Why Post-Graduate Proof-Reader Beats AI at Proofreading Academic Work

As artificial intelligence tools continue advancing at a rapid pace, you might be wondering what value professional proof-readers like us can add to your postgrad thesis. However, when it comes to work that is as important as your amazing research, the human proof-readers at PGPR offer a better service than even the most advanced AI available today.

 

Superior accuracy

AI proofreading tools are getting better all the time when it comes to catching basic grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. However, PGPR’s friendly and professional team remain more accurate and can catch some subtle errors that AI tools miss.

We can spot things that AI might miss. Photo by Emiliano Vittoriosi on Unsplash

Our team of friendly proof-readers has a deeper understanding of the intricacies and nuances of language, which we have gained from our academic and editorial backgrounds. We can identify and correct complex sentence structure issues, convoluted phrasing, unclear arguments and inconsistencies in tone. We’ll correct issues with tense, pesky Oxford commas and jarring language in a way that AI just can’t handle.

 

We have the expertise…

PGPR was invented to help postgrad students who are using qualitative methods. As such, our team includes experts in interpretative phenomenological analysis, thematic analysis and grounded theory. However, we also have editors with experience in psychotherapy, education, creative writing, history and comms.

 

If you book one of our team for feedback, we might point out that a key piece of research is missing from a literature review or use our expertise to question assumptions that you have missed due to your closeness to your topic. We will also offer detailed thoughts on your analysis, data and use of methodology. We can delve deeper and provide specialised insight to strengthen your important work. AI tools lack this critical thinking and depth of subject matter expertise.

The PGPR experts are happy to share their knowledge with you. Photo by KOBU Agency on Unsplash

 

When it comes to qualitative research, that human touch is always going to be several steps ahead of AI. Qualitative data and analysis are nuanced, messy and very human. That’s what makes them fun, right? As advanced as AI gets, it won’t be able to spot the linguistic and thematic intricacies that we can help you with.

 

If you book one of our video consultations, you can talk over your questions with one of our team, who will be able to use their knowledge to look at your data and offer their expert thoughts on the challenges you’re having.

 

Clear communication for improved learning

One common complaint about AI proofreading tools is that students might not fully understand why a particular change is suggested or how to fix an identified issue. While AI flags problems, it doesn’t explain them. This provides little opportunity for you to improve your writing skills.

 

PGPR’s proof-readers take the time to communicate clearly with clients to explain identified issues and provide guidance on strengthening your academic writing. We tailor our feedback and instructions to your level of understanding so that we can help maximise your learning. Our aim is not just better papers now, but better writers for the future. Plus, if you have any questions after you receive your work, we’re always happy to answer or explain.

 

Customisation for individual needs

Every client and assignment is unique. Our proof-readers customise their editing style, comments and approach based on what you need. For advanced students, we may focus on refinement and polishing. We provide more guidance on structure, style and basic grammar for those newer to academic writing.

PGPR’s help is tailored to snugly fit your needs. Photo by Salvador Godoy on Unsplash

 

We have recently introduced a light proofreading service, as well as our standard proofing, plus you can also book PGPR for feedback and video consultations. Get in touch and chat with our wonderful admin assistant Layla to find out what is the best service for you.

 

The human touch

Completing a postgrad project can be lonely, especially if you’re the only student using qualitative methods in your department. Working directly with a caring, encouraging human proof-reader will give you a personalised experience that builds confidence and relieves stress. We can answer questions, alleviate worries, provide positive reinforcement when needed, and instil confidence in anyone who might be feeling intimidated by academic writing conventions.

 

Having an expert understand the thought process you were having when composing your paper and what you’re aiming to achieve can take much of the isolation out of writing. Our one-on-one interactions are tailored to each client’s needs. The human touch that AI lacks helps students feel supported while improving their work.

The friendly humans at PGPR are always happy to help. Photo by Matthew Henry on Unsplash

 

Proven trust and reputation

PGPR has helped hundreds of clients over the years to earn better grades and advance their academic careers. Our experienced team has a strong reputation built on proven results that you can trust. We have received extensive praise and feedback; you can read case studies from some of our satisfied clients here.

 

In conclusion…

PGPR’s team of academics, editors, researchers and language experts provides a customised proof-reading experience with a human touch that artificial intelligence just can’t replicate. For any student who needs to submit their absolute best work, our proven expertise, nuanced understanding and caring supportive approach remain invaluable. AI has its uses, but when the crucial elements of your thesis are on the line, PGPR’s human insight can offer you the best service. Get in touch to hear more about our services.

Seven Steps to a Marvellous Method Section

Whether you’re preparing a thesis, a paper or an essay, if you’re reporting on a study you have conducted, the method is crucial. This is the section that your readers will use to check how you conducted your research, so it’s vital that you clearly demonstrate what you did and how you did it. You can have the most beautifully nuanced findings in the world, but if the reader doesn’t know how you got to them, they won’t be able to trust in the validity of your work.

