It’s dark because you are trying too hard.
Lightly child, lightly. Learn to do everything lightly.
Yes, feel lightly even though you’re feeling deeply.
Just lightly let things happen and lightly cope with them.
I was so preposterously serious in those days, such a humorless little prig.
Lightly, lightly – it’s the best advice ever given me.
When it comes to dying even. Nothing ponderous, or portentous, or emphatic.
No rhetoric, no tremolos,
no self conscious persona putting on its celebrated imitation of Christ or Little Nell.
And of course, no theology, no metaphysics.
Just the fact of dying and the fact of the clear light.
So throw away your baggage and go forward.
There are quicksands all about you, sucking at your feet,
trying to suck you down into fear and self-pity and despair.
That’s why you must walk so lightly.
Lightly my darling,
on tiptoes and no luggage,
not even a sponge bag,
completely unencumbered.
— Aldous Huxley, Island

Another AI for Research – https://www.openread.academy/

The video covers techniques for managing anxiety and becoming an effective communicator during spontaneous speaking situations. It emphasizes the importance of making the audience comfortable by controlling one’s anxiety through techniques like greeting anxiety, reframing the situation as a conversation, and staying present-oriented. The presenter engages the audience through interactive activities and shares research-backed strategies such as using questions, conversational language, and tongue twisters to manage anxiety and improve spontaneous speaking abilities.

Another resource: click here  

Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points, and are often identified because they lack evidence that supports their claim. Avoid these common fallacies in your own arguments and watch for them in the arguments of others.

Slippery Slope: This is a conclusion based on the premise that if A happens, then eventually through a series of small steps, through B, C,…, X, Y, Z will happen, too, basically equating A and Z. So, if we don’t want Z to occur, A must not be allowed to occur either. Example:

If we ban Hummers because they are bad for the environment eventually the government will ban all cars, so we should not ban Hummers.

In this example, the author is equating banning Hummers with banning all cars, which is not the same thing.

Hasty Generalization: This is a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. In other words, you are rushing to a conclusion before you have all the relevant facts. Example:

Even though it’s only the first day, I can tell this is going to be a boring course.

In this example, the author is basing his evaluation of the entire course on only the first day, which is notoriously boring and full of housekeeping tasks for most courses. To make a fair and reasonable evaluation the author must attend not one but several classes, and possibly even examine the textbook, talk to the professor, or talk to others who have previously finished the course in order to have sufficient evidence to base a conclusion on.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc: This is a conclusion that assumes that if ‘A’ occurred after ‘B’ then ‘B’ must have caused ‘A.’ Example:

I drank bottled water and now I am sick, so the water must have made me sick.

In this example, the author assumes that if one event chronologically follows another the first event must have caused the second. But the illness could have been caused by the burrito the night before, a flu bug that had been working on the body for days, or a chemical spill across campus. There is no reason, without more evidence, to assume the water caused the person to be sick.

Genetic Fallacy: This conclusion is based on an argument that the origins of a person, idea, institute, or theory determine its character, nature, or worth. Example:

The Volkswagen Beetle is an evil car because it was originally designed by Hitler’s army.

In this example the author is equating the character of a car with the character of the people who built the car. However, the two are not inherently related.

Begging the Claim: The conclusion that the writer should prove is validated within the claim. Example:

Filthy and polluting coal should be banned.

Arguing that coal pollutes the earth and thus should be banned would be logical. But the very conclusion that should be proved, that coal causes enough pollution to warrant banning its use, is already assumed in the claim by referring to it as “filthy and polluting.”

Circular Argument: This restates the argument rather than actually proving it. Example:

George Bush is a good communicator because he speaks effectively.

In this example, the conclusion that Bush is a “good communicator” and the evidence used to prove it “he speaks effectively” are basically the same idea. Specific evidence such as using everyday language, breaking down complex problems, or illustrating his points with humorous stories would be needed to prove either half of the sentence.

Either/or: This is a conclusion that oversimplifies the argument by reducing it to only two sides or choices. Example:

We can either stop using cars or destroy the earth.

In this example, the two choices are presented as the only options, yet the author ignores a range of choices in between such as developing cleaner technology, car-sharing systems for necessities and emergencies, or better community planning to discourage daily driving.

Ad hominem: This is an attack on the character of a person rather than his or her opinions or arguments. Example:

Green Peace’s strategies aren’t effective because they are all dirty, lazy hippies.

