Ordförande Vice ordförande - PDF

Description
Beredningsgrupp NT-B Mark, vatten och luft Ordförande Vice ordförande 5-7 ledamöter Allmänt om ansökningar En del i forskningsprocessen Aldrig bortkastad tid Titelns betydelse Introduktionen Innehållet

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 21
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Information
Category:

Arts & Architecture

Publish on:

Views: 6 | Pages: 21

Extension: PDF | Download: 0

Share
Transcript
Beredningsgrupp NT-B Mark, vatten och luft Ordförande Vice ordförande 5-7 ledamöter Allmänt om ansökningar En del i forskningsprocessen Aldrig bortkastad tid Titelns betydelse Introduktionen Innehållet Iscensättning De fyra stegen Att sätta referenser Att välja rätt verb Viktigt att komma ihåg VR:s betygsättning Ansökt belopp Publikationstakt Beredningsarbete-några reflektioner Be creative and flexible when you plan your application A research idea can often be structured and realized in different ways, e.g. with a more or less basic profile or directed towards different areas of application A part of a research idea can often be broken out to form the basis for a project This can be used to write several applications with overlapping goals and methods Overlapping projects create a critical mass in the research activities which adds value both to financial contributors and scientists involved To write an application Think of whom you are writing for. Avoid deep, detailed or technically/scientifically complicated descriptions Give realistic and achievable objectives Place your project in a wider perspective (use references) Market your project. You must be convinced that it is excellent in order to be able to convince others Look beyond the project. Visions are almost always appreciated Show that you have the ability to carry out the project Specify activities and give a time schedule Make a realistic budget Some additional suggestions Use your colleagues as referees. There are quite a few qualified persons around who can contribute with constructive criticism Make sure that your application is linguistically correct. This is particularly important if it is written in English. A carelessly written application gives a bad impression that can severely affect the total evaluation of the project Make sure that your application has got an attractive design. If possible, use some figures to lighten it up. The overall impression is important Enclose material to substantiate your application. Could be articles, patents, theses, reports, market evaluations, letters of recommendation etc If a maximum length of the application is not specified, hold back Title Clear and descriptive Serve as a mini-abstract Brief (4 to 15 words) The most significant words in the beginning Avoid insignificant words Do not overuse the word new No formulas or special symbols Sometimes title + subtitle Example of successive improvements of a title A study of the dependence on transmission direction of the dissipation of wave energy in a viscoelastic junction between elastic bars (21 words) Dependence on transmission direction of the dissipation of wave energy in a viscoelastic junction between elastic bars (17 words) Directional dependence of the dissipation of wave energy in a viscoelastic junction between elastic bars (15 words) Dissipation of wave energy in a viscoelastic junction between elastic bars: dependence on transmission direction (15 words) Dissipation of wave energy in a viscoelastic junction between elastc bars: directional dependence (13 words) Dissipation of elastic wave energy in a viscoelastic bar junction: directional dependence (12 words) Introduction The introduction is one of the most important sections of a scientific article, and for an application the introduction is crucial. The introduction should: introduce the reader to the problem give the context of the problem review previous work justify the work give scope and objectives make the reader interested Introduction: Staging The content The introduction typically answers the following questions: a) What is the subject of the application b) What is the area of interest and what have other researchers found? c) How does the current research relate to previous research? d) What are the research objectives and what hypothesis is being tested? The answers to these questions can help provide guidelines as to what information should be included in the introduction. Introduction: Staging The staging The four different types of information and ideas found in the introduction are commonly structured in a particular way. One linguistic researcher, Swales (1984), after surveying a substantial number of published articles across a wide range of disciplines, has described the way theses types of information and ideas are structured as a pattern of moves. These are outlined and explained in Table 1. These moves can also be successfully applied on applications. Notice that the development from move 1 to move 4 can be depicted as a movement from general to specific, beginning with introducing the reader to the whole field, then explaining how this research fits into the whole field, and then stating the specific aims and outline of the research. This development can also be described as an argument designed to convince the reader of the importance of your