Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Navigation
Main page
About
People
Publications
Teaching
Resources
Research Blog
Wiki Functions
Recent changes
Help
Licensing
Page
Discussion
Edit
View history
Editing
Practice of scholarship (Spring 2019)
(section)
From CommunityData
Jump to:
navigation
,
search
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
== Course schedule == === Week 1: April 1 β Introductions === Note that this week (and only this week!) we will complete the reading and assignment in class. '''Reading:''' * Zuckerman, Ezra. 2018. [http://mitsloan.mit.edu/shared/ods/documents/?DocumentID=4448 Tips to article writers]. '''Assignment:''' * Draft a ''brief synopsis'' of the research project you plan to pursue in this course. Be sure to include as many of the following as you can: ** A statement of the research topic. ** A question, puzzle, or problem you aim to answer or resolve in this project. ** The evidence you will use, how you collected it, how you will analyze it, and how/why this evidence/analysis will allow you to solve your puzzle. ** What you anticipate you will find through your analysis. ** What central takeaway your anticipated findings would support (assuming you find the findings you anticipate). ** Why you believe this work and the anticipated findings are important. ** A target venue (peer reviewed journal or archival conference) to which you plan to submit your work. ** The status of the work you have pursued on this project to-date, including any prior papers you may have written, data you may have collected, and resources you may have or need to complete the work. ** A timeline (with whatever milestones you deem relevant) for completing the project and submitting it for review by the end of the Spring Quarter. === Week 2: April 8 β Planning your work & work your plan === '''Reading Part I:''' * Becker, Howard. ''Writing for Social Scientists.'' Chapters 1 ("Freshman English for Graduate Students") & 7 ("Getting It out the Door") (Available on [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/files/6757598/download?download_frd=1 Canvas]). * Booth et al. Prologue to Section IV ("Planning Again") and Quick Tip on Outlining (pp. 185-188). '''Reading Part II (pick any two):''' * Cochrane, John H.. 2005. [https://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/phd_paper_writing.pdf Writing tips for Ph.D. students] (pdf). (Note that this one is aimed at economists, but is generally good on many points) * Ko, Andrew. [https://faculty.washington.edu/ajko/advice#goodpaper How do I write a good research paper?] (HCI-oriented). <!---* Landers, Richard N. 2014. [http://neoacademic.com/2014/07/16/how-to-write-a-publishable-social-scientific-research-article-exploring-your-process/ How to Write a Publishable Social Scientific Research Article: Exploring Your "Process."] ''NeoAcademic Blog.''---> * Pasek, Josh. 2012. [https://www.apa.org/education/undergrad/empirical-social-science.pdf "Writing the Empirical Social Science Research Paper: A Guide for the Perplexed"](pdf). ''Psychology Teacher Network'', ''21''(4). * Wobbrock, Jacob O. 2015. [http://faculty.washington.edu/wobbrock/pubs/Wobbrock-2015.pdf Catchy Titles Are Good: But Avoid Being Cute](pdf). An HCI research paper writing guide formatted as an HCI paper... '''Assignment:''' ''Note'': Please complete all assignments before class each week. Written assignments submitted to Canvas (your project synopsis this week) should be completed by Friday at 5pm. * Identify, summarize, and outline an exemplary paper: ** Provide bibliographic information (the citation) for an exemplary paper (probably authored by someone else) after which you plan to model critical aspects of your own work (e.g., the topic of study, the theoretical framing/contribution, the research design, the empirical analysis, the writing style and/or structure). ** Write a brief summary of the aspects of your exemplary paper that make it a useful model for the work you are pursuing. ** Create an outline of your exemplary paper. Be sure to include section word counts. ** Bring these materials with you to class and be prepared to discuss them. * Expand and revise the synopsis of your project: ** Start with whatever you created in class ** Be sure to include all of the elements I listed above. ** The new and improved synopsis should be 750-1000 words long (just the text) and may include references if you want. ** Submit the synopsis to [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/courses/91705/discussion_topics/597416 the corresponding "Discussion" in Canvas] '''by Friday, April 5, 2019 at 5pm'''. * Review a peer's synopsis. Write comments, email them to the author and come prepared to discuss them in class. === Week 3: April 15 β Research question: Where's the puzzle? === * [[Practice of scholarship (Spring 2019)/week 3 session plan| Session plan]] '''Reading:''' ::''Please note: Our in-class activities and discussion will focus on the Durkheim, Pan, and Zuckerman readings as well as your written assignments. The other readings are largely there as instructional supplements.'' * Booth et al., Chapter 3 ("From Topics to Questions") & Chapter 4 ("From Questions to Problems"). * Durkheim, Γmile. 