This sounds super serious, but don’t panic – although important, methodologies are one of the easier sections to write, as they tend to follow a specific structure and are all about reporting what you did. The good news is, you did that stuff! So you are the most uniquely qualified person to write about it. Check you out.

The level of detail you need in your method section will vary depending on the type of paper you’re writing. For example, a systematic review will need a much longer and more detailed method section than a small interview study. The following tips will be useful no matter what type of method section you’re working on.

  1. Write your method first; in fact, start whilst still doing the study

When you’re in the midst of recruiting participants, juggling interview schedules or scouring databases for papers, it can feel like you will never forget the steps you took to get from A to B (and then to C and E and H). However, you’d be amazed at how quickly these details can vanish if you haven’t been taking careful notes. As such, we recommend starting to write your methodology section almost in real-time – as you’re doing the actual study. Yes, you’ll need to edit it later, but getting those key facts down while they’re fresh in your mind can save you a whole host of hair-pulling further down the road. Additionally, since the method can be straightforward to write, this is a great way to combat empty page syndrome. Yes, you’ve still got some of the longer sections to write, but you’ve made a start, and that’s always a good feeling.

A woman sits on the floor surrounded by lemons
Juggling the different parts of the methodology can feel like a struggle, but getting those key facts down while they’re fresh in your mind can save you a whole heap of time.                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Photo by Marije Woudsma on Unsplash
  1. Follow the subheadings set out by your target journal or your institution

In their guidance for authors, journals often include a list of subheadings that they expect to see in a method section. This can be helpful, as the headings make it clear exactly what you need to include and what you can leave out. If you’re writing up a thesis, check with your supervisor or in your institution’s handbook to see if they also suggest subheadings. If they do, use them. Start by writing each subheading into a Word document, then make bullet points of all the relevant info for each one. You can shape those points into paragraphs in the next step.

  1. Succinctly provide enough information so that someone can follow the steps you took and (where possible) replicate the study

Traditionally, the point of the method section is to give your readers enough information to replicate the study if they want to. This idea is more suitable for quantitative experiments – where you have a certain amount of control over the various variables – than qualitative research, which is led by participants and their stories. However, the principle still applies. Following the suggested subheadings, as per the point above, should help with this.

A woman relaxes in a chair reading a book about storytelling in design
Telling the story of how you designed your study is an important step!                                                                                                                                                                                                             Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash

You need to tell the story of what you did and how you did it. How did you contact and recruit participants? Where did you conduct your interviews? How did you record them? Which methodology did you use to analyse your data? Did you use any software to help you? Who gave you ethics clearance? All these questions will need to be answered. And, importantly, they should be answered using as few words as possible. This section is about presenting the facts, not flowery language. If you’re writing for a peer-reviewed paper, you’re likely to have quite a tight word count. If your method section is concise as possible, this frees up more words for your findings.

  1. Think carefully about anonymisation vs information about participants

If you’re writing up a qualitative study, as most PGPR clients are, you need to think carefully about how much information you’re going to provide about your participants. Demographic details about the participants which have a bearing on the research question need to be provided, but participants’ identities must be protected. This information will often be presented in a table. Let’s say you’re writing up a study about what it’s like to give birth to your first child. Your table might include participants’ pseudonyms/ID numbers, their age, the age of their child and their ethnicity. You might choose to leave out where they live and their occupation. However, if your study is about young working mothers, occupation is more important, so you would include that, but perhaps leave out other details. Always check your consent form to be sure you’re not conveying any information that participants haven’t given you permission to share.

  1. Ensure you provide enough info about the fit between your research question and your method

Unfortunately, there are still quite a few reviewers and examiners out there who don’t understand or trust qualitative methods. As such, you need to ensure that your justification for using the methodology you’ve picked is ironclad. You may only need a sentence or two, but do include some lines to explain why qualitative methods are the perfect fit for your study, even if it seems really obvious to you!

You need to ensure that your justification for using the methodology you’ve picked is ironclad.                                                                                                                                                                                    Photo by John Salvino on Unsplash
  1. Save discussion of difficulties for the limitations section

Research is unpredictable. Things go wrong, and that’s fine. You might not have been able to recruit as many participants as you’d hoped. Some interviews might not have recorded perfectly. You might be new to qualitative methods and have struggled with analysis. None of these are reasons to beat yourself up; we’re all learning, all the time. If things have gone less than brilliantly, state that plainly in this section. You can then go on to talk about the implications of those hiccups and what you might do next time in your limitations section, all whilst reminding yourself that even the most esteemed professors run into difficulties at times. You’ve still completed your study and that is brilliant.

  1. Contact PGPR

If you’re struggling with your method section – or any other area of your write-up – just get in touch with us via the box below. We’re a friendly team of qualitative and mixed methods experts who can help you with feedback, proofreading and word reduction on this and any other section of your thesis or paper.

