A Framework of Rhetorical Moves Designed to Scaffold the Research Proposal Development Process

Q2 Social Sciences International Journal of Doctoral Studies Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.28945/5088
Colin D. Reddy
{"title":"A Framework of Rhetorical Moves Designed to Scaffold the Research Proposal Development Process","authors":"Colin D. Reddy","doi":"10.28945/5088","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim/Purpose: To provide a research proposal writing framework to help doctoral students argue and motivate their efforts at furthering the existing knowledge available to understand some phenomenon or theory. Background: I discuss how the cognitive process theory of writing and the science writing heuristic can lead to a set of rhetorical moves and question prompts that students can use to develop the content of their research proposals. Methodology: I searched the literature on research proposal writing and, more broadly, academic writing to locate teaching and learning concepts associated with my recent question prompt approach used to guide my doctoral students. I used search words such as “writing” and “question prompts.” My review led me to the cognitive process theory of writing and heuristic scaffolding. I searched further using keywords such as “rhetorical move” and “heuristic prompts.” I performed several iterations of literature searches and reviews. Contribution: Instead of guiding a linearly developed research proposal that begins with an Introduction and proceeds to a Literature Review and then a Research Design and Methods section, the framework reveals a research proposal’s underlying logical flow and content by describing five rhetorical moves: establishing a topic question from an interesting phenomenon, establishing research opportunities, selecting a research question, providing a tentative solution, and establishing a plan to investigate the solution. Thus, the framework contributes to scholarship about how educators can facilitate independent reflection and broader problem-solving at the doctoral research proposal development stage. Particularly for the social sciences, it reveals the promise of the cognitive process theory of writing, dual problem space model of reflection, and heuristic scaffolding as valuable theoretical perspectives for the supervision of the planning phase of doctoral research. Recommendations for Practitioners: Teachers and advisors may use the framework’s rhetorical moves and question prompts as cognitive scaffolds to help students navigate an ill-structured problem typical of doctoral research projects in the social sciences. The question type of scaffolding gives the research student more responsibility; rather than the thesis supervisor or advisor articulating a model or nominating the technique, they require the student to self-regulate and develop it independently. This helps deal with the oft-experienced circumstance in which the supervisor does not have time to interact directly and regularly with the student.","PeriodicalId":53524,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Doctoral Studies","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Doctoral Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.28945/5088","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim/Purpose: To provide a research proposal writing framework to help doctoral students argue and motivate their efforts at furthering the existing knowledge available to understand some phenomenon or theory. Background: I discuss how the cognitive process theory of writing and the science writing heuristic can lead to a set of rhetorical moves and question prompts that students can use to develop the content of their research proposals. Methodology: I searched the literature on research proposal writing and, more broadly, academic writing to locate teaching and learning concepts associated with my recent question prompt approach used to guide my doctoral students. I used search words such as “writing” and “question prompts.” My review led me to the cognitive process theory of writing and heuristic scaffolding. I searched further using keywords such as “rhetorical move” and “heuristic prompts.” I performed several iterations of literature searches and reviews. Contribution: Instead of guiding a linearly developed research proposal that begins with an Introduction and proceeds to a Literature Review and then a Research Design and Methods section, the framework reveals a research proposal’s underlying logical flow and content by describing five rhetorical moves: establishing a topic question from an interesting phenomenon, establishing research opportunities, selecting a research question, providing a tentative solution, and establishing a plan to investigate the solution. Thus, the framework contributes to scholarship about how educators can facilitate independent reflection and broader problem-solving at the doctoral research proposal development stage. Particularly for the social sciences, it reveals the promise of the cognitive process theory of writing, dual problem space model of reflection, and heuristic scaffolding as valuable theoretical perspectives for the supervision of the planning phase of doctoral research. Recommendations for Practitioners: Teachers and advisors may use the framework’s rhetorical moves and question prompts as cognitive scaffolds to help students navigate an ill-structured problem typical of doctoral research projects in the social sciences. The question type of scaffolding gives the research student more responsibility; rather than the thesis supervisor or advisor articulating a model or nominating the technique, they require the student to self-regulate and develop it independently. This helps deal with the oft-experienced circumstance in which the supervisor does not have time to interact directly and regularly with the student.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一个框架的修辞动作设计,以支撑研究计划的发展过程
目的/目的:提供一个研究计划写作框架,以帮助博士生论证和激励他们在进一步了解一些现象或理论的现有知识方面的努力。背景:我讨论了写作的认知过程理论和科学写作启发式如何导致一组修辞动作和问题提示,学生可以使用这些动作和问题提示来发展他们的研究建议的内容。方法:我搜索了关于研究计划写作的文献,更广泛地说,学术写作,以找到与我最近用来指导博士生的问题提示方法相关的教学概念。我使用了“写作”和“问题提示”等搜索词。我的回顾使我想到了写作的认知过程理论和启发式脚手架。我使用“修辞动作”和“启发式提示”等关键词进行了进一步搜索。我进行了几次文献检索和评论。贡献:该框架不是指导线性发展的研究计划,从介绍开始,然后是文献综述,然后是研究设计和方法部分,而是通过描述五个修辞动作来揭示研究计划的潜在逻辑流程和内容:从一个有趣的现象中建立一个主题问题,建立研究机会,选择一个研究问题,提供一个暂定的解决方案,并建立一个计划来调查解决方案。因此,该框架有助于研究教育工作者如何在博士研究计划发展阶段促进独立思考和更广泛的问题解决。特别是对于社会科学,它揭示了写作的认知过程理论、反思的双重问题空间模型和启发式脚手架作为指导博士研究规划阶段的有价值的理论视角的前景。对实践者的建议:教师和顾问可以使用框架的修辞动作和问题提示作为认知支架,帮助学生解决社会科学博士研究项目中典型的结构不良的问题。问题式的脚手架赋予了研究生更多的责任;他们要求学生自我调节和独立发展,而不是由论文导师或指导老师阐述一个模型或提名一种技术。这有助于处理导师没有时间直接和定期与学生互动的情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Doctoral Studies
International Journal of Doctoral Studies Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
期刊最新文献
A Framework of Rhetorical Moves Designed to Scaffold the Research Proposal Development Process What Does It Mean To Be a Resilient Student? An Explorative Study of Doctoral Students’ Resilience and Coping Strategies Using Grounded Theory as the Analytic Lens PhD by Prospective Publication in Australian Business Schools: Provocations from a Collaborative Autoethnography Mitigating Ceiling Effects in a Longitudinal Study of Doctoral Engineering Student Stress and Persistence Into the Challenges of Aligning Key Sections of Doctoral Dissertations: Cognitive Analysis, Pedagogical Tools, and Instrument Development
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1