1897. ''Suicide''. Excerpt β final section of the Introduction ([https://canvas.northwestern.edu/ available via Canvas]). * Kahn, C. Ronald. 1994. "[http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199405263302113 Sounding Board: Picking a Research Problem β The Critical Decision]." ''The New England Journal of Medicine 330''(21):1530-1533. * Pan, Jennifer, and Kaiping Chen. 2018. "Concealing Corruption: How Chinese Officials Distort Upward Reporting of Online Grievances." ''American Political Science Review.'' 112(3): 602-620. ([http://jenpan.com/jen_pan/sendup.pdf PDF available via Jen Pan's website]). '''We will focus on the Introduction''' (especially the long first paragraph). * Zuckerman, Ezra. 2017. [https://www.dropbox.com/s/a3n1ux6lnu7wbpe/On%20Genre.pdf?dl=1 On genre: A few more tips to article-writers] (pdf). '''Assignment:''' * Write a very brief motivation of your research project ([http://neoacademic.com/2014/07/16/how-to-write-a-publishable-social-scientific-research-article-exploring-your-process/ Richard Landers] calls this "the intro to the intro") that includes the following elements (submitted, once again, via [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/ the corresponding "Discussion" in Canvas]): ** A description of the topic and clear statement of the claim. ** Question(s) derived from the topic and claim. Underscore the most interesting one(s) that you will address. ** A brief statement posing your research around a puzzle or some other genre/framing device (see the Zuckerman reading for ideas). ** A brief statement of the significance or application of your project. * Review a peer's "intro to the intro." Evaluate whether it effectively articulates a research topic, question, puzzle, and significance. Write down comments and bring them with you to class. === Week 4: April 22 β Prior Work: Interrupting a conversation === * [[Practice_of_scholarship_(Spring_2019)/week 4 session plan|session plan]] '''Reading:''' * Becker, Chapter 8 ("Terrorized by the Literature"). * Booth et al., Chapter 6 ("Engaging Sources"). * Becker, Howard. 1953. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2771989.pdf "Becoming a Marihuana User."](pdf) ''American Journal of Sociology'', ''(59)''3: 235-242. (Focus on the first section up through p. 236) * Shaw, Aaron and Eszter Hargittai. 2018. [https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx003 "The pipeline of online participation inequalities: The case of Wikipedia"]. ''Journal of Communication'', ''(68)''1: 143-168. (Focus on the parts before "Data and methods" on p. 149) * '''Optional:''' Healy, Kieran. 2017. [http://kieranhealy.org/files/papers/fuck-nuance.pdf Fuck Nuance](pdf). ''Sociological Theory'', ''(35)''2: 118-127. '''Assignment:''' * Identify the two or three most important existing theories/findings/systems that your work will test/synthesize/extend/enhance. Briefly (in about 250 words per theory/finding/system!) explain the relevant claims of the prior work, how it connects to your project, and what differentiates your project from it. As usual, post this to [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/ the appropriate "Discussion" page on Canvas]. * Review a peer's posting. For each existing theory/finding/system they discuss, do they provide an effective, compelling rationale that justifies their project in relation to prior work? Are you convinced that they are addressing an important question in their domain of study? * Complete [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfgl4SSyt-BgNAppFp7pJRYAj8aBF6q2ATuaSciqJCnz4cORw/viewform?usp=sf_link mid-quarter course evaluation] (by Friday also). === Week 5: April 29 β Method & Warrant === * [[Practice_of_scholarship_(Spring_2019)/week 5 session plan|Session plan]] '''Reading:''' * Benzecry, Claudio. 2009. [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11133-009-9123-7 Becoming a fan: On the seductions of opera]. ''Qualitative Sociology'', 32(2), 131-151. * Hecht, Brent, and Darren Gergle. 2010. [https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1753370 The tower of babel meets web 2.0: User-generated content and its applications in a multilingual context]. ''Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI)''. * Katz, Jack. 1997. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124197025004002 Ethnographyβs Warrants]. ''Sociological Methods & Research'', 25(4), 391β423. * '''Strongly recommended:''' Booth et al., Chapter 9 ("Reasons and Evidence"). * '''Optional:''' Small, Mario Luis. 2009. [http://eth.sagepub.com/content/10/1/5.short How many cases do I need? On science and the logic of case selection in field-based research]." ''Ethnography (10)'':1, 5-38. '''Assignment:''' * Write up the methodological approach you (plan to) pursue in your project and your justification for the approach. Make sure to restate your research question and explain why the data/evidence you (will) collect and the method(s) of analysis you (will) use provide insight into the problem you are addressing. Make sure that your argument will convince a skeptical reader that your approach is sensible, well-thought through, and compelling (500-800 words) Post to the [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/courses/36533/discussion_topics/236976 discussion page]. * Review a peer's write-up of their methodological approach & justification. Does it make sense? Has the author provided a clear and compelling rationale for the analytical approach they take to their research problem and the data they use? Is there a mismatch between the research questions and the data? Between the methods of analysis and the focus of the inquiry? Be a skeptical (but nonetheless generous) reviewer. === Week 6: May 6 β Results & Discussion === * [[Practice_of_scholarship_(Spring_2019)/week 6 session plan|session plan]] '''Reading assignment goals:''' This week you will use ''one of the instructional readings'' and ''your model paper'' to extract general guidelines for presenting results and analysis. If you would like suggestions for additional model papers, please ask Aaron. '''Reading: choose your own adventure.''' Because the presentations and discussions of results vary so widely across methods and research communities, you should chose ''one'' of the instructional readings below. Each one is aimed at writing up and discussing results gathered through a specific method (participant observation, field experiments (and other inferential quantitative studies), interviews, and systems papers respectively. Copies of the text(s) will be posted to the [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/courses/91705/files/folder/readings "readings" directory] on Canvas. * Emerson, Fretz & Shaw. 1995. ''Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes,'' Chapter 7. * Gerber & Green. 2012. ''Field Experiments,'' Chapter 13. * Weiss. 1994. ''Learning from Strangers,'' Chapter 7. * Zhang, Haoqi. n.d. [https://docs.google.com/document/d/17TJ-N9oxsTWlenlMsPOzfinMGFEEfdY36YZnpia7hvE/edit# Writing an academic (systems) paper], the parts on "system description", "study/experiment/deployment", and "discussion." Please note: Aaron will add other potential instructional readings to this list as he becomes aware of them. If you know of another instructional reading that you would like to use because it fits your purposes better, please ask Aaron so he can review it and confirm that it's suitable for the assignment. '''Optional reading:''' * Booth et al., Chapter 10 ("Acknowledgments and Responses") and Chapter 15 ("Communicating Evidence Visually"). '''Assignment:''' * Based on your instructional reading ''and'' your model paper, prepare a check-list (or some similarly concise, usable representation) of attributes of excellently presented research evidence/findings. Your list (or whatever) should be the kind of thing you will use to guide your own work. Upload this to the [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/courses/91705/discussion_topics corresponding Canvas "Discussion."] We will use these to compile lists and common themes in class. * Write up about 1000 words synthesizing the (anticipated) findings and discussing the significance of your research and upload that to the [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/courses/91705/discussion_topics corresponding Canvas "Discussion."] I recommend doing this in two parts: ** Write ~500 words explaining the (anticipated) findings from your study. Quite literally, explain what you (expect to) find. What patterns of evidence (would) support these findings? If appropriate, include schematic/simulated versions of any data visualizations or tables that (will) support your claims. ** Write ~500 words discussing the findings in the context of the research questions and prior literature that frames your project. What is the (expected) contribution of your research? What do you (expect to) know at the conclusion of your study that was unknown or misunderstood before your study? * Provide feedback to your peer on their findings and discussion write up (and ''only'' their findings and discussion write up). === Week 7: May 13 β Introduction & Conclusion: End up at the beginning === * [[Practice_of_scholarship_(Spring_2019)/Week 7 session plan|Session plan]] '''Reading:''' * Little, Andrew T. 2016. "[http://www.andrewtlittle.com/papers/little_intros.pdf Three Templates for Introductions to