Five tips for carrying on with your research when things are tough

Postgraduate research is hard work. You need to design a study. Pass ethics. Find participants. Gather and analyse data. Write up your findings. Get into journals and conferences. And, usually, do all this whilst you’re also juggling work, family and occasionally trying to have a bit of fun.

If something goes wrong – and sooner or later with research (as with life in general), something will go wrong – it can be hard to carry on. Perhaps you’re having to jump through a hundred hoops to get ethics clearance, or maybe participants keep cancelling on you. It could be that your supervisor is pushing you extra hard. In situations like this, you might find yourself wondering why you’re bothering.

It can be hard to find the motivation to carry on after months of hard graft!

Photo by Matthew Henry on Unsplash

Does the world really need another piece of qualitative research? (Answer – yes it does!) Do you really have something to say? (Answer – absolutely, you do, you total badass!)

If you’re struggling to carry on with your postgrad research, here are five tips from PGPR to help you get back into the swing of things.

  • Take a break

Put your pen/laptop/tablet down and go outside. Look up at the sky (as long as it’s not raining of course). Read a good book, watch some reruns of Jane the Virgin. Gather your mates or your kids and go for a pizza. When you’re in the thick of a PhD, it can feel all-encompassing, but a good first step to tackling any research problem is to get things back into perspective. Other things in life can bring you joy – take a week off and go have some fun.  

There is very little a pizza party with friends can’t solve!

Photo by Matthew Henry on Unsplash
  • Try reading around the problem

Whatever issue it is that you’re facing, you can bet your bottom dollar (whatever THAT is) that someone else has had the same problem. Whether it’s a logistical issue or an analytical one, have a poke around on the internet, do a Google Scholar search and see if you can read a bit about how others in your situation have solved similar problems. Postgrad research can feel pretty lonely, but there are many other people out there doing what you’re doing, and we can all help each other.

Academic Twitter is (in my experience anyway) a pretty darn supportive place, so it might be worth asking a question on there. Trying using the hashtag #AcademicTwitter or tagging @AcademicChatter and hopefully, both answers and support will come along shortly.

  • Break the problem down into steps and tackle them one at a time

Challenges can feel overwhelming if we try to solve them all at once. Try instead to break the problem down into small, manageable chunks. Can you face the first one? Great – do that, then have a bit of chocolate. Leave part two till tomorrow. Rinse and repeat until the problem is dealt with. By the time you’re into the swing of it, I bet you it won’t feel as unsurmountable as it did to start off with.

Indulging in a few choccy treats as a reward for doing a bit of work is a-ok in our book!

Photo by Michele Blackwell on Unsplash
  • Make a list of the successes you’ve had

Another problem with – well – problems, is that when we have one, we can make it mean something personal about us. I couldn’t write a great discussion section the first time around, so I must be a failure and a terrible person. Try to stop thinking like that, because trust me, you are not a failure. Anyone who is doing postgrad work is a superstar and a brainiac to boot. This work is meant to be difficult, so the fact that you’re occasionally finding it difficult means that nothing has gone wrong. And it certainly doesn’t mean that you are anything other than amazing.

If you’re finding that hard to believe, try making a list of all the successes (big and small) you’ve had since you started your research career. Include everything from acing that undergrad exam to being accepted onto your master’s to recruiting your first four participants. You could also include cooking a lovely dinner for your family last night and mastering that impossible-looking posture at yoga.

Once you’ve mastered your research, you can do anything!

Photo by Oksana Taran on Unsplash

If you managed all of those things, you can definitely manage this one too!

  • Book a PGPR VC

If you’re still feeling stuck with any element of your qualitative postgrad research project, a great solution could be to book a video consultation with PGPR. In these VCs, we spent an hour looking over your work and notes before the session, and then another hour talking the problems through with you via Zoom or Teams or whatever platform you like. Discussing the issue with one of our friendly team of qualitative experts is a great way to brainstorm, gain confidence and beat whatever issue is stopping you.

Get in touch with us via the button below to book.

How to use the new IPA terminology

Whether you are new to Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) or have been using it for a while, you may have noticed some differences in the language associated with this qualitative approach to research.

This might seem confusing at first but don’t worry; help is at hand!

Confused? PGPR are here to help

Photo by Dex Ezekiel on Unsplash

The guidance and steps suggested to conduct your analysis remain the same. So do the underlying principles. All that’s changed is some of the terminology.

Terms like emergent theme or superordinate theme, which you will see in most IPA papers published pre-2022 and in the first edition of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method and Research by Jonathan Smith, Paul Flowers and Michael Larkin (2009), have been updated, as explained in the table below.

Old term New term
Emergent Theme Experiential Statement
Superordinate Theme Personal Experiential Theme (PET)
Master Theme Group Experiential Theme (GET)

Emergent Themes are now known as experiential statements, superordinate themes are now called personal experiential themes, and master themes are now referred to as group experiential themes.

