Academic Research

These are my notes on the academic research process.

Workflow

This is taken from How I work, Part V: Zettlr and Academic Markdown by Hendrik Erz.

  1. Read research by other people
  2. Find a research question (unanswered, or that you can answer better)
  3. Collect literature
  4. Read the literature and take extensive notes
  5. Conduct experiments or other research
  6. Record experiment results along with ideas of other researchers from the notes
  7. Publish

On Reading

Don't try to "finish" a paper in one go.

When reading an article, always do the following:

For me, at this time, this means using Zettlr to record and cross-reference these notes.

On Critiquing

Who are the authors? What is their "school of thought?" Are they ignoring previous work because it contradicts their narrative?

Did the authors test all scenarios, or just the ones that would encourage their desired outcome?

Is the model realistic?

What is the failure model?

Was their test/experiment run in perfect conditions? What happens when that's not the case?

Did they compare their new algorithm against a modern standard, or against a "straw man?"

Does this solve a fundamental problem, or is it a micro-optimization for a specific use case that is rare or unheard of in the wild?

Doing a Survey of Existing Papers

To produce a report from a series of academic papers, I can't just summarize them sequentially. I need to construct a narrative that places them in conversation with one another.

Structured framework for critical exegesis and synthesis follows.

Phase 1: Preliminary Interrogation

  1. Analyze the paratext: Read the abstract, introduction, and conclusion only
  2. Identify the thesis: What central claim is the author positing? Is it a rejection of a prevailing paradigm, or an incremental advancement of existing hegemony?
  3. Situate the discourse: Look for the "why." What problem is this paper addressing? Is it strictly technical, or does it address socio-technical implications?
  4. The "glance" heuristic: Briefly scan the section headings and figures. This reveals the structural logic of their argument without requiring cognitive load on the details.

Phase 2: Deep Exegesis (The Critical Read)

  1. Deconstruct the methodology: How was the data generated? Is the sample size representative, or does it reflect a specific systemic bias (e.g., WEIRD - Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic)?
  2. Annotate for dialectics: Use marginalia (digital or analog) to note where the author is defensive or aggressive. Where are they anticipating counter-arguments?
  3. Identify limitations: Authors often bury the weaknesses of their approach near the end. Find these. They are critical for your critique.
  4. Sociopolitical lens: Ask yourself: Who benefits from this research? Does this technology or theory reinforce existing power structures, or does it offer a path toward democratization or decentralization?

Phase 3: Thematic Synthesis

Create a synthesis matrix (a simple table) to map the discourse. Each row should be a paper. The columns should be key themes.

The goal is to look for intertextual conflicts and agreements.

Phase 4: Narrative Construction

  1. The thematic hook: Your introduction shouldn't just say "I read these papers." It should identify the common thread or the central tension between them.
  2. Cluster by concept: Structure your LaTeX sections by theme, not by paper.
  3. Critical voice: Ensure your voice remains dominant. You are the narrator synthesizing these views. Use phrases like "while Author A posits X, this is made problematic by Author B's findings on Y..." and "viewed through a critical lens, the methodology fails to account for..."