our meeting on Mar 11

Dear super writers,

First of all, I'd like to express my deep sorry for my procrastination of writing the summary of our meeting on this Tuesday. And I hope my delay doesn't affect your progress of writing during this week.

We had a pretty ardent discussion and sincere sharing on Mar 11. Jinjun read books and wrote some summary during last week. She also worked on her research ethics form. Her goal for the coming week is to finish the assignment of a faculty course on discourse analysis. In addition to that, she will keep on reading some literature. Iris downloaded some articles (actually it's a bunch of articles as she took to the common room rather than 'some') on her literature review. Iris has been corresponding with her potential participants and managed to involve three teachers in her pilot study up to now. Congratulations, Iris! However, there's also some negative feedback from one of Iris's potential participants. This teacher has consented to participate in Iris's pilot study at first but later on, when she got the research plan in detail from Iris, she changed her idea. Concerning the rights and obligations of potential or/and real participants, we had a small discussion. Nicole mentioned teachers are very cautious about the right/obligation thing in the process of being researched. She thought it's better for the researcher to be informed that the participant intends to quit at the outset rather than on the way, particularly for ethnography research. If the participant withdraws on the way, it's a 'disaster' for the researcher. So in this sense, I think the withdrawal of this teacher, is not a bad news for Iris, because neither of the researcher nor the participants devote too much so far. Anyway, good luck to Iris to find more participants. And the best wishes also extend to all of us!

Nicole completed writing assignments for thesis writing and also the part of her literature review in previous week. Her new goal is to finish two abstracts for a conference. In reference to conference, super writers also showed great interest, which led us into another small discussion. Wenyu mentioned the difference between conference paper and journal paper. She thought journal paper is liable to be revised and touched up, thus eventually it turns out to be a journal paper. So it's best for us to get some feedback on the conference, which will definitely be beneficial to the improvement of our paper. We also talked of a consequential question, that is, whether do we need to inform our supervisors the submitting of any abstract or/and paper before conference or/and journal? It seems that most of us have no awareness of informing our supervisors such kind of academic attempts. Both Iris and Shirley forgot to tell their supervisors the submission of abstracts for conferences, since all these abstracts are based on their previous research in their M.A. study. Jinjun also mentioned she wouldn't tell her supervisor what she submitted until she got the positive feedback from the organizer of the conference. However, Nicole thought it's better to let our supervisor know what we seek to do, in this case it's our attempt to submit abstract for conference. She thought our supervisor would give us some useful information and helpful advice in terms of the prestigiousness of conference. Supervisors may advise us whether the conference we should go to or not. Nicole also suggested that we should relieve ourselves from the Chinese thinking (Chinese mindset?), that is, not just to present the best of our research to the supervisor. We should be brave enough to show our weakness of research to our supervisor. That's where they are here and how we can make progress.
As for Lucia, she finished two pages of outline of her project and submitted to her supervisor. She was waiting for her supervisor's feedback and relevant articles. Lucia's new goal is to write three pages of transcription of field work. Wenyu has finished three or four pages on her literature review. She also searched journal articles on her research topic and categorize them, and have read about half of these articles. Her next target is to finish the literature part before she meets her supervisor on this Friday (March 14). In addition, she also needs to finish the assignment of thesis writing and how to present effectively, which are two courses she selected this semester.
We also talked about the position we should take as a researcher while Lucia mentioned her intent to become a teacher for some time during her study. Whether we should be a so-called 'insider' or 'outsider'? How can we keep the neutrality as a researcher? Is it necessary for us to be a teacher while we interact with students (who are the participants of our research?) Can we learn students better if we are their real teacher or we can explore the interaction more objectively if we are a mere researcher? All the super writers showed great interest in this kind of question and also feel a bit puzzled which stance we should take in the process of research. Therefore, it is suggested the next discussion topic will be the research ethics and position of the researcher after the Easter Day.
The summary is based on my notes taken in last meeting. Due to my poor English and my delay, I maybe missed some points or misunderstood some of your views. Obviously, all mistakes in this summary are mine.
Lastly, I'd like to thank Issa for her regards from Netherland. The book you introduced ''How to write more'' is really insightful and encouraging. Great thanks, Issa! Wish you have a happy, smooth and fruitful study in Netherland. Iris has passed a copy to me after the meeting. All are welcome to make copy from it. Many thanks, Iris!