If I could investigate any problem in the social world...

... and would be "absolutely guaranteed" I would not fail (p. 21). [I am doing an exercise in a book now.]

I would like to investigate the challenges of setting up a political party and why do people do that? And why do people join these political parties? Why do they join one, rather than the other? Why are the challenges of running an election campaign and contesting in one? Is the lack of resources really an issue personally? What are the backgrounds of these people who join political parties? Are they mostly from the less privileged in society? Is there really no way to strategize, such that the opposition parties can still find a way to compete, despite the uneven playing field? What keeps them trying again and again, election after election, despite the odds stacked against them? For those who only join for a period of time, what made them join and leave? Where are they now? What do these people really hope to achieve? What can of Singapore do they envision we can be? And how to make that transition?

I would like to investigate why do people leave churches, or change churches? Is it merely because God asked them to? Or is it a complex array of factors - discontentment with church, fighting among members or with leaders, disagreement with core values, or loss of faith? And if God asked them to, what are the reasons God asked someone to leave a church they were loyal to? Is it to try and start something new? Is it because the former church is no good? What kind of reasons does God give for asking a person to change his community? And what are these people feeling? Do they still keep in touch with their old friends and family? Or is it a complete disconnect? How do they feel about their experience in the former church? Do they hold grudges against anyone?

I would like to investigate how employers employ their employees in a variety of sectors and make comparisons. For example, I would like to sit into offices and see how HR personnel deal with resumes, soft copy and hard. I want to see if they read cover letters and analyze them? Do they care whether an applicant is referred by someone credible or a cold case? I want to sit into interviews with the decision makers. I want to see the questions asked by the bosses. After the interview, I want to interview both the decision makers and the applicants. I will ask the decision makers: How do you rate this applicant. Do you think he's suitable candidate for your job? Did you expect him to ask more questions? I will ask the applicants: How do you rate the interview. What did you think your chances are for this interview? I will do many sets of this, then I will compare... I will see how accurate is the decision maker and applicants account. I also want to follow through with both the applicant and employer. I want to find out how the employer eventually selects an employee. I want to know how the job seeker goes on his search and other interviews and if he received many offers, which does he eventually choose? How hard is it to find a job in Singapore? Is it easier if you're confident and brilliant? Is it harder if you're shy, introverted and nervous? If so, how can I have conclusions that can encourage employers not to be so judgmental towards shy-types?

Yes... I guess if I had a free rein in my research, I may pursue one of these three strains of research.

Luker, K. (2010) Salsa dancing into the social sciences: Research in an age of info-glut. Cambridge: Harvard University Press

How to read philosophy?

"... the method according to which you should read a philosophical book is very similar to the method according to which it is written. A philosopher, faced with a problem, can do nothing but think about it. A reader, faced with a philosophical book, can do nothing but read it - which means, as we know, thinking about it. There are no other aids except the mind itself. 

But this essential loneliness of reader and book is precisely the situation that we imagined at the beginning of our long discussion of the rules of analytical reading. Thus you can see why we say that the rules of reading, as we have stated and explained them, apply more directly to the reading of philosophical books than to the reading of any other kind." (p. 284)

Okay, there's this particular book that I want to review, but I am facing some difficulties. I believe I had read it three times, but I am still having difficulty grasping it and understanding it. I think partly is because I read it with a biased mind and with my own idea of how it should be, instead of adopting the author's perspective. I was impatient as well. I did not want to spend so much time on a philosophical book which (I think) doesn't have that much bearing on my main work.

"The fact that philosophers disagree should not trouble you, for two reasons. First, the fact of disagreement, if it is persistent, may point to a great unsolved and, perhaps, insoluble problem. It is good to know where the true mysteries are. Second, the disagreements of others are relatively unimportant. Your responsibility is only to make up your own mind. In the presence of the long conversation that the philosophers have carried on through their books, you must judge what is true and what is false. When you have read a philosophical book well - and that means reading other philosophers on the same subject, too - you are in a position to judge." (p. 285)

Here, I am getting frustrated because three authors are using a different approach to argue for different positions. They all strongly believe in what they are arguing and they are solid in their reasoning. So... the question I have is... Why? Why does the philosopher try so hard to be right? Okay, maybe, I phrased it wrongly. Why do they try so hard to find answers to their questions? Is it true that the questions philosophers ask are more important than the questions asked by anyone else?

 "The philosophers have carried on a long conversation with each other in the history of thought. You had better listen in on it before you make up your mind about what any of them says." (p. 285)

The book is currently really beyond and above me. Should I invest another week to read it? They say books are our teachers, should I invest even more to to be educated by this teacher? Or should I give up, and perhaps wait until I am more ready? Will a time come that I am more ready to engage in this sort of books? Or is the time now? That if I spend some good investment in this particular book, all other philosophical writings will become easier to comprehend in the future?

