-
Do think deeply
about why the study might matter and in what context. Present this upfront
in *concise* form. There should be no correlation between the depth of your
thought and the length of your description
-
Do not present
slide after slide of literature review. I want the ideas, not proof that
you’ve done your homework.
-
Do not confuse
theory with literature review.
-
Do not approach
the methods section from a defensive, justificational point of view that
tries to minimize or hide the questionable and/or perverted stuff you did to
the data
-
The guiding
principle of the methods section should be to document the study so that (a)
we the audience can properly interpret the results and (b) replicate the
study ourselves
-
Do think deeply
about what the results mean. Don’t stop at saying H1 and H2 were supported.
What are the consequences? This does not mean you should gin up some alleged
contributions your study makes but rather that you draw some implications
for our understanding of how things work
-
If you report on
the relationship between two variables, be sure to think through the
possible mechanisms that could relate one to the other. It’s not about
whether A causes B but why and how.
-
Do not use
formality to signal substance
-
If you think
there are major holes/blemishes in your study, do not attempt to hide them
with make-up. Instead, restructure the presentation to highlight the
problems and why you have them. I guarantee you are not an idiot, so there
must be good reasons why things have turned out the way they did. Discuss
them.