This change in terminology can actually make things clearer as you work through your analysis. Experiential statements are just that, statements about the experiences captured in your data in terms of their meaning for the participant.

Let the new IPA terminology light your pathway through analysis

Photo by Diego PH on Unsplash

In the new book Essentials of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (Smith & Nizza, 2021), the authors provide an example analysis of a participant’s holiday experience.

The example transcript includes the lines “so I really had to put in the effort and judge people quite quickly as well. So, yeah, I just had to put stuff out there quite a lot”. One of the experiential statements to arise from this analysis is ‘Selectively and purposively bonding with strangers’ (p. 41).

This statement is both concise and rich. It captures the participant’s description of forging relationships with other travellers and their sense of this being a deliberate, active process. A statement such as ‘Meeting new people’ or ‘Social aspects of travel’, although still reflective of the data, would not provide the same experiential detail.

The new IPA terminology is nearly as much fun as meeting new friends whilst travelling. Honest!

Photo by Kimson Doan on Unsplash

Thinking in terms of experiential statements – rather than emergent themes – can help you orient yourself during the earlier analytic stages. An experiential statement involves summarising the meaning in a short portion of the text – perhaps just a few lines. At this stage, being too concerned with the bigger picture of ‘themes’ can distract you from looking carefully at each section of the transcript in a close, fine-grained fashion.

Personal experiential themes or PETs, are themes developed through an analysis of a single case, meaning they are personal to that individual.

Group experiential themes or GETs are developed by looking across individual cases for patterns of convergence and divergence. They are themes which represent the group.

As you can see, the revised terminology makes finding your way through the analysis easier.

Doing IPA can feel like tackling a maze. The new terminology can help you find your way.

Photo by Benjamin Elliott on Unsplash

This new terminology, and guidance for each stage of the analysis, are included in the two new books mentioned. These are the 2nd edition of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method and Research by Jonathan Smith, Paul Flowers, and Michael Larkin (2022), and the new APA Essentials Book Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis by Jonathan Smith and Isabella Nizza (2021).

The new terminology is also used in the recent paper I wrote with Jonathan Smith: ‘Making sense of an artwork: An interpretative phenomenological analysis of participants’ accounts of viewing a well-known painting’ (Starr & Smith, 2022).

This blog was written by Rachel Starr, one of PGPR’s IPA experts. To book a video consultation with Rachel, contact us via the box below.

Five tips for staying on top of your references

Ask any seasoned researcher if they’ve ever got into a muddle with references, and they will have a war story or two to tell. Whilst references are an essential part of any scientific piece of writing, they are undeniably a massive pain in the you-know-what.

It all makes sense. You’re writing your beloved thesis, the mind-blowing ideas and ground-breaking theories flowing from your fingers. You know the literature, you know where your research question came from and how it’s added to our knowledge. You’re in Csikszentmihalyi’s magical state of flow (Csikszentmihalyi & Rathunde, 1993) (that, my friends, is an example of a reference) and you’re not going to break that off for a tiny little detail like who wrote the paper proving that positive mindset is the key to everything. You’ll come back to that! So instead, you insert something like (positive mindset paper, pink folder????, come back later) and carry on writing.

That’s fine if this is your strategy for one or two references.

It’s really not so fine if this is your strategy for the 500 or so which make up an entire PhD!

Fear not – here are PGPR’s five top tips for staying on top of your references from the outset.

An old painting of an intense battle scene with knights riding horses and dust clouds obscuring the background.
Ask any researcher about references and they’ll be certain to share their war stories…

Photo by Birmingham Museums Trust on Unsplash

1. Start an account with a referencing software

This is essential. I know the software might seem alien and off-putting at first, and sometimes these systems are pretty clunky, but hand on heart, I think the best move I ever made as a researcher was to get to grips with EndNote from month one of my PhD.

Think of your referencing software as an online library where you store all the details of the reading you’ll do over the course of your thesis/paper/project. Most of them are simple to use once you’ve got used to them. Google and YouTube are also crammed full of helpful tips and videos for working these programs, or you can book an appointment with your uni librarian, who will walk you through it.

As stated, I use (and am a fan of) EndNote Web, which is free, but there are plenty of other choices out there, including the paid version of Endnote, Zotero and Mendeley.

Reading some of these blogs might help you to decide which to use. Or ask your PhD supervisor which they would recommend.

2. During the lit review, record each reference, with notes, as you go

One of the first steps of any research project, big or small, will be doing a lit review. This is good as it means you can get to grips with your new software early in the process and become confident with it. Every time you read a paper, chapter or web page, import or record its details in your software and make some notes. These notes will help you remember which paper is which when you come back to them in a few months. You can also keep different reference records in different folders for different projects, which will help you locate that finding you know you read somewhere at a later date.

Top tip: If you’re unsure what details you need to record, look for the paper in question in Google Scholar and then click the ‘cite’ button. This will tell you all the details you need to know (for journal articles, this will be title, authors, year and doi as well as publication name, volume, edition and page numbers), which you can then either import or copy and paste into your software.

