6  Semester 1 Week 11

6.1 Structure (i.e. reverse outlines) and JARS guidelines

This is the final group session I run in Semester 1. It’s good to touch base and see where everyone is at in their projects, as things tend to start winding down (especially recruitment-wise) for the festive period.

In this session, I cover structure (specifically thinking about reverse outlines, so that larger structure of a document) and we also discuss the Journal Article Reporting Standards (JARS).

I tend to reiterate to the students how important it is to get some rest over Christmas, and what they are looking forward to in Semester 2. I also mention the BPS conference and ask them to have a think about presenting there next semester.

6.1.1 Expected progress

• I may have seen a few intros at this point, but it’s likely students are still working on these.
• Some students will usually have started data collection.
• Hopefully all ethical approvals should be back by now

6.1.2 Structure

• I mainly cover structure between paragraphs rather than within them here, but if you wanted to cover structure in a paragraph, there are some useful resources in the Research Methods 1 book PEEL (Point, Evidence, Explain, Link) - see Chapter 4.2. Where PEEL checks whether a single paragraph is doing its job internally, reverse outlining (below) checks whether the paragraphs collectively build the right argument once you strip away the detail, so the two operate at different levels of the same structural problem.

• I use the Reverse Outlines resource to discuss reviewing structure of a particular section (e.g. the Introduction).

• The method itself: number each paragraph, then write down its topic in just a few words (not the content, just what it’s doing). Once they have that stripped-down list, that’s what they examine.

• Some things we discuss:

  • a broad –> narrow structure can be helpful for the introduction (and the reverse for the discussion)
  • are they covering one main point per paragraph or trying to squeeze too many in?
  • I ask students to think about the reader when writing - what do they know at each point? Who are they? In my discipline, we suggest the second marker of the dissertation, or someone familiar with Psychology, but not the topic.
  • Looking at the order: does their reverse outline make sense? For example, does it jump around between topics or does the structure flow clearly?
  • Looking at proportion, separately from order: is space being given according to importance, or is a minor point getting a long paragraph while something more central is squeezed into a couple of lines? This is the same point made in Sem1 Wk 5, but instead thinking about the full section.
  • if covering quite disjointed topics in the intro, it might be worth considering using sub-headings

6.1.3 Journal Article Reporting Standards (JARS) and other resources

• In the second half of the session, we cover JARS guidelines. These are very useful, particularly for the methods sections and often results too (there tends to be less guidance on intro/discussion).
• The guidelines give some insight into what students might want to include, and has some suggestions for people who would be reviewing an article (i.e. what might they look for) which are useful to know. This is the same ‘keep the reader in mind’ perspective we introduced earlier in this session (the second marker, or someone familiar with Psychology but not the topic), but applied here to methods rather than structure
  • Journal Article Reporting Standards (Qual)
  • Journal Article Reporting Standards (Quant)
  • Journal Article Reporting Standards (Mixed Methods)
• In addition, there have been Journal Article Reporting Standards for Race, Ethnicity, and Culture released
  • Journal Article Reporting Standards (Race, Ethnicity and Culture)
• It’s worth being clear with students that JARS describes what a published journal article should report. This isn’t the same as our marking criteria, even though there can be a lot of overlap. If the two ever diverge, our formal marking criteria takes priority. In the session, I frame JARS as good general practice for what belongs in a methods section, but with the caveat that the priority should be what the marking criteria, guidance from the course lead, supervisor says.
• As most of my research has been in autism, if I have any students working on this topic, I share a resource by Bottema-Beutel et al (2021) on avoiding ableist language

Activity: Apply JARS to a real methods section

• Choose a methods section in advance, either from a paper on the group’s reading list or the one used for the reverse outline exercise earlier in this session
• Ask students to open the JARS checklist that matches its design (Quant, Qual, or Mixed)
• Ask students to go through the checklist and note what’s reported and what’s missing
• Ask students: if you were reviewing this for a journal, would you have enough information to understand exactly what was done, and in principle, replicate it?

6.2 Internal resources

Structuring paragraphs (PEEL) (Research Methods 1 team) - Chapter 4.2

6.3 External resources

Reverse outlines

Journal Article Reporting Standards (Qual)

Journal Article Reporting Standards (Quant)

Journal Article Reporting Standards (Mixed Methods)

Journal Article Reporting Standards (Race, Ethnicity and Culture)

Bottema-Beutel et al (2021)