Political Science Articles]." Manuscript, Cornell University. * Revisit the Week 2 readings and/or (if you're working on a systems paper) the Zhang reading from Week 6. All have valuable tips on writing effective introductions and (in some cases) conclusions. '''Assignment:''' * Pick two articles (two from one or one from each) from the [https://academic.oup.com/joc/issue/69/2 April, 2019 issue] of ''Journal of Communication'' (Volume 69, Issue 2) OR [https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3173574 CHI 2018] (or CHI 2019 if the proceedings appear in time). ** If you choose CHI pieces, try to pick a full paper that won an award. Please do not choose a Note or a Panel or something else that is not a full, peer reviewed paper. * Read the Introduction and Conclusion for both articles (ideally, don't read anything else β not even the abstract!) and prepare responses to the following questions (no need to submit): #Briefly summarize the papers' respective central claims, evidence, and contributions in your own words. #According to Little's templates (See above), what type of introduction does each paper have? #For your favorite of the two, identify something you think it does well in the introduction and something you think it does well in the conclusion. Justify these choices/preferences. #For the same article (your favorite), what suggestions would you make to the author(s) for improving the introduction? the conclusion? #What can you take away from this favorite article for introducing/concluding your own work? * Write an introduction for your project and submit it to [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/courses/91705/discussion_topics/597422 the corresponding "Discussion" on Canvas]. Keep the Introduction under 600 words. Have it reflect your anticipated findings and contribution (from last week's assignment). * Provide feedback on your partner's Introduction. === Week 8: May 20 β Revise, revise, revise === * [[Practice_of_scholarship_(Spring_2019)/Week 8 session plan|Session plan]] '''Reading:''' * Becker, Chapter 3 ("One Right Way") and Chapter 4 ("Editing by Ear"). * ''Optional'': Becker, Howard. 1953. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2771989.pdf "Becoming a Marihuana User."](pdf) ''American Journal of Sociology'', ''(59)''3: 235-242. (Revisit this and focus on the writing). * Strunk & White. Chapter 2 ("Elementary Principles of Composition") and Chapter 5 ("An Approach to Style"). * Wajcman, Judy. 2019. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243918795041 The Digital Architecture of Time Management]. ''Science, Technology, & Human Values'', ''44''(2), 315β337. '''Assignment:''' <!--- * Revision assignment: Using Becker and Strunk & White as inspirations, please TBA prepare to line-edit the rough draft texts that Aaron circulates via email/canvas (one by TBA [link] and one by [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/ Aaron]). Read them, maybe bring a hard copy with you if you like to edit that way. In class, we will focus on improving the tone, style, and organization of the texts. ---> * Work on accomplishing your goals for your final project for this week (''no written assignment to submit or provide feedback on''). Note that you will be asked to provide an update on your progress to your discussant from the May 17 class. === Week 9: May 27 β No class meeting (Memorial Day) === === Week 10: June 3 β Submission, reviews, and revision in publication === * [[Practice_of_scholarship_(Spring_2019)/Week 9 session plan|Session plan]] '''Reading:''' * King, Brayden. 2011. [https://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2011/05/31/the-editors-speak-what-makes-a-good-review/ "The editors speak: what makes a good review?] (read the entire post and all the statements from the journal editors). ''OrgTheory''. * Elmqvist, Niklas. 2016. [https://sites.umiacs.umd.edu/elm/2016/11/19/writing-rebuttals/ Writing rebuttals]. * Sample paper(s) with sample reviews and sample response(s) to reviews. ** [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/files/7032806/download?download_frd=1 ICWSM reviews example] (from Yixue and Nick Diakopoulos) ** [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/files/7032799/download?download_frd=1 ''Communication Research'' submission/review example materials] (from Aaron and Mako Hill) '''Assignment:''' * Make progress on your final projects! === Week 11: June 10 β Final projects due === No class meeting today. Submit your final projects [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/courses/91705/assignments/575733 via Canvas].
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to CommunityData are considered to be released under the Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported (see
CommunityData:Copyrights
for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Page information