A test designed to measure the readability of a sample of English writing (Robert Gunning, 1952)
The years’ formal education a reader needs to understand a text easily the first time
Texts for a wide audience generally require a Fog Index of less than 12; the ‘ideal’ Fog index is 7 or 8
University people arrive quickly at 18-20
Gunning Fog Index
Example
Newsweek: 10
Reader’s Digest: 9
Popular Novels: 8-10
Gossip magazines: 7-8
Comic Books: 6
Scientific article: 18-20
Gunning Fog Index
How to calculate ?
Count the number of words
Count the number of sentences
Count the number of big words (3 or more syllables)
Calculate average sentence length (words/sentences)
Calculate the percentage of big words (big words/words)
Add the avg sentence length to % big words
Multiply by 0.4
FOG INDEX
Gunning Fog Index
Worldwide, grasslands cover about 3500 million hectares, more than the double of arable land. On the European continent it is the opposite : only 180 million ha of grassland for 300 million ha of arable land. Grasslands have first of all a pure agricultural destination. They serve as primary food for wild herbivores and domesticated ruminants. Now, grasslands, being a mixture of different grass species, legumes and herbs, act as carbon sinks, erosion preventives, birds directive areas, habitat for small animals, nitrogen fixation source, etc…In this situation grasslands are in perfect harmony and in balance with the environment. Since mankind, human activities have influenced grassland management. The most important are breeding activities since the early thirties. Improvement of yield and quality was not only in favour of agriculture, but also a lot of grass species were bred for amenity purposes, parks and sport fields.
Gunning Fog Index
The number of words 144
The number of sentences 9
Big (hard) words (3 or more syllables) 41
Average sentence length (words/sentences) 16
Percentage of big words (big words/words) 28,47%
Avg sentence length + % big words 16 + 28
Multiply by 0.4
(16 + 28) x 0.4 = 18
Result: the text is for readers with at least 18 years of formal education
3. GENERAL INFORMATION ON SCIENTIFIC WRITING
The research process
Question
What is known ?
Formulate problem
Hypothesis
Project plan
Experiment
Collect data
New knowledge
Interpretation,
conclusion
Analyse, Results
Inform others
The research process
Question
What is known ?
Formulate problem
Hypothesis
Project plan
Experiment
Collect data
New knowledge
Interpretation,
conclusion
Analyse, Results
Scientific paper
Introduction
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Materials and
Methods
Inform others
Inviting people for dinner
Inviting people for dinner
Decide what to offer
Shopping list and buy
Prepare food; follow recipe
Serve attractively
Doing research
Research plan; objectives
Gathering data
Analyse data
Communicate attractively
Science communication
Two parts:
New knowledge
Summary of present state of knowledge (state-of-the-art)
Delivery aspect
Accurate and Audience-adapted
Brief
Clear
Receiving aspect
Know the frames of reference of the acceptor
Adapting to the audience
Science communication
Effective communication
Who ?
specialists in your field, wider group, fellow students, public
Why ?
not just for merits, to add to the knowledge pool, to teach, to inform, to persuade, to push for development
What ?
take-home messages, new items, review of topic, take into account prior knowledge, expectations, questions, technical language
How ?
