|
Paragraph 1) When one thinks about research, one associates it to a possible search for answers, solution to problems, production of knowledge. Knowledge is related to research, which means search and discovery, since this is an activity or process that requires work (mental, manual or both) to be reached; this is one of the reasons for knowledge not being confused with information, which is the already ready result of a process (Author, Year). This study understands research according to Authors' perspective (Year) which involves the process to explain the explanation.
Paragraph 2) “The research is the way of science to produce knowledge. The importance of questioning knowledge is, according to Author […]”
|
[Name], I loved your idea of starting the writing of the methodology with a reflexive text. Very good indeed! But I think it needs a little more contextualization to prevent a feeling of strangeness or a break in the reader’s expectations.
Therefore, I make the following suggestion for rewriting:
When one thinks about research, it is common to associate such a thought to a search for answers, a solution to problems, a production of knowledge. In this sense, knowledge is intimately connected to research, seen in this work as search and discovery, an activity or a process that needs work (mental, manual or both) to be achieved. This is indeed one of the reasons for knowledge not to be confused with information, which refers to the already ready result of a process (Author, Year). This study understands research according to Authors' perspective (Year), and it considers the process by means of which it is produced.
These reflections are relevant for us to be able to explain that this study understands research in the perspective of Authors (Names, Year), which involves the process to explain the explanation.”
What do you think [Name]? I also suggest proofreading this “to explain the explanation,” because it is very redundant, isn’t it? What about saying this in another way?
2) Another thing: I suggest that you delete the whole sentence with which you begin the next paragraph, since you had already given this information (that research has intimate relationship with knowledge production), using other words, before, don’t you agree?
Therefore, I suggest that you also begin the next paragraph the following way: “Based on this understanding, we emphasize the importance of calling knowledge into question, according to Author [...].” What do you think?
|
Dear, your comments were the best, we may keep it as you suggested. The segment about explaining the explanation is not redundant, but rather a part of my theoretical foundation, something philosophical and deep, hehehe. You may leave it such as it is, ok? The following paragraph may also begin as you said. It is getting really good, thank you! |
Paragraph 1) When one thinks about research, it is common to associate such a thought to a search for answers, a solution to problems, a production of knowledge. In this sense, knowledge is intimately connected to research, seen in this work as search and discovery, an activity or a process that needs work (mental, manual or both) to be achieved. This is indeed, one of the reasons not to confuse knowledge with information, which refers to the already existent result of a process (Author, Year). This study understands research according to Author (Year), and it considers the process by means of which it is produced.
These reflections are relevant for us to be able to explain that this study understands research in the perspective of Authors (Names, Year), which involves the process to explain the explanation.”
Paragraph 2) Based on this understanding, we emphasize the importance of calling knowledge into question, according to Author […]
|