3. Use your software system as you write

Now that all your references are neatly filed in your software, do ensure that you use that software to insert the in-text references as you write. If you use EndNote, you need to install a plug-in which then shows up in Word. Click ‘insert citation’ each time you need to do just that, and EndNote will format the in-text citation for you and put the full reference at the end of the document.

Writing references needn’t make you glum if you’ve got the right tools for the job.

Photo by K. Mitch Hodge on Unsplash

Inevitably, as you write, you will need to look for more references as questions arise, or to respond to feedback from your supervisor or peer reviewers. By this point, you will be confident with your software, so just keep adding to it as you go, being disciplined about recording all those details and notes with every paper you need. Then use the software to insert the new reference as you write.

4. Find out which referencing system you need to use for this piece and set that in your software

There are several systems for citing references in scientific papers, which include APA, Harvard, Vancouver and so on. These all differ slightly from each other and, to make matters even more confusing, differ within themselves as well. Harvard referencing, for example, is an umbrella term which is interpreted differently depending on which institution you’re at, while APA has 7 versions.

The intricate differences in these systems can lead to further confusion if you haven’t been staying on top of your references throughout the process. But this is where referencing software is so handy. If all the references in your thesis are linked to your software, you can change which referencing system the software uses to present those references, switching from APA7 to Vancouver at the touch of a button. This job would take days and days by hand and runs the risk of you throwing your laptop out the window in frustration.

5. Contact PGPR for help

If you’re reading this blog thinking, well, that’s all very useful but I’m already two years into my thesis and it’s all too late, don’t worry! PGPR can help. Our expert reference checkers can ensure that every in-text and full-length reference is formatted correctly for the system you’re using, locate any missing details and even cross-check your thesis to ensure that every in-text citation appears in the bibliography and vice versa. We even have some crazy people on our team (Hannah and Shannon) who enjoy this work! So just hand it over to us and you can get back to uncovering more thrilling new findings.

We’re always happy to help. Just get in touch via the form below.

 

New PGPR team members

Exciting times here at PGPR… our team has doubled in size over the past few months. We now have more staff members who can help you with all your proof-reading and feedback needs. Additionally, our new staff are bringing new expertise to the fold, so it could be that we can now help you or your colleagues with areas you hadn’t previously considered contacting us about.

While PGPR has traditionally helped qualitative psychology students, most of whom are using IPA or thematic analysis, we can now also help criminology, humanities, history and musicology students as well as students who are using quantitative analysis, mixed methods, ethnography and discourse or framework analysis.

Hurrah – we can help more students than ever!

Photo by Chang Duong on Unsplash

Here’s a rundown of our new stellar staff members.

Claire M has a BSc in psychology and criminology, an MSc in psychology of health and wellbeing and a PhD from Keele University. She is another discourse analysis expert who can offer feedback and video consultations in this area, as well as transcription. She has also edited the PsyPAG Quarterly Journal for two years and worked as an editor on the QMiP Bulletin since 2016. She believes it’s important to give encouraging feedback that doesn’t make students physically cringe and hide away for a week.

Claire R is a mixed-methods health psychology and health services researcher with a keen interest in digital health, long-term conditions and implementation science. She can offer proof-reading and feedback for students working with thematic analysis, framework analysis, ethnography and mixed methods. She has worked and studied at a variety of universities in the UK and completed her PhD in improvement science at the University of Southampton. She is currently based at the University of Oxford but lives in Southampton.

Talking your research over with one of our experts can lead to a breakthrough.

Photo by Alexis Brown on Unsplash

Josie has been working as a lecturer in psychology, teaching BSc and MSc Psychology, for the last 12 years. She’s currently working as a teaching fellow at King’s College London. She can help you with proof-reading and feedback for thematic analysis, IPA and quantitative work as well as video consultations. She has taught research methods in psychology (both qualitative and quantitative), biological psychology, cognitive psychology, mental health, and the psychology of sleep and dreaming. She has also supervised many research projects for final year BSc psychology students, using a range of qualitative and quantitative methods and has written a popular book on the psychology of dreaming.

Nick can help you with any proof-reading needs. He has an undergraduate degree and a master’s in history and became an English language teacher after taking a CELTA course. He has also taught academic English and critical thinking skills to university-level students. Now based in Malaysia, Nick combines proof-reading and editing with tutoring. He has worked with a wide variety of texts, including journal articles for publication, dissertations, academic theses, corporate documents and university papers, while his proof-reading experience covers engineering, hospitality, political science and management.

The PGPR team are addicted to reading

Photo by Ben White on Unsplash

Shannon is another proof-reading whizz with expertise in quantitative methods. She also offers transcription. She completed a Bachelor of Business Science and a Master of Commerce in economics at the University of KwaZulu Natal. During her time there, she also worked as an economics tutor and an academic coordinator. She has assisted in various quantitative research projects, primarily working with econometric and statistical models. Working in research led Shannon to the role of proof-reader and editor for research papers, prior to their submission for publication. She also proof-read postgraduate dissertations in a variety of business-related subjects.

