Backroom Research

Last week I also examined the cyborg SSHRC proposal. I found that this proposal most closely resembled the third template (adapted from Brown.) The writer starts with the hook- a quote that only those with physical or neurological impairments can appreciate the “cyborg” position.

They then state why the research is important: proliferation of technology to aid people with physical impairments.

And they identify the gap in the research that they intend to fill. However, when the person states their research goal it is extremely obscure and broad: “It is my intention to examine how cyborg theory can be used to inform and advance the lives of people with disabilities, as an avenue for self-sufficiency and self-actualization.” As well, later in the proposal they list several questions which really don’t tie into a single, strong research question. Luker would probably argue they have stated a research interest, rather than a research question.

There is a long description of the student’s training, expertise and experience. What is really missing from this SSHRC proposal is the research proposal itself. Methodology is obviously absent from this proposal. I am surprised this student was funded. At the end of the proposal I am left with a strong understanding of who the student is and what their interests are, but not any tangible understanding of what they intend to do. I get the impression that the student doesn’t know what they intend to do for the research project.

This example made me appreciate the importance of mapping out methodology as part of the initial planning process. As well, I am starting to lean more towards Luker’s assertion that research should be an iterative process because though things may change throughout the research process, it is extremely important to make assertions at the beginning that may need to be re-examined later on.