to satisfy the audience’s needs, how will your information be used
Kinds of scientific communication
Reports
Journal articles
Proposals
Theses
Abstracts
Speeches or slide presentations
Poster presentations
Books
Chapters
Review papers
Group communications
Kinds of scientific communication
Reports
Catch-all term; includes everything from a laboratory account of a simple experiment to progress report and group reports on entire research programmes
Master studies / Ph.D. studies
Thesis proposal, thesis or dissertation
Scientists’ responsability
Grant proposal, journal article, abstract, slide presentation, poster
Kinds of scientific communication
Common characteristics
simplicity
precision
clarity
always honesty
A few examples:
don’t let technology dictate what constitutes good communication
Important requirement: critical: compare and contrast published findings
Brings data together: leads to new knowledge; identifies gaps in knowledge
(Literature) review
Content:
Introduction: what you are reviewing and why
Various subsections: separate the body into themes or topics, put in a logic order
(Discussion)
Conclusions: see scientific paper
References: see scientific paper
9. ABSTRACT
Abstract/extended abstract
Is almost any brief account of a longer document
Informative abstract/descriptive abstract
Abstract of a scientific paper is well structured
Extended abstract is much shorter than a full paper
Abstract/extended abstract
Descriptive abstract
Describes the content, needs to be accompanied by the document
Is helpful for the reader to decide to read the entire paper
Contains too little information and detail that refereed journals expect
Abstract/extended abstract
Informative abstract (like in paper)
It shows the reader very quickly whether the full report is valuable for further study
To be extracted from the full paper for separate publication
To furnish terminology to help literature search
Abstract/extended abstract
Informative abstract
Short, concise, but completely self-explanatory, often submitted on beforehand
Includes:
Research objectives, rationale for conducting the research
The basic methods used
The results and significant conclusions that can be drawn
No literature review or discussion; no visuals
200 – 250 words; 3 – 5% of text: one paragraph
Abstract/extended abstract
Start with motivation or justification
State the objective, aim, purpose
Summarise essential methods
Summarise important results
End with important conclusions and impact
10. GROUP COMMUNICATION
Group Communications
Round-table discussion
Board or committee meeting
Standing committee
Ad hoc committee
Task force
Decision making involves alternatives
Problem solving no obvious alternatives
brainstorming
Group Communications
Group communications with no audience
to make plans for research projects
to decide policy
to evaluate a fellow employee’s progress
Group Communications
Procedure for group problem solving
the problem is clearly defined; objectives are set forth and understood by all members
members of the group plan their individual and collective actions. They may devide responsibilities for gathering information and offering options
As individuals and as a group they devise a plan of action
They act on the plan and analyse outcomes
They evaluate the results of their actions and determine whether the solution was acceptable
Group Communications
Group communication with an audience
Panel discussion
Symposium
Forum
Group Communications
Set a specific goal, but keep plans simple
Start on time ! End on time !. Each issue an appropriate time
Every participant should know the format and what goal is pursued
Think individual
Work toward the prescribed goal, summarize along the way, and avoid digressions
Maintain a professional attitude
Sustain equitable participation
The physical situation should be comfortable for everyone and conducive to good communication
11. THE PROPOSAL
The proposal
Types
research proposal
grant proposal
Distinction:
- different audience
- different purposes
- different guidelines
The grant proposal
Be sure you are ready to write
The idea must be good and must fit what the funding agency wants (see colleagues)
Proposal must be scientifically sound – study the topic
Outline a plan and review it carefully
Consider what personnel, money, equipment, time is needed and how it fits into the rest of your work load
The grant proposal
Prepare for questions and answers related to:
Originality and scientific merit or benefit to the grantor
Importance to the discipline or the immediate problem
Feasibility
Rationale and methodology
Ability and experience of the investigators
Budget, facilities, and time required
Appearance and adherence to guidelines
The grant proposal
Almost any proposal contains the following:
Title page and executive summary
Purpose or hypothesis and specific objectives
Justification
Review of work done or being done (literature)
Materials and methods
Discussion of possible outcomes (conclusions)
References
Time frame, budget, biography of the investigator(s)
The grant proposal
Justification is based on:
Reason and logic
Preliminary research
Scientific principles
Previous research (literature)
Feasibility of methods
Use of or benefit from the results
The grant proposal
Additional considerations
Many proposals are rejected
Reduce your frustration by recognizing the beneficial side effects:
writing skills, knowledge on the subject, literature, colleagues, resubmission
The written research proposal
Helps to plan the work in advance
To review what is done
To foresee the pitfalls ahead of you
To remain on the right track (objectives – goals)
Can serve as ‘draft’ for thesis or papers
Project Cycle Management (PCM)
Problem tree
Objective tree
Logic framework matrix
Indicative operational plan
Detailed budget
Project Cycle Management (PCM) Problem tree
Project Cycle Management (PCM) objective tree
Project Cycle Management (PCM)
Project description
Overal objectives
Objectively verifiable indicators
Sources of verification
Assumptions and preconditions
Specific objectives
"
"
"
Intermediate Results
"
"
"
Activities
Means
Costs
"
logical framework matrix
A
B
C
D
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
INTERVENTION LOGIC
OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE INDICATORS (OVIs)
SOURCES OF VERIFICATION
(SOV)
ASSUMPTIONS AND PRE CONDITIONS
1
Overall objectives (if both are applicable) (OO)
To improve food security and human nutrition of rural populations in the two provinces while sustaining the natural resource bases (Developmental).
To strengthen human and equipment capital through training and services provided by the project (Academic).
By 2015, Millenium Development Goal assessments show positive trends for the indicators related to rural livelihoods in the target areas.
By December 2010, at least 2 researchers at the partner institute, trained in the framework of the current project, are taking up leading roles in projects on soil fertility management and writing proposals on ISFM to get extra funding.
