All Highlights

• Unknown

  • I think sometimes people hear “Federated Thingamabob” and just sort of tune out thinking “Oh, he’s talking about a feature of Federated Thingamabob.” But I’m not. I’m really not. I’m talking about a different way to think your online activity, no matter what tool you use. And relevant to this conference, I’m talking about a different way of collaborating as well.

• Unknown

  - > The first definition of wisdom, i.e., wisdom as something that you can gain and then hold onto or possess, describes the academic perspective. We talk about basic research as that which adds to the body of knowledge. The second set of definitions, i.e., wisdom as something that you both possess and use, describes the practitioner perspective.

• Unknown

  - > DTPs evolve through time. I wouldn’t expect a first year doctoral student to know exactly what they want to answer. But I still ask them to write a DTP.

  Page 2 - > I would characterize four types of DTP: 1. A pre-comprehensive exams’ DTP. In this case, the student is still doing coursework and hasn’t written his/her doctoral exams. At this point, I would expect DTPs to be still draft forms of research questions, methods and expected outcomes. 2. A post-comprehensive exams’, pre-proposal defense DTP. At this stage, I would expect the student to know his/her/their field well enough that he would have a very clear outline of what he/she/they plan to do and within what time frame. I would expect that my students would use their DTP to formulate their proposal. 3. A post-proposal defense, fieldwork-focused DTP. At this stage, I would expect that the trainee would be incorporating results from what he/she/they have found in their research. It’s likely that by this point, one or more of their papers would be submitted to a journal. 4. A pre-doctoral defense DTP. At this stage, I would expect the student to have dominated every single element of his doctoral research, and therefore his/her/their DTP would be an extended version of their thesis’ abstract.

  Page 3 - > If you liked this blog post, you may also be interested in my Resources for Graduate Students page, and on my reading notes of books I’ve read on how to do a doctoral degree.

• Unknown

  - > We have to learn the bitter lesson that building in how we think we think does not work in the long run.

  Page 2 - > we should stop trying to find simple ways to think about the contents of minds, such as simple ways to think about space, objects, multiple agents, or symmetries. All these are part of the arbitrary, intrinsically-complex, outside world. They are not what should be built in, as their complexity is endless; instead we should build in only the meta-methods that can find and capture this arbitrary complexity.

  This reminds me of Intuitionism.

  Page 2 - > We want AI agents that can discover like we can, not which contain what we have discovered.

• Unknown

  - > while numerous studies have examined the technical capabilities of GenAI tools, few have explored the complexities of their ethical and effective integration across different educational models. An initial approach comes from Lim et al. (2023), who noted four ‘paradoxes’ of GenAI in HE that must be considered when planning for integration.

• Unknown

• Unknown

  - > It would be faster if they showed me multiple thumbnails on the screen, for me to just scan through a bunch and #ip through them; they’re intentionally slowing me down, and showing me one thing at a time. But in doing so they get much cleaner feedback about my sentiment — and that means that the training of the algorithm happens more quickly.

• Unknown

  - > Where we do see stress and negative emotions loading together on the aversiveness component is in the inception stage. The role of stress as a part of task aversiveness in the Inception stage may be best understood by considering Silver (1974) (cited in Aitken, 1982) who argues that stress disrupts goal achievement by causing an individual to procrastinate by delaying the initiation of the necessary goal.

  Page 13 - > problems with procrastination may arise when individuals perceive their projects as being aversive in that these projects are boring, frustrating, done resentfully, forced upon them by others and are generally more stressful, less meaningful and less structured.

• Unknown

  - > In summary then, we can begin by outlining some pointers to when to do a systematic review: 1. When there is uncertainty, for example about the effectiveness of a policy or a service, and where there has been some previous research on the issue. 2. In the early stages of development of a policy, when evidence of the likely effects of an intervention is required. 3. When it is known that there is a wide range of research on a subject but where key questions remain unanswered – such as questions about treatment, prevention, diagnosis, or etiology, or questions about people’s experiences. 4. When a general overall picture of the evidence in a topic area is needed to direct future research efforts. 5. When an accurate picture of past research, and past methodological research is required to promote the development of new method- ologies.

• Unknown

  • This rapid growth in undertaking reviews of the literature has resulted in a plethora of terminology to describe approaches that, despite their different names, share certain essential characteristics, namely, collecting, evaluating and presenting the available research evidence. The following lists some of the labels in current usage: (full) system- atic review; meta-analysis; rapid review; (traditional) literature review; narrative review; research synthesis; and structured review.

  Page 1

  • what might we consider to be the main differ- ences between a systematic review and a scoping study? First, a systematic review might typically focus on a well-defined question where appropriate study designs can be iden- tified in advance, whilst a scoping study tends to address broader topics where many different study designs might be applicable. Second, the systematic review aims to provide answers to questions from a relatively narrow range of quality assessed studies, whilst a scoping study is less likely to seek to address very specific research questions nor, consequently, to assess the quality of included studies.

  Page 1

  • This paper attempts to address the current gap in knowledge about scoping studies. Where appro- priate, comparisons are made with systematic review methods. We provide a model for those wishing to scope the field of interest based on our experiences of scoping published and unpublished literature for a study of services to support carers for people with mental health problems.

  Page 1

  • It is possible to identify at least four common reasons why a scoping study might be undertaken: 1. To examine the extent, range and nature of research activity: this type of rapid review might not describe research findings in any detail but is a useful way of mapping fields of study where it is difficult to visualize the range of material that might be available. 2. To determine the value of undertaking a full systematic review: in these cases a preliminary mapping of the literature might be undertaken to identify whether or not a full systematic review is feasible (does any literature exist?) or relevant (have systematic reviews already been conducted?) and the potential costs of conducting a full systematic review. 3. To summarize and disseminate research findings: this kind of scoping study might describe in more detail the findings and range of research in particular areas of study, thereby providing a mechanism for summarizing and disseminating research findings to policy makers, practitioners and consumers who might otherwise lack time or resources to undertake such work themselves (Antman, Lau, Kupeinick, Mosteller, & Chalmers, 1992). 4. To identify research gaps in the existing literature: this type of scoping study takes the process of dissemination one step further by drawing conclusions from existing literature regarding the overall state of research activity. Specifically designed to identify gaps in the evidence base where no research has been conducted, the study may also summarize and disseminate research findings as well as identify the rele- vance of full systematic review in specific areas of inquiry. However, it is important

  Page 1

  • The second two types suggest that the scoping study might be conceived as a method in its own right—leading to the publication and dissemination of research findings in a particular field of enquiry.

  Page 1

  • Our framework for conducting a scoping study is underpinned by the view upheld by proponents of systematic reviews that the methods used throughout the different stages are conducted in a rigorous and transparent way (CRD, 2001; Mays et al., 2001). The process should be documented in sufficient detail to enable the study to be replicated by others. This explicit approach increases the reliability of the findings, and responds to any suggestion that the study lacks methodological rigour (Mays et al., 2001)

  Page 1

  • The method adopted for identifying literature in a scoping study needs to achieve in-depth and broad results. Rather than being guided by a highly focussed research question that lends itself to searching for particular study designs (as might be the case in a systematic review), the scoping study method is guided by a requirement to iden- tify all relevant literature regardless of study design. It is likely that as familiarity with the literature is increased, researchers will want to redefine search terms and undertake more sensitive searches of the literature. To this end, the researcher may not wish to place strict limitations on search terms, identification of relevant studies, or study selection at the outset. The process is not linear but iterative, requiring researchers to engage with each stage in a reflexive way and, where necessary, repeat steps to ensure that the literature is covered in a comprehensive way

• ««
• «
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• »
• »»