Journal Reflection on Scholarly Writing and Research 

Lesson 1: Introduction to Scholarly Writing

Prior to taking this course, I imagined that scholarly writing was all about presenting information in a formal, systematic manner. I thought that the more one sounded academically or more complicated, the better. This was a misconception I formed from my previous research paper experience, which was more interested in word usage than explanation or depth: Journal Reflection on Scholarly Writing and Research.

Lesson 1, however, dismissed that misconception. I realized that scholarly writing isn’t about sounding intelligent—it’s about clearly presenting notions as much as engaging in critical thinking.

From guided feedback and instruction, I have learned that scholarly writing involves critical engagement, coherence, and clarity. It’s a way not just to convey information but to contribute to academic discourse. This understanding allowed me to change from a focus on sounding “academic” to sounding “meaningful.”

Keeping in mind my identity as a researcher, I have now better grasped that my initial hesitation in scholarly writing was a result of self-doubt, assuming that experts alone could participate in discussions in academia. This course helped me feel confident that my voice, given my values and background, belongs in academia.

Lesson 2: Understanding the Research Process

Prior to taking this course, I underestimated the research process. It was simply a matter of finding a couple of good articles and summarising them. Lesson 2, however, identified that formulating research questions, searching for peer-reviewed articles, and organizing findings topically involve intricate processes that involve planning and critical thinking.

My initial assumption about research as a straightforward, unproblematic process was dispelled after discovering how iterative and changing research was. There isn’t a single path to discovery—it’s more of a web of inquiry, analysis, and synthesis. My conviction in education as a social good and in evidence-based decision-making encouraged me to take up these challenges. Being an equity enthusiast in education, I no longer treat research as a mere technical process but as a way to uncover truths that can drive policy and practice.

Lesson 3: Conceptual and Theoretical Frameworks

Conceptual and theoretical frameworks used to feel abstract and superfluous to me. As long as I possessed a robust research question, the research would speak for itself. This course instilled in me a perception that frameworks serve as key lenses through which to contextualize and interpret information.

Realizing that a theoretical perspective can inform a research direction and analysis was a potent epiphany. For instance, studying critical theory and social justice paradigms informed my self-reflection as a researcher. I am especially interested in paradigms emphasizing systemic injustices, which fit my values of advocacy and inclusion. Being aware of this heightened my reflexivity—now I realize that I always interpret the world through some lens, which then tints my approach to research problems as well as findings.

Lesson 4: Synthesising Scholarly Sources

At first, synthesizing sources was a matter of summarising a series of articles. This course redefined synthesis for me as a higher-order ability that entails integration, comparison, contrast, and interconnection of ideas among sources. Proper synthesis surpasses mere passive reading, demanding engagement and critical assessment of studies to see how they relate to and inform each other (Miró-Colmenárez et al., 2025). This comprehension allowed me to transition from mere data accumulation to building a coherent and connected narrative.

I learned to find themes, patterns, and tensions in the literature, which allowed me to understand the bigger picture of research in a topic area. Synthesis allowed me to put that value to practical use by taking fragmented pieces of research and weaving them together into coherent narratives. It also required me to bring my voice to the conversation, no longer reporting what someone else said. This shift was empowering and forced me to think about myself no longer as a student but as a contributor.

Lesson 5: Critiquing Literature

I previously thought that critiquing literature was criticizing or picking apart its flaws in a way of discrediting it. I now understand that critique involves reflective reading of literature, identifying its strengths as well as its limitations, and assessing its contribution to a field. This change allowed me to rewire my mind to accept critique as a beneficial, as well as a necessary, component of academic development instead of a negative or combative action.

Critique involves keen perception and discrimination. It’s a matter of asking analytical questions, such as What’s missing? What assumptions? And how does it fit in with other studies?

This lesson confronted me with my tendency to take published research at face value. I, as a person who holds great value in trust and integrity, assumed that all research done by peers was objective and comprehensive. Reflexivity taught me to see that no research is unbiased, and my task as a researcher is to consider each piece of evidence closely.

Lesson 6: Reflexivity in Research

Lesson 6 was most personally transformative. I used to think that good research was supposed to be absolutely objective and that, as a researcher, I needed to be emotionally and ideologically neutral. This course expressly contests that by presenting researcher reflexivity as a critical aspect of how our experiences, beliefs, and identities inform each step of the research process.

As a researcher identifying with marginalized social groups, I introduce a set of life experiences and interests to my scholarly research, most notably in terms of equity, access, and representation. Instead of viewing this as a bias, I now believe that openness about my point of view provides depth as well as authenticity to my research. My sense of accountability to vulnerable groups affects my development of research questions as well as my interpretation of findings. Being reflexive has enabled me to own up more authentically to my research process.

Lesson 7: Writing with a Purpose

Previously, I wrote more to complete word counts rather than to make certain that each paragraph contributed to moving an argument along. This course taught me to write intentionally—every paragraph, sentence, and section needs to have a distinct purpose for moving the research storytelling along. I began to see scholarly writing not just as a requirement but as a strategic tool to inform, persuade, and inspire within the scholarly community.

This transition involved planning carefully, repeatedly asking myself, “What am I saying here, and why does it matter to me?” My value of purposeful communication came into play in making this transition. I desire my writing to have an impact, not a presence.

Writing for a purpose involves taking into account the reader, making sure they can understand and be touched by the messages presented (Kaasila‐Pakanen et al., 2023). This lesson reinforced for me that writing can be a force in leadership and advocacy.

Lesson 8: Lessons Learned and Next Steps

Reflecting upon this course, I see considerable development—not only in terms of skill alone but also in attitude. I no longer think of scholarly writing as gatekeeping or academic research as an objective task. I now see that research, as a fundamentally human activity, is informed by concerns of justice, truth, and meaning.

As I proceed, I will continue to think critically about my researcher positionality. My experience, values, and background, rather than being a limitation, are a strength. I am committed to doing research that is reflective, ethical, and meaningful.

Writing my dissertation or working to mentor others, I will bring with me lessons of clarity, synthesis, critical engagement, and reflexivity. I aspire to contribute to discussions of consequence—those that aim to make education a more inclusive and equitable place for everyone.

References

Kaasila‐Pakanen, A., Jääskeläinen, P., Gao, G., Mandalaki, E., Zhang, L. E., Einola, K., Johansson, J., & Pullen, A. (2023). Writing touch, writing (epistemic) vulnerability. Gender Work and Organization, 31(1), 264–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.13064

Miró-Colmenárez, P. J., Durán-Alonso, S., Díaz-Cruces, E., & Zamora-Ledezma, C. (2025). Enhancing university teaching through student-led review articles as a pathway to early research engagement. Education Sciences, 15(2), 249. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15020249

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

---

construct a 4-5 page journal reflecting on what you have learned in this course. Practice researcher reflexivity by discussing assumptions you may have held and how this course may have challenged those assumptions, as well as taking inventory of any personal beliefs, feelings, and values that may influence how you view the word as a researcher. Use headings to show reflections for Lessons 1-8.

Length: 4-5 pages, not including title and reference pages