National, provincial, and district-level statistics.
Poverty assessment reports.
Draft project proposals written by national partners.
Political stability.
2
Specific objectives (if both are applicable) (SO)
Developmental:
1. To arrest resource degradation and enhance food security and human nutrition through widespread adoption of sustainable resource management technologies for cassava-based systems based on improved varieties and system diversification.
Academic:
2. To build local stakeholders’ capacity to apply and disseminate improved agricultural technologies with a special focus on strengthening research-for-development capacity at the target universities through degree-related training and improved laboratory capacity.
By December 2005, universities, international scientists, NGO partners, and farmers are planning and working together on the implementation of the project.
By December 2007, extension services and NGO’s dealing with agricultural development and working in the target areas are aware of the ISFM interventions developed in the framework of this project and disseminating them to other areas not initially targeted.
By 2010, at least 20% farmers in targeted villages use improved proven ISFM technologies that arrest resource degradation and enhance their food security and nutrition.
Annual IARC and NARS, and NGO reports.
Newspaper articles
Peer-reviewed journal articles.
Quarterly report to VLIR.
Linkages maintained among research and development organizations.
Economic policies provide incentives for socially profitable agricultural diversification and resource conservation.
Effective systems for technology dissemination and demonstration.
Sufficient availability of appropriate
Sufficient regional scientific staff capacity.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
INTERVENTION LOGIC
OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE INDICATORS (OVIs)
SOURCES OF VERIFICATION
(SOV)
ASSUMPTIONS AND PRE CONDITIONS
3
Intermediate results (ideally 3 to 7 results)
1. Farming system domains identified and characterized for developing ISFM options for cassava-based systems (Characterization) (Research-Capacity-Extension).
2. New knowledge obtained on soil processes (e.g., restoration of depleted soils, improved nutrient use efficiency) for the efficient design of management practices that enhance soil productivity in cassava-based systems (New knowledge).(Research-Capacity)
3. Appropriate field management practices based on ISFM for cassava-based systems developed and tested on farmers’ fields (Management practices). (Capacity-Extension)
4. ISFM technologies for cassava-based systems validated and adapted on farm in benchmark areas (Adaptation and adoption). (Extension-Capacity)
5. Capability of NARS to undertake ISFM research for development enhanced (Capacity building). (Capacity)
1.1. By the end of 2005, at least two target villages in each of the two provinces are identified and bio-physically (soils, nutrient balances, etc) and socio-economically (farmers’ resource endowments, access to markets, etc) characterized.
2.1. By the end of 2006, the potential role of at least two selected legumes to enhance the productivity of cassava-based systems is unravelled and their contributions quantified both at the biophysical and socio-economic level.
2.2. Throughout the project life, strategic research issues are addressed, based on questions identified during activities under IRs 3 and 4.
3.1. By the end of 2005, a basket of best-bet ISFM options for cassava-based systems is identified in collaboration with national scientists, NGO partners, and farmer organisations in the target areas.
3.2. By the end of 2006, at least 2 most promising ISFM options for cassava-based systems are holistically evaluated under on-farm conditions.
4.1. By the end of 2007, seasonal field days, associated with on-farm demonstration sites for ISFM, attract at least 200 farmers in each of the four target villages.
4.2. By end of 2010, guidelines and recommendations for ISFM in cassava-based systems are developed and distributed to extension and research institutions, operating in the target areas and beyond.
5.1. Each year, starting 2005, a planning and evaluation workshop is organised with the NARS.
5.2. By end of 2010, at least 2 PhD and 6 MSc students obtain their degree within the project.
5.3. By end of 2010, at least 5 technicians from national systems and NGOs receive on-the-job training in ISFM for cassava-based systems.
5.4. By end of 2010, a national symposium on ISFM is organised.
Annual project progress reports.
Peer-reviewed scientific papers, at least two per DRC promoter at the end of the project.
University records.
VLIR-documents.
Annual Planning workshop reports.
Dissemination materials in local languages.
Sufficient secondary information available.
Best-bet options developed elsewhere have potential for adaptation to conditions in the DRC.
Effective participation of farmers and development partners.
logical framework matrix
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
INTERVENTION LOGIC
MEANS
COSTS
ASSUMPTIONS AND PRE CONDITIONS
4
Activities (3 to 5 activities per result)
IR 1: Characterization
1.1. Collection of existing geographical information and information related to nutrient dynamics in cassava-based systems.