And last but certainly not least is Steph, a musicologist and early modern music book historian who can offer proof-reading and feedback. With a master’s degree in early music editing from Hull and a PhD in seventeenth-century music publishing from Manchester, she is now an Associate Researcher at Newcastle. She works on music in early modern England, particularly within the broader cultural contexts of print, book history and economic trade. She’s also the editor for the Northamptonshire Victoria County History Trust, meaning she is used to working with historians from a broad range of backgrounds.

The PGPR team have more degrees than you could throw your cap at

Photo by Pang Yuhao on Unsplash

If you or any of your colleagues would like to book one of our new team members to look at your work, please just get in touch via the box below – we’ll be happy to help.

[activecampaign]

How transcription works with PGPR

If you’re a qualitative researcher, the chances are you will be conducting interviews. This means that at some point, all that lovely data will have to be transformed from audio files into documents that you can annotate and analyse.

Of course, in an ideal world, we would all transcribe our own interviews as it does get us that step closer to the data. In the real world, however, researchers often don’t have time for this laborious job. If you’re trying to recruit participants and work on your analysis whilst also looking after a family and working in a part-time job, the thought of sitting hunched over Word and VLC for days at a time trying to work out whether a participant said ‘pathology’ or ‘potatoes’ might be enough to make you weep.

Is transcription making you want to tear your hair out?

Photo by ahmad gunnaivi on Unsplash

Well, fear not, because PGPR now offers transcription alongside proof-reading and feedback. In this blog, we’ll explain exactly what happens if you decide to use PGPR to transcribe your precious data.

Step one… send us your audio file

We use the secure service Tresorit to transfer files. Tresorit is based in Switzerland and is one of the most secure services of its kind. All files are encrypted at source and the company has no way of accessing documents you upload or send through their service. They take security and GDPR compliance seriously, meaning your precious data is safe. You can send files of up to 5GB in this way.

You upload your file to Tresorit and send it to us. We will ensure that the link gets to the team member who is transcribing your audio. They will then download the file.

We guard your data carefully

Photo by Liam Tucker on Unsplash

Step two… we transcribe the data

Since our team members are either qualitative researchers themselves or are editors who specialise in working on qualitative pieces, we understand how important it is to get every word and line of your interview exactly right. If you want, we can include hesitations, repetitions, ums and ahs, laughter and sighs. We can also anonymise all identifying data, such as names or locations, as we work.

Transcription is serious business

Photo by Bermix Studio on Unsplash

Step three… we check that our work is accurate

We always listen to your interview twice over to ensure that our transcription is both accurate and thorough.

Step four… we send the interview back to you

Once the transcript is ready, we will password protect it and email the document back to you. You will then receive a text message from Layla or Johanna telling you what the password for your interview is. In this way, we are ensuring security. We can send your work back within 24 hours, 48 hours or five working days from the time you sent it to us.

That feeling you get when you don’t have to worry about transcribing your interviews…

Photo by Fernando Brasil on Unsplash

Step five… we delete your audio file

Again, this ensures that your confidential data doesn’t make it into the wrong hands.

If you’d like to use our transcription service, just get in touch via the form below, we’ll be happy to help.

Six steps to the perfect discussion section

You’ve passed ethics, recruited participants, collected your data, analysed and written up your findings – phew! What a marathon. The hard work is basically over, right?

Well, sadly not, because there is one more hurdle to jump; the dreaded discussion section.

This is where you compare your work to the existing literature. Sounds simple, but this can be the hardest chapter to write. I have a theory (entirely untested, I should point out) that these chapters are especially hard for women, who have generally been socialised not to brag about their achievements, something you definitely need to do here.

Read on for six tips on how to leap over this final hurdle and write a devastating discussion.

1. Read around your findings

You will already have done plenty of reading for your lit review, but before you start writing, do some more, especially if you are doing qualitative work. In quantitative research, you shouldn’t discuss any papers you haven’t already bought up in your intro, but this is not the case for qualitative explorations, where the researcher will have been expecting the unexpected. Now that you have your unexpected findings, search for similar papers and make notes on the relevant points.

I find it helpful to start a new document listing each of my key findings, and to make notes of any existing findings which confirm, contradict or add to my own, along with a note of which paper the new findings have come from. Include the key findings from the key papers from your intro or lit review on this list as well. You might want to highlight findings which back yours up in one colour and those which don’t in another. This list document comes in really handy once you start to write.

Immerse yourself in the relevant reading

Photo by Siora Photography on Unsplash

Look for work from the same or similar methodologies to you, as well as work from other areas. Find and read papers that are cited in useful studies.

Top tip: if your university doesn’t have access to a paper you need, email the author, or look for them on ResearchGate or Twitter. They will probably be happy to share their work with you. (I am always happy to share my papers, just get in touch via the form below to ask.)