In this example, the author doesn’t even name particular strategies Green Peace has suggested, much less evaluate those strategies on their merits. Instead, the author attacks the characters of the individuals in the group.

Ad populum/Bandwagon Appeal: This is an appeal that presents what most people, or a group of people think, in order to persuade one to think the same way. Getting on the bandwagon is one such instance of an ad populum appeal. Example:

If you were a true American you would support the rights of people to choose whatever vehicle they want.

In this example, the author equates being a “true American,” a concept that people want to be associated with, particularly in a time of war, with allowing people to buy any vehicle they want even though there is no inherent connection between the two.

Red Herring: This is a diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by avoiding opposing arguments rather than addressing them. Example:

The level of mercury in seafood may be unsafe, but what will fishers do to support their families?

In this example, the author switches the discussion away from the safety of the food and talks instead about an economic issue, the livelihood of those catching fish. While one issue may affect the other it does not mean we should ignore possible safety issues because of possible economic consequences to a few individuals.

Straw Man: This move oversimplifies an opponent’s viewpoint and then attacks that hollow argument.

People who don’t support the proposed state minimum wage increase hate the poor.

In this example, the author attributes the worst possible motive to an opponent’s position. In reality, however, the opposition probably has more complex and sympathetic arguments to support their point. By not addressing those arguments, the author is not treating the opposition with respect or refuting their position.

Moral Equivalence: This fallacy compares minor misdeeds with major atrocities, suggesting that both are equally immoral.

That parking attendant who gave me a ticket is as bad as Hitler.

In this example, the author is comparing the relatively harmless actions of a person doing their job with the horrific actions of Hitler. This comparison is unfair and inaccurate.

Clip source: Fallacies – Purdue OWL® – Purdue University

Hidup itu seperti kue donat dengan taburan misis yang warna-warni. Kalau ada satu butir misis yang jatuh menggelinding, kita tidak perlu risau. Masih ada butiran misis yang tersebar rata dalam permukaannya. Jika masih kurang, kita tinggal berdoa. ‘Tuhan, beri aku taburan misis lagi. Kali ini yang coklat manis ya’.

Salah satu ‘value’ penting dalam bisnis jasa adalah kejujuran kepada klien. Pemberi jasa harus jujur dalam hal jasa yang ditawarkan dan komunikasi dengan pengguna jasa. Kita bahas satu persatu ya.

Jujur dalam hal jasa. Ini sangat jelas dan tidak memerlukan penjelasan yang panjang. Pemberi jasa harus jujur terkait jasa yang ditawarkan, artinya apa yang diberikan kepada konsumen pengguna harus memenuhi apa yang telah ditawarkan dan dijanjikan di awal.

Jujur dalam komunikasi, speak the truth. Tidak boleh ada yang disembunyikan atau disamarkan dalam komunikasi dengan konsumen. Dalam layanan proofreading-editing misalnya, pemberi jasa harus jujur terkait dengan mutu dokumen dan apa yang bisa dilakukan dengan dokumen tersebut – yang sering terjadi, pemberi jasa memberikan estimasi berlebih untuk mendapatkan fee layanan yang besar. This is unethical – tidak etis. Begitu pula dengan ‘feedback’ masukan yang kita berikan kepada konsumen, harus jujur dalam hal substansi sehingga pemilik dokumen bisa belajar dari masukan-masukan yang kita berikan.

#bersambung

Banyak pertanyaan terkait dengan penerjemahan dokumen akademik – bagaimana tahapan penerjemahan dokumen akademik? Hal apa saja yang perlu dipertimbangkan dalam penerjemahan dokumen akademik?

Tunggu ya. Segera saya ‘share’ tulisan ringan tentang penerjemahan dokumen akademik

Salah satu bentuk penelitian kualitatif yang sangat menarik, menurut saya, adalah autoethnography. Kenapa? Karena dalam penelitian ini, peneliti menggunakan dirinya sebagai satu-satunya sumber data primer dan juga ‘alat’ untuk analisis. Apa yang harus dilakukan oleh peneliti dalam autoethnography?

Autoethnography is a form of ethnographic research where a researcher relates personal experiences to wider cultural, political, and social meanings and understandings.

