Research -- framining things the right way

[PsychResearch]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I decided to write this thread after reading the thread on grad students not publishing papers. What I feel I feel I'm lacking in the support to actually get things done.

I just submitted by first paper (i'm in my fifth year!) and I figured to make the best out of the database and try to write a smaller piece that builds on the first.

For the first paper, I used a control variable that was not of theoretical interest. I wanted to show that x outcome is present in my sample even when controlling for x. Variable x (representing a group of people) has been repeatedly linked with the outcome.

Now, I want to take x from the first paper and make it of theoretical interest by comparing x with another group 👍. X ends up scoring higher on the outcome variable than y simply because the nature of x is more loaded on that outcome and it is to be expected. This does not mean that y does not have a problem. it only means that x has a bigger problem. My professor says that this result contradicts the findings in the first paper. I don't think it does, I think it is a slightly different question. Also, both groups have a disorder and I don't have a control group.

Can anyone suggest ways to deal with the professor and explain in a persuasive way that the 2 projects do not contradict each other? Is there a way to frame things such that the two set of findings do not contradict each other (I believe they do not, but professor thinks I'm changing my mind on things -- which is not the case). Any thoughts?

 

[wigflip]

A lot of people, including professors, have trouble publishing. Much of it is personality related.

What do you mean by "personality-related" in this context, Jon? Are you referencing people whose paper is in R & R but who won't make the suggested changes due to ego (a problem my friend is having with paper co-authors) or something else?

 

[PsychResearch]

Thanks, Jon. It is actually helpful what you wrote. I looked at a previous paper that my professor published and I think I'll follow that tamplate to frame my argument, such that it sounds more like a continuation.

 

[wigflip]

Could be any number of things. I've encountered people who are obsessive and kill their own studies. I've encountered people that, for whatever reason, can't make themselves sit down and write. It's like they perceive the process as too big. "Ego" can kill papers, especially in large groups and being able to manage personalities is critical to success in such circumstances. By "personality related" I mean trait related dispositional variables that prevent submission of papers.

Got it. Thanks.

All the academics I know are nuts. Sturm und drang.