http://www.researchonline.mq.edu.au/vital/access/services/Feed ${session.getAttribute("locale")} 5 http://www.researchonline.mq.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/mq:23120 6 pages(s) 2012-12-03T09:22:55.658Z ]]> http://www.researchonline.mq.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/mq:23121 13 pages(s) 2012-12-03T09:22:54.410Z ]]> http://www.researchonline.mq.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/mq:23107 17 pages(s) 2012-11-28T23:20:08.071Z ]]> http://www.researchonline.mq.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/mq:21170 Research quality is currently an area attracting a lot of interest. Previous studies have looked at research quality mainly from two perspectives: as a measure of research productivity and performance (e.g. citation analysis) and as a guide for research quality development (e.g. reviewers’ comments analysis). While acknowledging the usefulness of the first, this paper focuses on the latter with the goal of identifying directions for professional development. Through reviewing previous studies related to research quality and guidelines for publishing, as well as looking at research articles published in international journals, this paper reveals research quality from three dimensions: research procedure quality (e.g. establishing validity and reliability), research presentation quality especially concerning the writing up of research (e.g. clarity of research purposes, clarity of findings), and researching quality (e.g. awareness of decisions taken, consideration of methodological strengths and weaknesses). The last of these is a characteristic of research quality that has not been paid much attention previously, and the implications of researching quality for the professional development of researchers are considered. 2012-09-04T21:53:55.705Z ]]> http://www.researchonline.mq.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/mq:21169 The classical “objective” style of academic writing, with its characteristic features of nominalization and the use of so-called agentless passives, is still dominant in most disciplines. The style is prized because it seeks to bestow on the researcher the aura of a disinterested investigator on a quest for “the truth”. In more recent years, however, we have increasingly seen departures from both the style and the positioning of the researcher as an impartial observer. In this paper, I look at issues of objectivity and subjectivity in research work, arguing that all research is subjective, no matter what research paradigm and measurement instruments are used. Although there are many competing research paradigms, and much of the academy appears to thrive on such competition, I argue that there is no necessity for different approaches to be opposing approaches. I also talk about the destructive phenomenon of “paradigm blinkers” or the inability to see beyond the parameters of a paradigm that rarely questions its own shared assumptions and that treats all other paradigms as worthy only of contempt and summary dismissal. 2012-09-04T21:53:53.524Z ]]> http://www.researchonline.mq.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/mq:9185 12 page(s) 2012-01-11T21:23:46.065Z ]]> http://www.researchonline.mq.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/mq:13620 8 page(s) 2011-06-14T07:50:12.594Z ]]> http://www.researchonline.mq.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/mq:13530 10 page(s) 2011-06-07T08:30:07.937Z ]]> http://www.researchonline.mq.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/mq:562 9 page(s) 2010-01-27T23:26:44.838Z ]]> http://www.researchonline.mq.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/mq:1152 18 page(s) 2010-01-27T23:19:52.942Z ]]> http://www.researchonline.mq.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/mq:2324 11 page(s) 2010-01-27T23:05:39.353Z ]]>