Di dalam autoethnography, peneliti mengaitkan pengalamannya dengan makna/pemahaman (termasuk fenomena, konsep dan teori) kultural, politis dan sosial. Peneliti melakukan analisis pengalaman pribadi dan menjelaskan pengalaman tersebut dengan konsep, teori dan studi-studi sebelumnya.  Autoethnography is a research method that uses personal experience (“auto”) to describe and interpret (“graphy”) cultural texts, experiences, beliefs, and practices (“ethno”).

Dalam perspektif autoethnographers, pengalaman pribadi adalah data primer yang dibentuk oleh nilai/norma dan ekspektasi sosial, sehingga analisis di dalam autoethnography bersifat reflektif – tindakan/analisis ini biasanya disebut sebagai “reflexivity” (Bochner & Ellis, 2006, p. 111).

Autoethnography terdiri dari 3 jenis, yaitu Evocative Autoethnography, Analytical Autoethnography, dan Critical Autoethnography. The main differences lie in their goals and orientations:
– Evocative autoethnography emphasizes emotional resonance and aesthetics, aiming to create a vivid portrayal of personal experiences.
– Analytical autoethnography delves deeper into the analysis and interpretation of experiences, focusing on uncovering patterns and meanings.
– Critical autoethnography is rooted in addressing social justice concerns, challenging power dynamics, and advocating for change by connecting personal experiences to larger societal issues.

Evocative Autoethnography
Evocative autoethnography is focused on creating a vivid and emotionally resonant representation of experiences. It involves the researcher, who is often also a practitioner, immersing themselves in a particular context, which could be related to their field of expertise or practice. The aim is to capture the essence of the experiences and interactions in a way that evokes emotional responses from the reader. This form of autoethnography emphasizes personal storytelling, phenomenological experience, and aesthetics. It often takes the form of narratives, stories, or even poetry, with the intention of conveying the richness of personal experiences.

Analytical Autoethnography
Analytical autoethnography involves a more in-depth analysis and interpretation of the collected data. Researchers who engage in this approach focus on examining the underlying reasons, patterns, and meanings behind their experiences. They take a more critical and objective stance, employing analytical frameworks to explore the data. This form of autoethnography aims to contribute to theoretical understanding and may use a more traditional third-person academic writing style. The emphasis is on analyzing and uncovering insights from the personal experiences, often integrating theoretical concepts to provide a deeper understanding.

Critical Autoethnography
Critical autoethnography is situated within a broader framework of critical qualitative inquiry and aims to address social justice issues. This approach goes beyond personal exploration and seeks to challenge power dynamics, dominant narratives, and systemic inequalities. Critical autoethnographers use their personal experiences as a way to highlight broader societal issues and advocate for social change. They engage in a critical analysis of not only their own experiences but also the broader context in which those experiences are situated. This type of autoethnography often involves addressing issues of privilege, oppression, and marginalized voices. It can incorporate polyvocality, bringing multiple perspectives into the narrative, and often takes a stance against perpetuating unjust systems.

Referensi Penting tentang Autoethnography >>> DOWNLOAD

In the realm of intellectual growth, we often find ourselves traversing the expansive landscape of knowledge, seeking to grasp, analyze, and communicate complex ideas. To navigate this intricate terrain effectively, it becomes imperative to develop a framework/repertoire of skills that facilitate the process of inquiry, comprehension, and dissemination. I develop this QNOAAC framework, encapsulating six important skills: Questioning, Navigating, Organizing, Analyzing, Arguing, and Communicating.

1. Questioning: Paving the Path to Insightful Inquiry

The art of questioning is the foundational bedrock upon which the edifice of knowledge is built. The skill of crafting pertinent and probing questions is instrumental in stimulating curiosity and steering one’s intellectual compass towards unexplored territories. Developing the acumen to pose critical questions opens the door to deeper exploration, encouraging a multifaceted understanding of subjects. By honing the skill of questioning, individuals sharpen their ability to navigate information.

2. Navigating: A Journey through the Seas of Information

In the digital age, where an overwhelming deluge of information is just a click away, the skill of navigating assumes paramount importance. Navigating involves the discernment to separate credible sources from the influx of information. Efficiency in information consumption relies on the ability to skim, scan, and identify key details while delving deeper into chosen resources. Through the judicious selection of references, individuals save time and energy, optimizing the learning process.