2. Think about format

The format of your discussion section should mirror that of your findings. This helps your reader to logically follow your train of thought; especially vital if your reader is a PhD examiner, for whom you want to make life as easy as possible.

Start with your first finding. Briefly recap it. A common problem I see with PGPR clients is that they spend too much time reminding the reader of findings. The findings chapter is the one before the discussion; try to trust that your work is interesting enough that the reader won’t have forgotten it already.

Think carefully about your format before you start writing
Photo by The Creative Exchange on Unsplash

Here is an example of a recap from a discussion section in my PhD, which was about the experience of living with and being treated for renal failure:

Seven of the participants talked about the impact that ill health made on their lives. Some found that ill health was a wearing intrusion, dragging them down and restricting them. Others had found ways to come to terms with living with their chronic conditions.

Following this, you might want write a brief summary of the existing literature, after which you can start comparing your work to what’s out there already.

3. Look for areas where your research confirms other findings

The next step is to demonstrate how your findings concur with existing work (if they do). This is where the list document you made earlier will come in useful. Look for findings that are similar to yours and tell the reader about those similarities. If you don’t have anything on your document which backs up your findings, have another look, just to be sure. However, don’t force similarities if they’re not there.


How similar does your work look to existing work?

Photo by Chan on Unsplash

4. Look for areas where your research builds on existing work

This step is similar to the previous one but can be trickier. Your work might appear to contradict existing work. Novice researchers may panic that this means their findings are ‘wrong’. However, is there a reason your findings are different from Professor Big-Brain’s? Did you speak to different participants? Has the political climate shifted? Perhaps participants reacted differently to you – an Asian female – than to Professor Big-Brain – a white male. If further research would be beneficial, point that out.

Perhaps your findings add a new dimension to a model or set of guidelines. If so, clearly demonstrate this and give yourself a gold star.

You might have an entirely novel finding – something no-one has found before. Again, check the literature carefully so that you can be confident you’ve not missed anything, but if so, use clear language to tell your reader that you have found something new and important. Don’t be shy about this! These are the kinds of findings you might include in bullet points about ‘what this adds to existing research’ when you’re submitting papers for publication.


Don’t let your brilliant new ideas sink without trace  

Photo by Kristopher Roller on Unsplash

5. Think carefully about what your reader needs to know

PGPR clients’ discussion sections are often overly long. We don’t need every detail of the papers you’re comparing your work to. Consider your examiners or the reviewers of your paper as you write. These people tend to be overworked as it is – and reviewing/thesis examination is extra work which they have to fit into their busy day. Do they really need to know exactly how many people Dr Finickity interviewed, or do they just need to know what those participants experienced?

Here is another example from my PhD, demonstrating a succinct comparison:

Several participants talked about a loss of freedom via the restrictions placed on them by their illness, either in terms of being too fatigued to live life to the full, or in terms of more practical concerns such as diet restrictions. Authors of previous qualitative work on ill-health have found similar themes. The restricting impact of ill health in terms of both social life and diet spoken about by Charlotte is reflected in findings by King et al. (2002), in which dietary restrictions and ill health were both found to have a major impact on the diabetic renal patients.

6. Ask PGPR for feedback

Discussion sections are difficult – but the PGPR team has plenty of experience writing, marking and examining these chapters. We are happy to offer feedback on how to get your discussion chapter just right, so fill in the form below if you would like some extra support.

Convince Any Stats-Lover with Your Qualitative Method Section

You have done a cutting-edge piece of qualitative research that is ripe for publishing… but your subject matter means that targeting traditional, quant-based journals makes more sense for your beloved paper. Do you know how to get your paper ready to submit to a potentially stats-favouring audience?


Sending your paper to someone who does this all day? Don’t quake in your boots… we’ve got you covered!
 
Photo by Ruth Zimmerman on Unsplash

Lots of publications have quantitative researchers reviewing qualitative work and you want to make sure that your reviewer has no doubts about the value of your fabulous paper.

Fear not – here are some top tips on how to get your methodology section looking ravishingly rigorous and ready for submission.

1. Check the journal’s conventions for qualitative research.

Many journals that accept qualitative papers have specific conventions or guidelines for qualitative submissions.

There are also journals that do not accept qualitative papers (sad but true!), although they don’t always let you know this. If you can’t find any specific conventions for qualitative papers in the publication in question, have a look to see if they have any lovely qual papers in their archives. If they don’t, it’s probably a waste of your time to send your paper to this journal, so cut your losses and move on to the next journal on your list.   

2. Recognise and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the qualitative approach.

One sure-fire way to put off reviewers is to ignore the weaknesses of your approach. Of course, you want to emphasise why your approach is fantastic and perfect for addressing your research question (as well as why quantitative research is not suitable for your study). However, discussing the disadvantages will give strength to your argument.

Talking about the strengths of your approach is obviously important, but don’t forget about its weaknesses!

