Well the Pilgrim’s Progress fared a little better yesterday.
At the start of the day, word count was at 9,194, and at the end it was 9,735. With a lot of reading and note-taking about adaptive control thought-rational theory. So it progresses, slowly.
Hmmm. Well, since yesterday I have moved my phd confirmation document from 9,030 words to 9,194 words. It doesn’t sound like much, mostly because it isn’t. I ended up finding a whole mess of new references and papers to read so ended up reading those and documenting them in EndNote and Evernote.
Must. Concentrate. And. Do. Stuff.
I am really having to pull my finger out and get together this confirmation document for my phd. A confirmation is the first major milestone of the phd, and it is essentially the first ‘gate’ to be passed to show that the phd candidate has what it takes to get their doctorate.
I still have too many distractions but need to focus on writing this material up. Most of the thinking is there, but I need to bring it all together.
As part of the motivation, I will start to regularly post how progress is going on my blog – and perhaps see if I can get a blog post or two out of it in the area this research is delving into.
At the moment, I have a title (‘The effects of continued use of intelligent decision aids upon auditor knowledge’) and a word count of 9,030.
As Rebecca Sparrow said on 612 Brisbane radio last Thursday, to be a writer, you have to write!
to be a writer, write!
This is the abstract of my confirmation document; this abstract won ‘best abstract for unconfirmed phd student’ at this year’s University of Queensland Research Colloquium:
Student: Micheal Axelsen
Supervisor: Professor Peter Green, Dr Fiona Rohde
ABSTRACT
This research proposal builds upon the theory of technology dominance (Sutton & Arnold 1998), which has as one of its propositions that the continued use of intelligent decision aids may have the effect of deskilling auditors over time. A theoretical contribution is made through a consideration of this effect through the operation of the anchoring and adjustment heuristic (Epley & Gilovich, 2006; Kowalczyk & Wolfe, 1998; Tversky & Kahnemann, 1974) and cognitive load theory (Mascha & Smedley, 2007; Sweller, 1988). The anchoring and adjustment heuristic is a technique used by people in judgment tasks to remove cognitive burden. In making a judgment, the assessor ‘anchors’ upon the first value provided in making an estimate, and then ‘adjusts’ this estimate until a ‘reasonable’ estimate is reached. This heuristic has the effect of a systematic adjustment bias in the final estimate made. Cognitive load theory finds that an expert uses different and more efficient problem-solving strategies as a result of their past experiences in comparison to the novice. The expert draws upon their experience with past problems to develop their problem-solving strategies. Theoretically the argument is developed that the professional auditor’s ability to develop efficient problem-solving strategies is reduced as a result of their use of the anchoring and adjustment heuristics encouraged by the continued use of intelligent decision aids.
It is proposed that this integrated theory be empirically tested through a series of semi-structured interviews with audit professionals and a survey of public sector auditors designed to test the developed theoretical model. This investigation will consider the role of the continued use of intelligent decision aids and any deskilling effect such use may have upon auditor ‘know-how’, or procedural knowledge.
The contributions of this proposed research are several. Firstly, a theoretical contribution is made through extension and reconciliation of the theory of technology dominance with the anchoring and adjustment heuristic and cognitive load theory. Secondly, a practical contribution is made by extension of the testing of the theory to the field rather than experimentally. A third practical contribution is made through an empirical test of the theory of technology dominance in the context of procedural knowledge (auditor ‘know-how’), which has not previously been tested.
Today I have had a coffee with Clive Warren, subject supervisor, and we have sorted out our general approach to the subject I am going to lecture next semester. Major innovation: two assignments and a group presentation on the final day of the course, no examination.
I have also reviewed Ali’s assignment for him – it’s a draft of his confirmation document, and he just wants a proofread – and tried to set up my approach to wikis for the old phd.
As part of all that I have also reviewed Tversky & Kahnemann (1974) and written up a discussion review.
References
Tversky, A. and D. Kahnemann (1974). “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.” Science 185(4157): 1124-1131.