3. Organizing: Crafting the Mosaic of Knowledge

As the repository of information expands, the skill of organizing becomes an invaluable asset. To synthesize knowledge, it is essential to arrange fragments of information into cohesive/comprehensible patterns. Efficient information management, through techniques such as note-taking, mind mapping, and categorization, aids in the retention and recall of acquired knowledge. An organized mind serves as an efficient vessel for the accumulation and assimilation of insights.

4. Analyzing: Deciphering the Tapestry of Information

The skill of analysis transforms raw data into meaningful insights. By dissecting information into its constituent components, individuals can discern patterns, connections, and underlying principles. Critical analysis promotes a nuanced understanding of subjects, fostering a deeper engagement with the material. The analytical lens enables individuals to extract substantial value from information, enhancing the quality of cognitive engagement.

5. Arguing: Constructing Foundations of Persuasion

Constructing robust arguments is an art that stems from the skill of analysis. The ability to present coherent and evidence-based arguments elucidates one’s comprehension of a topic. Effective argumentation hinges on the aptitude to synthesize diverse viewpoints, lending depth and credibility to one’s position. By honing this skill, individuals not only fortify their own understanding but also contribute meaningfully to scholarly discourse.

6. Communicating: Bridging the Gap between Understanding and Sharing

The culmination of cognitive refinement lies in the skill of communication. Translating complex ideas into accessible language facilitates the dissemination of knowledge. Effective communication involves the art of tailoring the message to suit the audience, ensuring clarity and comprehension. Whether through written or verbal means, adept communication is the conduit through which insights are shared, fostering intellectual growth in both the speaker and the recipient.

You heard my voice I came out of the woods by choice
Shelter also gave their shade
But in the dark I have no name

So leave that click in my head
And I will remember the words that you said
Left a clouded mind and a heavy heart
But I was sure we could see a new start

So when your hope’s on fire
But you know your desire
Don’t hold a glass over the flame
Don’t let your heart grow cold
I will call you by name
I will share your road

But hold me fast, Hold me fast
‘Cause I’m a hopeless wanderer
And hold me fast, Hold me fast
‘Cause I’m a hopeless wanderer

I wrestled long with my youth
We tried so hard to live in the truth
But do not tell me all is fine
When I lose my head, I lose my spine

So leave that click in my head
And I won’t remember the words that you said
You brought me out from the cold
Now, how I long, how I long to grow old

So when your hope’s on fire
But you know your desire
Don’t hold a glass over the flame
Don’t let your heart grow cold
I will call you by name
I will share your road

But hold me fast, Hold me fast
‘Cause I’m a hopeless wanderer
And hold me fast, Hold me fast
‘Cause I’m a hopeless wanderer
I will learn, I will learn to love the skies I’m under
I will learn, I will learn to love the skies I’m under
The skies I’m under

Mumford & Sons

Sebagai editor bahasa, saya mendapatkan ‘privilege’ untuk mengamati tulisan-tulisan yang ditulis oleh akademisi dari berbagai bidang ilmu. Saya selalu tertarik mengamati dua hal: pertama, ragam gaya selingkung atau struktur artikel, dan kedua, authorial voice dan sudut pandang penulis dalam tulisannya. Sangat menarik

Hasil pengamatan saya

Banyak penulis berhasil menyajikan artikel dengan struktur yang bagus, mudah dipahami oleh pembaca. Mereka juga berhasil membangun authorial voice yang authoritative, sounds like an expert – sangat meyakinkan. Keren lah! Darimana asal dua hal tersebut? Bagaimana penulis mengembangkan dua hal itu?

Saya coba telusuri daftar referensinya dan kemudian membaca artikel-artikel yang dikutip. Ada pola yang konsisten antara artikel di dalam referensi dengan struktur tulisan dan authorial voice. Artinya, jika referensinya keren (terutama untuk dua hal tersebut), maka most likely tulisan yang dihasilkan penulis akan keren juga. Sebaliknya, jika daftar pustakanya acakadut, maka tulisannya akan cenderung kurang baik. This is interesting!

Jadi, menulis itu murni intuisi atau modeling?

Ini masih anekdotal ya. Kalau harus melakukan studi, ini bisa memerlukan waktu yang lama, dan mungkin bisa menjadi satu riset doktoral lagi. Tapi, kita boleh berasumsi.

