Doing Your Undergraduate Project
Denis ReardonSage PublicationsISBN 0-7619-4207-6,
I recently encountered the following scenario. With four weeks remaining until the submission date for an 8,000 word “management report” I received my first visit from one of the students I had been allocated for supervision. She had not made much progress. I showed her page 18 of Reardon’s book which indicates a figure of 800 hours to complete satisfactorily the work needed for an undergraduate project. Needless to say she went rather pale!
What I liked about this new text is its recurrent theme that the project or dissertation is a substantial piece of work, demanding of a commitment from the student commensurate to its status and potential value. The issue is perhaps how do we get the likes of the student I refer to above to read such a text in the first place. I detect a worrying, seemingly unstoppable desire for the “quick fix”, “just tell me what to do”. Perhaps the best that we can hope for is that it would be “dipped” into – “what does Reardon say about methodology?”, “I’ve got to do a formal proposal I’ll look at Chapter 4”. Sadly, though, this would mean that whole sections, such as that on the nature of research, are likely to be overlooked resulting in an impoverishment of this most vital component of higher education.
This aside how does this book “square up“ in terms of its “technical”handling of the key elements of the project/research cycle? In the main, it does this very well. Particularly strong, for example, is the chapter already mentioned on writing the project proposal. The example used is a good one and is extensively developed to bring out the need for overall coherence, the “fit”between the different components, and the words to use in writing it. Similarly,there are strong, well-illustrated sections on the questions to be asked about research questions – breadth/depth; simplicity/complexity, etc. –and the structure/writing of the final report.
Elsewhere, though, I do have few quibbles. One of these relates to the position Reardon takes regarding the need for a hypothesis. I have lost count of the number of students who have come to me saying “I’m told I need a hypothesis – can you help?” It often turns out they have the basis of a sound research question and my advice is to proceed on this basis. If the goal, for example, is to evaluate company X’s appraisal system, or to research the case for a graduate mentoring scheme, I fail to see the need for a hypothesis. I remain very comfortable with the notion that the research question is “all powerful”.
Another quibble is the rather short shrift given to methodology vis-á-visspecific methods of data collection, and a sense that the literature review is presented in the book as a discrete task to be undertaken once research question and methodology have been resolved. It is hard, I know, to encourage students to see the process as one of dynamic and ongoing engagement with the literature,right from the outset. But, it is this relationship with the literature through which the research question is most likely to surface, be developed, fine tuned,and through which a methodology can be adopted which is fit for purpose. “Never stop reading just adjust you priorities” would be my steer. An undercurrent in this review of Reardon’s text is the supervisory – student relationship. Reardon rightly stresses the value and importance of this process and relationship but disappointingly fails to “unpack” its complexity and offer a basis for the student to establish a sound and meaningful relationship with his/her supervisor.
All in all, and with the few reservations noted, this is a welcome addition to the library of resources on undergraduate research and project management. Of course, critics might argue “who am I to review such a text, aimed principally at the student?”. A fair point possibly. My defence? I did ask a couple of students if they might be interested in reviewing the book but they were too busy doing their project!