1.2. Diagnosis of farm level availability and current use of mineral and organic soil amendments, their effect on productivity of cassava based farming systems, and other constraints to enhanced and diversified crop production.
1.3. Selection of recommendation domains, representative villages, farmer typologies, and participating farm households for targeting nutrient management technologies.
1.4. Monitoring existing farm management and its results on nutrient balances, economic performance, and rural livelihood status.
IR 2: New knowledge
2.1. Characterization of the current and potential sources of mineral and organic plant nutrients available to farmers in the areas and evaluate their short and medium term contributions to soil fertility.
2.2. Quantification of the extent and elucidation of the mechanisms (direct nutritional or indirect mulch effects) leading to improvement in nutrient use in cassava based cropping systems after combining organic and mineral inputs.
2.3. Biophysical and socio-economic evaluation of the benefits of legumes integrated in cassava systems to overall system productivity.
IR 3: Management practices
3.1. Farmer-participatory construction of a basket of best-bet ISFM options to enhance productivity and diversification of cassava-based cropping systems.
3.2. Researcher-managed, on-farm, holistic (biophysical, socio-economic) evaluation of best-bet options for the development of ISFM packages in cassava cropping systems.
IR 4: Adaptation and adoption
4.1. Farmers managed trials in collaboration with farmers in selected villages in the target areas.
4.2. Train farmers, NGO's, extension workers, and researchers in specific research for development approaches related to the development and dissemination of ISFM packages.
4.3. Organize field days on ISFM in selected villages in the benchmark areas.
IR 5: Capacity building
5.1. Develop manpower resources through country and in-province specialized and individual training and study visits to provide continuity of research on ISFM in collaboration with the two local universities.
5.2. Enhance the scientific infrastructure of the local partner universities.
5.3. Organize a national symposium on ISFM.
Lab equipment, GPS units, etc
Vehicles
Office furniture, computers, etc
Maintenance of material
Liquid substances
Consumer goods
Documentation and books
Small material, spare parts
Office supplies
Fuel
Communication
Topping up
Travel in Belgium
Local travel
Local experts
Long term local scholarships (one PhD and 3 MSc projects per region)
International travel expenses
Board and lodging costs (per diems and hotel rates for 8 weeks per year)
Shipment of samples for advanced analysis
2000,- €
24,000,- €
11,600,- €
14,900,- €
9,400,- €
23,400,- €
1,900,- €
20,600,- €
11,350,- €
39,500,- €
6,000,- €
31,500,- €
500,- €
7,500,- €
4,500,- €
20,000,- €
10,800,- €
23,350,- €
3,250,- €
Pre conditions
All conditions are present to allow the project to go ahead as can be seen from the project document and the stakeholder meeting report.
logical framework matrix
Indicative operational plan
Detailed budget
12. OTHER ITEMS
Other items
Ethics
Falcification, fabrication, Plagiarism
Issues: duplicate publication
conflict of interest
sensitive material
possibly unethical research
ownership of data
authorship
Other items
Authorship
earned (first) versus honorary (last)
who should be an author ?
13. NICE TO CITE ...
Nice to cite ....
“If it dies, it’s biology, if it blows up, it’s chemistry, if it doesn’t work, it’s physics”
“Do not concern the opinion of another because it differs from your own. You both may be wrong”
Dandemis
“Traveler, there is no path; paths are made by walking”
Antonio Machado
“I don’t mind if you think slowly, Doctor; but I do mind if you publish faster than you think”
Pauli Wolfgang
Nice to cite....
“One can no more be a bit dishonest than one can be a little bit pregnant”
C. Ian Jackson
“Nothing clarfies ideas in one’s mind so much as explaining them to other people”
Vernon Booth
“Blessed is the man, who, having nothing to say, abstains from giving us wordy evidence of the fact”
George Eliot
“To speak much is one thing, to speak well another”
Sophocles
“Only the composition as a whole determines the good or bad of a piece of graphic work”
Eduard Imhof
Nice to cite....
“The true spirit of conversation consits in building on another man’s observation, not overturning it”
Bulwer Lytton
“If all our commonsense notions about the universe were correct, then science would have solved the secrets of the universe thousands of years ago”
Michio Kaku
“If we ignore what other people are thinking, or have thought in the past, then rational discussion must come to an end, though each of us may go on happily talking to himself”
Karl R. Popper
Nice to cite....