My assumption. Menulis memerlukan proses modelling, dimana penulis harus mengamati tulisan/artikel model, kemudian mengadopsi atau mengadaptasi struktur tulisan dan authorial voice. Menulis akan menjadi intuitif tatkala penulis sudah sangat menguasai ragam struktur tulisan dan berhasil membangun authorial voice-nya sendiri. Implikasi praktisnya, memilih referensi tidak boleh sembarangan, tidak boleh asal nemu dari search engine. Memilih referensi harus ‘purposeful’ – harus ada alasan ilmiah kenapa sebuah artikel dikutip, scientific ground. Jangan sekedar mengutip karena alasan artikel itu ditulis mantan… eaaah #%$@

Sebenarnya sistem pendidikan kita telah mengakui dan mempertimbangkan keberagaman bentuk dan wujud kecerdasan. Buktinya, ada beragam subjek mata pelajaran yang menjadi bagian penting dari kurikulum nasional dari SD sampai SMA, yang kemudian menjadi lebih spesifik pada tingkat pendidikan tinggi. Lantas, masalahnya apa dan dimana?

Masalah ada pada penyusunan dan pelaporan pencapaian hasil belajar siswa. Nilai yang dicapai siswa dalam beragam subjek mata pelajaran kemudian [pada umumnya] dijumlahkan dan diambil nilai rata-ratanya. Pada tahapan inilah keberagaman kecerdasan siswa menjadi samar. Siswa menjadi dihargai dari nilai rata-rata seluruh mata pelajaran. Kecerdasan menjadi simplistik, tidak majemuk lagi.

Ada dua hal yang melanggengkan hal ini. Pertama, komunitas sosial cenderung melihat dan menerima nilai rata-rata seluruh mata pelajaran untuk menilai prestasi siswa. Sudah menjadi kebiasaaan – tradisi tidak formal. Tetapi, secara sistem kita juga ‘memformalkan’ praktik ini, yang kemudian mengarah pada hal berikutnya, yaitu (kedua) berbagai skema seleksi masuk pendidikan yang lebih tinggi. Apa syaratnya? Ya, nilai rata-rata. Beberapa hal memang telah dilakukan, memilih hasil belajar beberapa mata pelajaran saja misalnya. Namun, ujungnya tetap sama. Nilai rata-rata cenderung mengkerdilkan kemajemukan kecerdasan anak-anak kita.

Apa yang bisa kita lakukan?

Pendidikan berawal dari rumah. Konon, bentuk sekolah yang paling fundamental adalah keluarga, sehingga kita sebagai orang tua, om-tante, dan teman belajar bisa memberi alternatif pandangan yang berbeda. Keluarga harus mengenali kemajemukan kecerdasan anak dan kemudian memberi ruang yang cukup untuk berkembang. Tidak mudah memang, karena kita masih harus berhadapan dengan tradisi (sistem) yang lebih mengakui nilai rata-rata – tetapi patut diupayakan, kenapa?

Einstein kecil tidak akan naik kelas jika dia dinilai dari kemampuannya menggunakan bahasa. Sewaktu kecil, Einstein diduga mengidap sindrom asperger yang membuat dia tidak berbicara sampai dengan usia 7 tahun. Sampai beberapa tahun berikutnya, dia masih kesulitan berkomunikasi. Hal yang kemudian disebut sebagai ‘Einstein Syndrome’.

Interview sebagai teknik pengumpulan data itu seperti apa sih? Cuma nanya-nanya aja gitu? Supaya paham, kita harus mengenal jenis-jenis interview sebagai instrumen, dan sekaligus sebagai teknik.

Interview bisa dilakukan dengan satu orang atau dua orang. Emang ada interview dengan dua orang? Ada, namanya Dyadic Interview. Memang tidak se-ngehits interview biasa dengan satu orang atau FGD

(see Caldwell, 2014).

Interview terdiri dari beberapa jenis.

1. Episodic
2. Narrative
3. Focused
4. Critical Incident

Episodic Interview adalah teknik wawancara dimana pertanyaan-pertanyaan yang diajukan oleh peneliti berfokus pada topik penelitian. Teknik ini bertujuan untuk mendapatkan gambaran tentang pemahaman dan interpretasi partisipan tentang suatu topik.

Narrative Interview adalah teknik wawancara yang mengajak partisipan untuk mengingat ‘their history’ – pengalaman yang mereka lalui, atau ‘others’ history’ – pengalaman yang dilalui pihak atau orang lain. Berbeda dari Episodic Interview, Narrative Interview tidak ditujukan untuk menggali pemahaman dan interpretasi partisipan.