Adler, M. J. & Van Doren, C. (2014) How to read a book: The classical guide to intelligent reading. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Writing a journal article = Making a good argument

An argument is a discourse intended to persuade. You persuade someone by engaging their doubts and providing evidence to overcome those doubts. A journal article, then, is a piece of writing that attempts to persuade a reader to believe in something. It expresses a point of view intended to influence. (p. 82)

... Don't have streams of data without any argument. Make sure that your ideas about the data are organizing the article, not the organization of the data itself. If you have divided your article into sections that mirror the chapters of your literary subject, or the chronology of related events, or the order in which you came across the information, stop and revise. You should arrange and group the data according to what you want to argue about it. (p. 89)

The Instant Thesis
#1. Although ___________ (general statement, opposite opinion)
#2. Nevertheless ________ (thesis, your idea)
#3. Because ____________ (examples, evidence, #1, #2, #3, etc.)  

I had a eureka moment when I was reading the above text and also reading that first published article of mine. I suddenly realized that it could be the argument that gives the writer a voice. If you are simply stating data and facts and conclusions, that is a report, not a journal article. Anyone can do it, but if you are arguing something, or trying to persuade someone, that is an act of an individual, that is a thinking human voice.

Suddenly, it made sense. I used to like to organize my writing by case studies, or individual by individual, but my supervisor told me that was very boring. On hindsight, not only was it boring, it did not help me argue as well. It is not the best way to position data to prove a point.

This is truly a eureka moment for me. On hindsight, that first article was poorly written because it did not have an overriding message or argument pulling everything together. But I guess the process of writing and publishing it, brought me many gifts, including this newly learnt lesson. So I shall rest my case and not be upset over not learning this earlier anymore. :)

Belcher, W. L. (2009). Writing your journal article in 12 weeks: A guide to academic publishing success. Los Angeles: SAGE (this is amazing book!)

a scholar in me

I think there is a scholar in me. When I read this account of Parker Palmer on why he was not suited to be a scholar, I saw in who he was not, who I was.

A scholar is committed to building on knowledge that others have gathered, correcting it, confirming it, enlarging it. But I have always wanted to think my own thoughts about a subject without being overly influenced by what others have thought before me. If you catch me reading a book in private, it is likely to be a novel, some poetry, a mystery, or an essay that defies classification, rather than a text directly related to whatever I am writing at the time. (p. 27)

He goes on to elaborate how so... You know... I don't like fiction books and I like to read what is related to my writing, so I can write it better. But I also like metaphoric language and all... I see a scholar in me.

Palmer, Parker (2000). Let your life speak: Listening for the voice of vocation. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco

Vexing questions, real dilemmas and new territories

"It is a mistake to imagine that writers are experts on the things they write about - at least, it is a mistake in my case! I write about things I am still wrestling with, things that are important to me but that I have not yet figured out. Once I master something, I put it behind me. I lose the passionate curiosity that writing a book requires. I write to explore vexing questions and real dilemmas, to take myself into territories I have never seen before in hopes of understanding myself and the world a bit better." - Parker Palmer, Preface of The Active Life: A Spirituality of Work, Creativity, and Caring, 1999

This resonates with how I feel research writing is about, it is like trying to resolve a mystery for myself. Some big cosmic puzzle is troubling me, and I keep trying to find answers for it, and as I seek the truth, I share it with others. There is no pressure to prove something, I am simply exploring, and so there's no fear of arguments against mine...

"Levels of response" marking scheme (LORMS)

I knew there was a historian in me... Today, I was researching to find out more about social studies assessment in Singapore, in particular, the "levels of response" marking scheme... I found out that we use this to mark social studies essays, but why and how?

Nobody (on Google) seems to know... So I traced it back to its origins... It was designed for GCSE exam for history in the 1980s! Why? It was a way of differentiation by outcome! They wanted a means to use the same question to test students of various abilities and for that to show up through their answers!

Another project...

Writing is so fun...

Just those ideas and seeing how they connect to one another. How they inspire and strengthen, negate and weaken one another...

They drawn upon all your resources, who you are, what you think, what you've read, what you've been through...

I am currently going to write up an article on social studies teacher and high-stakes testing. 

This paper draws upon my current interest in citizenship and social studies education and my past interest in assessment. Also, my experiences with teachers tells me that this is one key issue that constrains them. Also, I have a love-hate relationship with high-stakes examination. I hated it because I felt they couldn't really assess the entirety of what I have learned and forced me to learn to the test but I loved it because they told me where I stood in terms of understanding and I can beat the system. 

I find doing a paper like this or a thesis so much better a way of assessment than tests...

Yes, so I'm bringing together all that I am, to write this paper. Can you imagine how fulfilling that is?

Now, I just need to get down to analyzing the data, which is a massive amount, even though only focusing on four teachers.