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels

3. Discuss validity and reliability.

One concern of quantitative researchers is that qualitative research lacks validity and reliability. Emphasise the rigour of your approach, using examples.

4. Put all the right information in your methods section.

The structure of your methodology section will depend on your specific piece of research. Qualitative methods sections are not as cut and dried as quantitative methods sections. There are, however, some essential ingredients!

  • Research question: Be sure to clearly include this.
  • Design, methodology, approach and philosophy: Your theoretical assumptions need to be made explicit. Many researchers trained in quantitative methods are not aware of the philosophical underpinnings of qualitative research. Also, be mindful that approaches such as TA and IPA might need more explanation for quantitative researchers.
  • Researcher information: Also known as reflexivity – ensure you talk about your background, its relevance to the study both in terms of usefulness and potential bias
  • Sample, recruitment and drop-outs: Quantitative reviewers can sometimes be put off by small sample sizes. If you have spoken to a small sample, or if any participants have dropped out, explain why.
  • Procedure: Say what you did and why you did it. Make it relevant to your research question. What do the reviewers need to know about the research setting? How did you collect your data?
  • Ethics, including consent and confidentiality: Although ethical issues for quantitative and qualitative research can be similar, highlight any other issues, such as ongoing informed consent for case studies or additional means of protecting participant anonymity.

Just like the lovely cocktail you might celebrate with after your submission, your methodology section needs to have the right ingredients.
 
Photo by Pastel100 on Pixabay

5. Make sure it looks top-notch!

Don’t give the reviewer any chance to get off on the wrong foot. Your references should be perfect and your paper needs to be free from mistakes. Need an eagle eye to check over your paper? The Post-Graduate Proof-Reader can help!

Six Reasons You Should Work with a Proof-Reader

Five easy fixes to make your academic writing stand out

You’ve spent months toiling in the lab, you’ve wrangled with SPSS or IPA or FDA or one of those other acronyms that make your family’s eyes glaze over. Finally, you’re ready to write up your fascinating findings.

It’s one thing to bore the pants off your family, but how can you stop your audience’s eyes glazing over? How can you keep those examiners or reviewers or students turning pages?

Worried your audience will look like this? Fear not, the Post-Graduate Proof-Reader can help!

Photo by Alex Michaelsen on Unsplash

Academic writing has a reputation for being dry and hard to struggle through, but it doesn’t have to be that way. I am the post-graduate proof-reader. I’m a qualitative psychologist and novel writer, and I’ve proofed more PhDs than you’ve had hot toddies, so I know how to make formal language sing. Here are my five easy fixes.  

  • Present your text professionally.

Align your work to the left. Justifying leaves unsightly spaces between words – spaces which, when I worked on magazines, we used to fill with unnecessary ‘buts’ and ‘whys’ and ‘therefores’. Do everyone a favour and hit align left. This simple step will make your eyes sigh with relief.

Inserting returns between your paragraphs is another stunningly easy fix which will have your examiners smiling. It’s easier to read text that’s spaced out than words which are crammed together.

  • Break up those unwieldy sentences

Postgraduate work is brain-breaking stuff. Sometimes our ideas are complex and feel too big to be hemmed in by such bourgeois notions as short sentences. As you start writing, you might find that your ideas run on and on. That’s fine for a first draft, but always go back and try to divide those monstrous marathons up. Look for where you’ve used the word ‘and’. Can you delete it and start a sentence? Can you delete it? Start a new sentence? (See? It’s simple.) Your readers will thank you.  

Get editing for concise writing

Photo by Eye for Ebony on Unsplash
  • Omit needless words (Strunk, 2007)

No matter what you’re writing – an epic poem, the great British novel, a paper on the latest discoveries about the phonological loop – William Strunk’s famous edict applies. Effective writing is concise.

Mistakes I see a lot include writing ‘all of the participants’ where ‘all participants’ would do; ‘appears to suggest’ where ‘suggests’ works well; or ‘For P1, the experience of rain was distressing’ where ‘P1 found the rain distressing’ is far more elegant.

  • Avoid informal words

This one is a bit trickier as you have to learn which words don’t work in a formal environment. However, as with all writing – academic or creative – it helps to be specific. Don’t say ‘things’ when what you mean is ‘negative elements’. Avoid the word ‘normal’, especially if you’re talking about people, as it implies that some people are abnormal. And never use the word ‘very’. Your writing will sound stronger without it. Trust me!

For more on this topic, check out our top tips for formal writing.

  • Employ the post-graduate proof-reader

If all this sounds knackering and you just want to get back to writing your next grant application or maybe even watching a bit of Killing Eve with your long-suffering spouse, fear not. Just get in touch with the post-graduate proof-reader and I can help you complete all these fixes and many more so that your academic writing becomes something to write home about.  

Employ the Post-Graduate Proof-Reader and you too can be this delighted by your writing.

Photo by Radu Florin on Unsplash