“If you really want to understand something, the best way is to try and explain it to someone else. That forces you to sort it out in your own mind. And the more slow and dim-witted your pupil, the more you have to break things down into more and more simple ideas. And that’s really the essence of programming. By the time you’ve sorted out a complicated idea into little steps that even a stupid machine can deal with, you’ve certainly learned something about it yourself”
Douglas Adams
“Science tell us what we can know, but what we can know is little, and if we forget how much we cannot know we become insensitive to many things of great importance”
Bertrand Russell
“Philosophy of science without history of science is empty; history of science without philosophy of science is blind”
Imre Lakatos
Nice to cite....
“Being a scientist is like being a musician. You do need some talent, but you have a great advantage over a musician. You can get 99% of the notes wrong, then get one right and be wildly applauded”
Dudley Herschbach
“The easiest way to grow as a person, is to surround yourself with people smarter than you”
“To know two, you must first know one”
The fires of heaven – Robert Jordan
“Sapiens nihil affirmat quod non probat”
“A wise man states as true nothing that he does not prove”
Nice to cite....
“Tout bien considéré travailler est moins ennuyeux que s’amuser”
Charkles Baudelaire
“The university operates on a basic principle of economics: everything has its costs. We pay to create our future; we pay for the mistakes of the past; we pay for every change we make ...and we pay just as dairly if we refuse to change”
Prelude to Dune – House Harkonnen
Brian Herbert & Kevin J. Anderson
“...it is afterwards that events are always understood ...”
Our Lady of Darkness – Peter Tremayne
“The first thing to writing is writing, not thinking”
Finding Forrester – Sean Connery
Nice to cite....
“What we call the beginning is often the end. And to make an end is to make a beginning. The end is where we start from" T. S. Eliot
Clarity is the main merit of speech
Aristoteles
Big people talk about ideas
Mediocre people talk about things
Small people talk about people
It’s nice to be …important
But it’s more important to be …nice
Poor soils make poor people and poor people make poor soils worse
Roseveldt
Nice to cite....
If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it ?
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Geen blind verzet tegen vooruitgang, maar verzet tegen blinde vooruitgang
Inspraak zonder inzicht is uitspraak zonder uitzicht
Wie zijn opleiding verwaarloost blijft zijn leven lang kreupel
Plato
Het verlangen is mooier dan de bevrediging – het kan wel lastig zijn.
Yesterday is history – Tomorrow is mystery – Today is a gift. Enjoy it
Nice to cite....
Timeo hominen unius libri – Vrees de persoon, die zweert bij één boek !
Thomas van Aquino (1225-1274)
Wedijver onder de geleerden speelt in de kaart van de wetenschap
de Talmud (500 B.C.)
An academic person is a person with his/her two feet firmly planted … in the clouds
Laat de geleerden nooit alleen beslissen; er zijn te veel verstrooide professoren bij
Ervaring is een kam, die de natuur ons geeft als we al bijna kaal geworden zijn.
Nice to cite....
We kennen nog steeds al de antwoorden, maar niemand stelt ons nog de vragen
De toelating tot het emeritaat is de enige benoeming aan de universiteit, die je in de wacht kunt slepen, zonder examen af te leggen, waarvoor geen concurrenten opdagen en het is zelfs een functie waaruit je niet kunt ontslagen worden.
M. Eyskens
Als alles lukt in je leven, dan heb je niet geneog geprobeerd.
Wijsheid vindt men in boeken; wijs zijn moet men verder zoeken
G. Gezelle
Professoren, die hun wijsheid alleen uit boeken hebben, moet men op de boekenplank zetten
Winnaars zijn verliezers die nooit opgeven
Nice to cite....
The best way to learn science is to write science
H.H. Janzen, Denmark, 1996
14. SUGGESTED READINGS
Suggested readings
Davis, M. (2005). Scientific Papers and Presentations. USA, Massachusetts, Academic Press, 356p.
Luellen, W.R. (2001). Fine-Tuning your Writing. USA, Madison, Wise Owl Publishing Company, 346.
Malmfors, B., Garnsworthy, P. & Grossman, M. (2002). Writing and Presenting Scientific Papers. Nottingham, UK, Nottingham University press, 133p.
Chicago (The) Manual of Style (2003). 15th Edition, USA, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 956p.
Ebel, H.F., Bliefert, C. & Russey, W.E. (1990). The Art of Scientific Writing. Germany, Weinheim, VCH, 493p.
Gibaldi, J. (2003). MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers. USA, New York, The Modern Language Association, 361p.
Pollefliet, L. (2009). Schrijven van verslag tot eindwerk. Academia Press, Gent, 242p.