Focused Interview merupakan teknik wawancara dengan menggunakan stimulus untuk mendapatkan data, bisa berupa aktivitas atau benda yang kita berikan kepada partisipan agar mereka mau dan mampu menyampaikan sudut pandangnya.

Last, Critical Incident adalah teknik interview dimana pertanyaan-pertanyaan yang diberikan kepada responden hanya berkaitan dengan satu kejadian – incident, bukan pengalaman sehari-hari.

See (Flick et al., 2017; Flick & Röhnsch, 2014; Prokopiou et al., 2012)

In translation of texts, especially scientific texts, phraseological approach can be employed to produce documents (translated texts) with appropriate collocations and idioms. To understand what phraseological approach is, we need to understand phraseology.

Phraseology is the study of the structure, meaning and use of word combinations (Cowie, 1994; Ebeling & Hasselgård, 2015).

As a concept, phraseology is often used to describe the tendency of words and groups of words to occur more frequently in specific environments than in others (Hunston, 2011).

In phraseology, the smallest linguistic element is called ‘phraseological unit’. Phraseological units refer to lexical combinations, the meaning of which is defined by the whole expression (Subbotina, 2013). In a simpler definition, phraseological units are word combination whose meaning is defined according to the whole expression, not the language components.

Phraseological units carry emotional expressiveness (emotion) and conciseness of thought expression (thoughts). The units comprise non-figurative phraseological units commonly known as ‘collocations’ and figurative phraseological units called as ‘idioms’.

When using phraseological approach, translators focus on transferring collocations and idioms from the source language to the target language.

Scholars in the softer fields spout obscure verbiage to hide the fact that they have nothing to say. They dress up the trivial and obvious with the trappings of scientific sophistication, hoping to bamboozle their audiences with highfalutin gobbledygook (Pinker, 2014).

Most academic writing, in contrast, is a blend of two styles. The first is practical style, in which the writer’s goal is to satisfy a reader’s need for a particular kind of information. The second is a style that Thomas and Turner call self-conscious, relativistic, ironic, or postmodern, in which “the writer’s chief, if unstated,
concern is to escape being convicted of philosophical naïveté about his own enterprise.”

It’s easy to see why academics fall into self-conscious style. Their goal is not so much communication as self-presentation—an overriding defensiveness against any impression that they may be slacker than their peers in hewing to the norms of the guild.

Writing is like cooking. It requires deliberate planning. You have to consciously and intentionally create a plan – we often call this ‘an outline’.

You can’t cook in your kitchen without a plan! Oftentimes, writing is difficult because we don’t know what to cook, and therefore we experience difficulties in identifying and finding the materials we need for writing.

Ask these questions to yourself. What is the main objective of my writing? What are the functions of paragraphs in my piece of writing?

Writing Therapy

Reflective thinking – memikirkan apa yang telah kita pelajari (atau baca). Dalam reflective thinking, kita berusaha untuk mengidentifikasi poin-poin penting dari informasi yang telah kita dapatkan. Tujuan utama reflective thinking adalah memahami topik yang kita pelajari.

Critical thinking – mengevaluasi apa yang telah kita pelajari (atau baca). Untuk bisa melakukan critical thinking, kita harus terlebih dahulu mampu melakukan reflective thinking. Kita harus paham dengan topik yang kita pelajari. Kalau belum paham, bagaimana mau mengevaluasi? Make sense ya. Dalam critical thinking, kita mengevaluasi informasi (termasuk data) untuk menghasilkan argumen yang merepresentasikan sudut pandang kita. Tujuan utama critical thinking adalah menghasilkan argument/sudut pandang berbasis evaluasi yang objektif akan informasi.

Begitu ya.

No, beda. Gap adalah celah kosong yang ditinggalkan oleh penelitian-penelitian sebelumnya. Celah kosong ini beragam dan bisa muncul pada tingkatan yang berbeda (baca post saya sebelumnya). Novelty adalah temuan dan kesimpulan dari penelitian kita yang mengisi celah kosong tersebut.