research. The usual place where this type of justification is made is in move 3 where you show that your research (or application) is necessary either to fill the gaps in accepted knowledge in your field, or to solve previous problems or correct errors. Table 1. Stages of the introduction of a research paper or an application The following analysis of reporting styles, adapted from Swales, outlines three main ways of reporting the previous research. A. Strong author orientation In this style of reporting, you refer to the previous research findings by focussing primarily on what the researchers did or said. The researchers take a prominent position in the sentence. Brown(1978) showed that minor infections can be treated effectively with chloramphenical. B. Weak author orientation In this style of reporting, you still present the previous research in terms of the researchers doing it or writing about it, but this time the researchers themselves are not the primary focus. Therefore, the researchers are placed in brackets, and do not take a place in the grammatical structure of the sentence. Chloramphenical has been shown to be effective in the treatment of minor infections (Brown, 1978) C. No specific author orientation In this style of reporting, the previous research is presented simply as results, with the reference given in brackets. In this case, there are no reporting words such as shown. The treatment of minor infections with chloramphenicol is effective (Brown, 1978) Language of reporting As well as deciding what degree of emphasis you want to give to the previous research in your summary, you can also develop the argument in this section by choosing appropriate verbs and nouns for reporting styles A. and B. These words are very important in giving your introduction the right perspective. You must be very precise in your choice of words to present the previous research. There are two main types of verbs you can use to report: (A) verbs meaning simply say ; with these verbs no interpretation or comment is expressed. Billings (1976) has reported difficulty in the determination of barium by absorption in the presence of large amounts of calcium. (B) verbs that mean say plus some interpretation of the research. Johnson (1981) warns that these results are not conclusive. Exercise 8 Some verbs for reporting on the previous literature are given below. Decide whether each is a verb without an interpretation (A.) or a verb with an interpretation (B.), and write A. or B. in the column to the left of the words. To the right of each verb, write a noun from this verb, and add any other useful nouns that occur to you. Exercise 9 Look at the following pieces of reported research. Which one gives the most authority to the source and which one the least? Why? a. Brown (1984) showed that in the last 5 years the overall trend has been toward a more even balance between males and females portrayed as employed. b. In the last five years the overall trend has been toward a more even balance between males and females portrayed as employed (Brown, 1984). c. Brown (1984) claimed that in the last years the overall trend has been toward a more even balance between males and females portrayed as employed. Exercise 7 Re-write the following extract from the above Introduction using two different reporting styles. Be aware of any changes in meaning and emphasis that may occur when the style of reporting is altered. Zaidel and Cook (1979) reported that there was no interference by strontium on the determination of lithium by absorption even though the SrOH band interferes seriously in the emission flame method. 1. No interferences by strontium on the determination of lithium by absorption has been reported (Zaidel and Cook, 1979) even though the SrOH band interferes seriously in the emission flame method. 2. There is no interference by strontium on the determination of lithium by absorption even though the SrOH band interferes seriously in the emission flame method (Zaidel and Cook, 1979). The non specific author orientation style confers the status of fact. The result reported in re-write 2 is less open to challenge and thus would give greater weight to an argument. Inexperienced writers tend to use only one style, particularly strong author orientation with author as subject followed by a reporting verb. Indeed, the fact that some writers present all their references in this way is a likely indication that their summary is merely descriptive rather than analytical. Always think of the coupling between objectives and the methods, and how the competence and experience of the research group meet the objectives EVALUATION OF RESEARCH APPLICATIONS AT THE SWEDISH RESEARCH COUNCIL (VETENSKAPSRÅDET) Assesment marks 1 = insufficient 2 = good 3 = very good 4 = excellent 5 = outstanding First part of evaluation Each reviewer (usually 3-5) consider the following points Competence (1 to 5) Quality (1 to 5) Feasibility (1 to 5) EVALUATION OF RESEARCH APPLICATIONS AT THE SWEDISH RESEARCH COUNCIL (VETENSKAPSRÅDET) Second part of evaluation Overall evaluation Competence (1 to 5) Quality (1 to 5) Feasibiliyi (1 to 5) Special condition + additional comments Overall assesment mark (1 to 5) Overall priority (1= rejected, 2= low, 3= medium, 4= high, 5=highest)
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks