I have come across excellent articles that combine a first-person narrative (which is simple) with keeping the focus on the object of analysis (which requires advanced skills).
But to master both together usually takes years of training and practice, as does riding a bicycle on a high wire. And 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐚 𝐛𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐰𝐢𝐫𝐞; there is probably a good reason for that.
A ‘Me, myself, and I’ narrative invites a ‘JUST REPORTING´ writing style
What I want to point out in this post is how easy it is for students to go off track once they adopt a first-person narrative. Using a first-person narrative, it seems to be very hard for them to detect themselves that they have gone off track – or that they perhaps had never been on track in the first instance.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭-𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐚𝐧 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐰𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐚 𝐚𝐬 𝐦𝐲 𝐤𝐢𝐝𝐬 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐬𝐚𝐲.
It is easy for students to write about what they have been doing and what the motivation had been for this. And they are very good at doing this, and they can do this over hundreds of pages (a month).
Let’s just look at the example below, Example I, taken (randomly) from the data and evaluation section of a thesis.
Example I: A ‘JUST REPORTING´ writing style
𝘌𝘹𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘐 “𝘐 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘦-𝘣𝘺-𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘥𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘦𝘴. 𝘈𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘐 𝘧𝘦𝘭𝘵 𝘢 𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘴 𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦, 𝘐 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘭 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘥𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬. 𝘖𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘫𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘺𝘴𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘩𝘢𝘴𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘴 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘶𝘱 𝘵𝘰 90 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘤𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧 30 𝘵𝘰 40 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘴. 𝘕𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘧𝘦𝘭𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴. 𝘋𝘦𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘦𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵. 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘐 𝘧𝘦𝘭𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘦𝘯𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩, 𝘐 𝘳𝘦-𝘱𝘩𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘐𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘐 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘲𝘶𝘰𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴. […]”
Now, these are 1209 characters (with spaces) and they tell ZERO about the research problem that the student has been looking at. It comes down to plain reporting of what had been done, and the feelings that the student and the interviewees experienced, and where the information about such feelings is merely contextual information, but not used in support of the analytics.
And the lack of focus would have been obvious to the student if he had established the object of analytics as the focus of the writing.
To leave little to no room for misinterpretation, what I am attempting to say here—and apologies if this might sound harsh—is: 𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐙𝐄𝐑𝐎 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮!
You are in a doctoral program and expected to examine a research problem, and while it is, of course, “you” who is doing the research and writing it up, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 “𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦”, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐲𝐨𝐮. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞, 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 and focus on what matters: the research problem – or the object that is under examination.
You are conducting research and presumably have put forward a research problem to be examined and some research questions to be answered. Focused writing goes more into this type of direction so to just give you an orientation:
Example II: A ‘rather focused and analytical writing style
𝘌𝘹𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘐𝘐: “𝘈 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱 𝘶𝘱 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴. 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮 𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘥𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘴, 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴, 𝘢𝘣𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘮𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘺, 𝘧𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘶𝘴𝘩, 𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘰𝘰𝘳 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱. 𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘴. 𝘈 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘺𝘴𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢 𝘯𝘶𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯, 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘴 (1) 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵, 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘶𝘯𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘣𝘦𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘳 𝘨𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘣𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘣𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘵𝘴, 𝘯𝘰𝘯-𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦; (2) 𝘢 𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘰𝘧 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘏𝘙 𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴; 𝘢𝘯𝘥 (3) 𝘢 𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤 𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯. 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 (1), (2) 𝘢𝘯𝘥 (3) 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘮 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘶𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘯𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘶𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘴𝘵.”
Example II sets the focus on the research problem and critically examines the problem. Any deviation from this focus is thus easy to spot, and it can be spotted by the student himself/herself.
Comparing these two examples, it should become obvious that in the second case 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐠𝐨 𝐨𝐟𝐟 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐮𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐳𝐞, 𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 (𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦).
Let me close this post by coming back to the bicycle analogy…
𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘬𝘪𝘥𝘴 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘢 𝘣𝘪𝘤𝘺𝘤𝘭𝘦 𝘣𝘺 𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩 𝘸𝘪𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥?!?
More likely, one first would let the kids train on a balance bike in a large open space. So consider carefully, which narrative you are going to adopt!