Bayangkan ini. Anda masuk ke sebuah gudang (area penelitian), dan menemukan banyak kotak kardus. Kotak kardus itu ada yang terisi penuh, ada yang setengah kosong, bahkan ada yang nyaris kosong. Seberapa besar kekosongan di dalam kotak kardus itu, that’s the gap! Jadi, gap adalah kekosongan yang ditinggalkan orang lain (peneliti lain) yang sebelumnya mengisi kotak-kotak itu. Tugas kita adalah, menemukan kotak-kotak yang belum penuh, menemukan celah kekosongan. Semakin besar ukuran kekosongan, maka semakin ‘signifikan’ upaya kita untuk mengisi celah itu. Novelty adalah apa yang kita tuang atau isikan ke dalam kotak-kotak tadi supaya kotaknya menjadi penuh. Semakin banyak yang kita tuang atau isikan, maka semakin besar pula kontribusi kita terhadap gudang itu (area penelitian).

Jadi, empat hal ini saling terkait satu sama lain: gap, significance, novelty, dan contribution.

Gap itu celah atau kekosongan. Significance merujuk pada ukuran celah atau kekosongan itu. Semakin besar celahnya, maka penelitian yang bertujuan mengisi celah itu menjadi semakin penting. Novelty adalah hasil penelitian dan kesimpulan yang mengusi celah atau kekosongan. Last, contribution merujuk pada penjelasan tentang bagaimana novelty mengisi celah atau kekosongan tadi. Apa saja yang mengisi celahnya? Itu kontribusi. Semakin besar atau banyak, maka semakin besar atau banyak juga kontribusi kita.

Gitu ya. Gap, significance, novelty, dan contribution

Mengidentifikasi gap itu gampang-gampang susah. Dibilang gampang, tapi bikin pusing juga. Dibilang susah, tapi doable – bisa dilakukan. Apa sih maunya? 😁

Nah, kalau teman-teman tidak punya pegangan kerangka untuk mencari dan menemukan research gap, teman-teman bisa menggunakan panduan sederhana ini. Kalau sudah ada, ya alhamdulillah.

Pertama, jangan melihat research gap sebagai suatu hal yang besar. Research gap bisa ditemukan di setiap tingkatan dan tahapan penelitian. Gap yang kita temukan di tingkatan/tahapan yang berbeda secara akumulatif akan berkontribusi terhadap significance, terhadap seberapa penting penelitian harus kita lakukan. Jadi, gap bisa banyak macamnya ya 🙂 dari yang kecil printil, sampai yang segede kingkong (VS Godzilla) di tingkatan teori.

Kerangka Identifikasi

Berikutnya, teman-teman bisa menggunakan kerangka ini untuk mengidentifikasi gap di tingkatan/tahapan yang berbeda. Jangan lupa buat coretan ya (catatan+grafis/ilustrasi), supaya gap bisa kita visualisasikan, bisa dilihat sebagai gambar. <— teknik sederhana ini bisa membantu kita memahami konsep yang rumit.

Ini kerangkanya,

Theoretical (and conceptual) gap – Berkaitan dengan teori/framework yang membingkai penelitian; teori apa yang digunakan untuk memahami atau menjelaskan topik penelitian. Gunakan teori lain atau rancang kerangka teori yang berbeda. Konsep apa yang digunakan penelitian sebelumnya? Bagaimana konsep itu didefinisikan/dipahami? Gunakan definisi yang berbeda (jika ada)

Methodological gap – berkaitan dengan metodologi. Untuk topik yang kita teliti, apa ragam metode yang digunakan? Metode apa yang sering digunakan? Metode apa yang jarang atau belum pernah digunakan? Aspek ini berlaku juga untuk aspek-aspek lain dalam metodologi, seperti instrumen, participants, analisis, dll.

Empirical gap– berkaitan dengan hasil dari penelitian sebelumnya. Apakah penelitian sebelumnya memiliki kelemahan yang mempengaruhi data atau kesimpulan? Apakah kesimpulan penelitian sebelumnya bisa digunakan atau berlaku untuk konteks penelitian kita?

Practical gap – Gap terkait aspek praktis.

Untuk menemukan gap, tentu kita harus memahami penelitian kita terlebih dahulu ya. Baru kemudian juxtaposing, membandingkan penelitian kita dengan penelitian-penelitian sebelumnya, dan menempatkan pada/mengaitkan dengan teori/konsep yang ada.

Kadang, menemukan gap itu sulit karena kita tidak memahami penelitian kita sendiri. Betul?