegger (Winograd and Flores, 1986), and recently the information systems community has appealed to the critical theorist Habermas (Lyytinen and Klein, 1985). Klein and Myers (1999) have examined I.S. research by reference to hermeneutic philosophy and phenomenology. While such diversity can be fruitful, our problem is that ISD, as the bridge between technology and its use, must concern itself with four major areas - usage and impact, process of development, the shape that technologies assume, and perspectives held on information systems in general (Basden, 2001). If the philosophies appealed to do not cohere, then ISD is hindered, for example, when positivistically inspired technologies are found inappropriate in the human context of use. Burrell and Morgan (1979) have argued for incommensurability between paradigms in research - the very research that generates the technologies, methodologies, theories and models that we use in I.S. While others (e.g. Lee, 1991; Willmott, 1993) have argued that this may be overcome in the practical research arena, incommensurability remains a problem (Falconer and Mackay, 1999)." Notice: - Always use surnames. - Sometimes names are part of the sentence, as in "Klein and Myers (1999) have examined I.S. research ..." Here I am using the authors as people. The reference is made by the date in brackets immediately after the name. - Sometimes names are not part of the sentence, as in "... has appealed to the critical theorist Habermas (Lyytinen and Klein, 1985)" The authors are not being used as people, so the reference in brackets must have author(s), then comma, then date. - Single author e.g. "(Basden, 2001)" - Multiple authors for one paper: link by commas with 'and' before final one, e.g. "(Lyytinen and Klein, 1985)" - Multiple references in single brackets: separate the references by semicolon, e.g. "(Lee, 1991; Willmott, 1993)" In e.g. company reports, government documents and web pages it might not be known who the author is. In that case, use the name of the organisation as author. e.g. "(DEFRA, 2006)" IV.3 Reference Lists As above, I suggest you separate into four lists. But references in each list have exactly the same set of formats, for the following types of document: Books: Give the following in order: Author(s), Date, Title of book, Country and city of publisher, Publisher. e.g. Landauer, T. K. (1996). The trouble with computers: Usefulness, usability and productivity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books. Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Dumas, J. S., & Redish, J. C. (1999). A practical guide to usability testing (2nd ed). Exeter, England: Intellect. Theses: As book, but publisher is a University. e.g. Kane, S. C. (2006). Multi-aspectual interview technique. PhD Thesis, University of Salford, U.K. Papers in journals, Magazine articles, etc.: Give the following, in order: Author(s), Date, Title of Paper, Name of Journal, Volume number, Part number (usually in brackets, if available), Page Numbers. e.g. Winograd, T. (2006). Designing a new foundation for design. Communications of the ACM, 49(5), 71-73. Basden, A., Brown, A. J., Tetlow, S. D. A., & Hibberd, P. R. (1996). Design of a user interface for a knowledge refinement tool. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45, 157- 183. Chapters in Edited Books (which contain collections of chapters by different authors): Give the following in order: Author(s) of Chapter, Date of book, Title of Chapter, Page numbers, "in", Editor(s) of Book, "(ed.)", Country and city of publisher, Publisher. e.g. Mitev, N. N. (2001). The social construction of IS failure: symmetry, the sociology of translation and politics. pp.17-34 in A. Adam, D. Howcroft, H. Richardson, & B. Robinson (Eds.), Re-)defining critical research in information systems. Salford, England: University of Salford. Papers in Conference Proceedings: As Chapter in book, but with name of ocnference: e.g. Castell, A. C., Basden, A., Erdos, G., Barrows, P., & Brandon, P. S. (1992). Knowledge based systems in use: A case study. In British Computer Society Specialist Group for Knowledge Based Systems, Proceedings from Expert Systems 92 (Applications Stream). Swindon, England: British Computer Society. Jones, G. O., & Basden, A. (2004). Using Dooyeweerd's philosophy to guide the process of stakeholder engagement in ISD. pp. 1-19 in M. J. de Vries, B. Bergvall-KĂ„reborn, & S. Strijbos (Eds.), Interdisciplinarity and the integration of knowledge: Proceedings of the 10th annual working conference of CPTS, 19-24 April 2004 . Amersfoort, Netherlands: Centre for Philosophy, Technology and Social Systems. Web pages: Give the following, in order: Author(s) of web page, Date written, Title of web page, Full URL, Date Accessed. National Cancer Institute. (2005). Evidence-based guidelines on web design and usability issues. Retrieved October 19, 2005, from http://usability.gov/guidelines/ APPENDIX V DOOYEWEERD'S ASPECTS To Herman Dooyeweerd, aspects are distinct spheres of meaning and law that we experience. Each proposes what is good and bad in different ways, and this makes them very useful for analysing situations, especially in business. By taking care to consider every aspect, especially the 'later' ones, which occur first in the following list, you can enrich your research (analysis, interviews, exploration, etc.) and especially ensure you do not important factors. What follows is a list of aspects, then some things in the constellation of meaning of each.  Pistic aspect, of faith, commitment and vision.  Ethical aspect, of self-giving love, generosity, care  Juridical aspect, of 'what is due', rights, responsibilities  Aesthetic aspect, of harmony, surprise and fun  Economic aspect, of frugality, skilled use of limited resources  Social aspect, of social interaction, relationships and institutions  Lingual aspect, of symbolic meaning and communication  Formative aspect, of history, culture, creativity, achievement and technology  Analytical aspect, of distinction, conceptualizing and inferring  Sensitive (or psychic) aspect, of sense, feeling and emotion  Biotic (or organic) aspect, of life functions, integrity of organism  Physical aspect, of energy and mass  Kinematic aspect, of flowing movement  Spatial aspect, of continuous extension  Quantitative aspect, of amount In compiling this list of aspects and their kernel meanings, we take account of what is said about them in many places in Dooyeweerd's writings and that of others. Note that we have listed them in the reverse order to what Dooyeweerd called the latest (pistic( to the earliest (quantitative). Each aspect is in fact a complex constellation of meaning, comprising things, properties, relations, processes, events, norms and the like. As we shall see below, things of our experience -- whether dynamic or static -- make sense by reference to one or more of the aspects. Meaningful within the quantitative aspect we have such things as: amount, quantity, counting, addition, subtraction, multiplicatons, divisions, fractions, proportions, means, standard deviations, and properties like more, less, many, few. Meaningful within the spatial aspect we have such things as: size, length, direction, slope, angle, dimension, axes, position, shape, area, geometry, topology, and properties like large, small, and relations like near, far, surrounding, overlapping. Meaningful within the kinematic aspect we have such things as: movement, rotation, speed, velocity, rotational velocity, flow, route, and properties like fast, slow. The kinematic aspect is concerned with movement without any cause, and thus does not include acceleration. Meaningful within the physical aspect we have such things as: energy, mass, force, charge, fields, flux, momentum, acceleration, attraction, repulsion, causality, interaction, quanta, light, gravity, resistance, inverse square law, material, crystal structure, atoms, sub- atomics, gases, liquids, solids, plasmas, diffusion, solution, precipitation, chemical reaction, erosion, vibration, transmission, and so on, and properties and relationships relating to these -- almost anything that might validly be studied in quantum physics, physics, chemistry or materials science. Meaningful within the biotic (organic) aspect we have such things as: respiration, digestion, secretion, excretion, growth, decay, repair, healing, reproduction, cells, tissues, organs, organisms, ecology, species, genera, phyla, food chains, thriving, survival, competition, evolution, adaption, and so on. Meaningful within the sensitive (psychic) aspect we have such things as: feeling, sensing, responding, emotion, nervous system, sense and motor organs, colour (and red, blue, etc.), sound, smell, taste, touch (including hot, cold, etc.), impulses, signals, excitation, spreading activation, memory, recognition, and so on, with all the related properties, operations, processes, and so on. Meaningful within the analytic aspect we have such things as: distinction, distinguishing, concepts, clarity, (non-)contradiction, exclusion, logic, properties like clear, fuzzy, operations like deduction, analysis, and so on. Meaningful within the formative aspect we have such things as: forming, shaping, constructing, achieving, goals, means and ends, targets, structure, relationship, method, technique, skill, technology, history, culture (as human shaping as in agriculture, horticulture, rather than as in high culture or social culture), and so on. (Dooyeweerd sometimes called this the cultural or historical aspect.) Meaningful within the lingual aspect are: symbol, signification, representation, expression, letters, phonemes, words, phrases, sentences, documents, writing, speaking, waving, language, text, diagram, jotting, scribbling, notes, and properties like legible, understandable, expressive, and the like. Meaningful within the social aspect are: intercourse, social relationships, agreement, discourse, meeting, friendship, enmity, status, esteem, respect, group, institution, leadership, social authority and submission, community, society, and the like. Meaningful within the economic aspect are: resource, frugality, limitation, budget, deadline, cost, exchange (and barter, buying, selling), consumption, production, management, business, and the like. Meaningful within the aesthetic aspect are: harmony (as in music), counterpoint, rhythm, style, nuance, balance, enjoyment, surprise, humour, joke, fun, interest, leisure, play, sport, art, music, theatre, and so on. Meaningful within the juridical aspect are: due, rights, responsibility, justice, injustice, oppression, emancipation, laws and legal systems, retribution (whether reward or punishment), policing, policy, government, the state, the legislature, and properties like proportional, reasonable, appropriate, and so on. Meaningful within the ethical aspect are: self-giving, self interest, selfish, love, generosity, sacrifice, voluntary, attitude, altruism, "going the second mile", "looking after number one", and so on. Meaningful within the pistic aspect are: faith, loyalty, commitment, vision, morale, hope, deep belief, deep trust, religion, creed, idolatry, God, and so on. This is sometimes called the credal or faith aspect. Many things are of multiple aspects. For example digits are lingual signs with strong quantitative meaning. That is what Dooyeweerd called a retrocipation, a reaching back to an earlier aspect. There are also anticipations, which reach forward to a later aspect. For example, an idiom is of the lingual aspect, but it has a strong social aspect because its meaning depends on the writer and reader sharing the same social or cultural assumptions. Also, some concepts in common use have several meanings. For example, the word 'debt' is usually given economic meaning, but we can also use the word juridically, when something remains due to another. Freqnently, as we shall see below, one is a kernel meaning, the other analogical. See , which links into 'The Dooyeweerd Pages' (which you might like to explore more generally). ------- end of Advice. Andrew Basden. 2 July 2007, 9 July 2008, 29 October 2009, 11 November 2009, 23 March 2010, 9 July 2010, 16 August 2010, 7 October 2010.