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 2016)
(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 5 β Introductions === '''Assignment:''' Please bring two printed hard copies of the following materials with you: * A brief synopsis (800 words MAX) of the research project you plan to pursue in this course. * A target venue (peer reviewed journal or archival conference) to which you plan to submit your work. * 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 or structure). * A couple of sentences summarizing the aspects of your exemplary paper that make it a useful model for the work you are pursuing. * A paragraph or two summarizing 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 (or a tiny bit after). If you like, you might find it useful to create a Gantt chart using spreadsheet software. === Week 2: April 12 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"). * Booth et al. Prologue to Section IV ("Planning Again") and Quick Tip on Outlining (pp. 185-188). '''Reading Part II (pick any two):''' * 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. [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:''' * Create an outline of your exemplary paper. Be sure to include section word counts. * Create an outline or a [http://aaronshaw.org/teaching/2015/peer/planning_document.html research planning document] for your project. Submit this to [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/courses/36533/discussion_topics/230615 the corresponding "Discussion" in Canvas]. * Review a peer's outline or planning document. Write your comments as a response to the peer's "Discussion" posting. * Complete weekly Research journal entries. === Week 3: April 19 β Research question: Where's the puzzle? === '''Reading:''' * 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/courses/36533/files 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. '''Assignment:''' * A synopsis of your research project that includes the following elements (submitted, once again, via [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/courses/36533/discussion_topics/230622 the corresponding "Discussion" in Canvas]): ** A description of the topic and clear statement of the claim. ** A list of questions derived from the topic and claim. Underscore the most interesting one(s) that you will address. ** A brief statement posing your research around a problem (or puzzle). ** A brief statement of the significance or application of your project. * Review a peer's project synopsis. Evaluate whether it effectively articulates a research topic, question, significance, and problem using the criteria described by Booth et al. Post your review as a response to your peer's post in the appropriate "Discussion" on Canvas. * Complete weekly research journal entries. === Week 4: April 26 β Prior Work: Interrupting a conversation === '''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. * '''Optional:''' Healy, Kieran. 2016. [http://kieranhealy.org/files/papers/fuck-nuance.pdf Fuck Nuance](pdf). (forthcoming in ''Sociological Theory''). '''Assignment:''' * Identify two or three most important existing theories/findings/systems that your work will test/synthesize/extend/enhance. Briefly (in no more than 200 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/courses/36533/discussion_topics/230623 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 weekly research journal entries. Submit 2 or 3 journal of your favorite entries so far to [mailto:aaronshaw@northwestern.edu Aaron via email]. * Complete [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1w2gGNzBxH2ZW0TJdd6Obq4t7dR85gSuttzol9MtsCYE/viewform mid-quarter course evaluation] (by Sunday, April 24). === Week 5: May 3 β Method: Research design & justification === '''Reading:''' * 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. * '''Optional:''' Booth et al., Chapter 9 ("Reasons and Evidence"). '''Assignment:''' * Complete mid-course self-assessment and reflection (''tbd''). * 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. * Complete weekly research journal entries. === Week 6: May 10 β Results & Discussion === '''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, interviews, and field experiments respectively. Copies of the text(s) can be made available if we need them. * Emerson, Fretz & Shaw. 1995. ''Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes,'' Chapter 7. * Weiss. 1994. ''Learning from Strangers,'' Chapter 7 (Available on [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/courses/36533/files Canvas]). * Gerber & Green. 2012. ''Field Experiments,'' Chapter 13. 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/36533/discussion_topics/239310 corresponding Canvas "Discussion."] We will use these to compile lists and common themes in class (using [https://docs.google.com/document/d/19Xlpip5JC9Q-GREOgjJHAA1doLaByPiNiPI0Uso2Ndw this google drive file]. * 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/36533/discussion_topics/239311 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 any data visualizations or tables you (plan to) present. ** 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 17 β Introduction & Conclusion: End up at the beginning === '''Reading:''' * Little, Andrew T. 2016. "[http://www.andrewtlittle.com/papers/little_intros.pdf Three Templates for Introductions to Political Science Articles]." Manuscript, Cornell University. '''Assignment:''' * Pick two articles from the [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcom.2016.66.issue-1/issuetoc February, 2016 issue] of ''Journal of Communication'' (Volume 66, Issue 1) or two papers from [http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2858036 CHI 2016] (or one from each). ** If you choose JoC pieces, do not pick the Vorderer article. Do not pick a book review. ** If you choose CHI pieces, 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 respond to the following questions ([https://canvas.northwestern.edu/courses/36533/discussion_topics/241563 in writing, submitted via Canvas]): #Provide a link/citation to the paper. #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/36533/discussion_topics/241564 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 24 β Revise, revise, revise === '''Reading:''' * Becker, Chapter 3 ("One Right Way") and Chapter 4 ("Editing by Ear"). * Strunk & White. Chapter 2 ("Elementary Principles of Composition") and Chapter 5 ("An Approach to Style"). '''Assignment:''' * Revision assignment: Using Becker and Strunk & White as inspirations, please prepare to line-edit the rough draft texts that Aaron circulates via email/canvas (one by [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/courses/36533/discussion_topics/246614 Silvia] and one by [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/courses/36533/discussion_topics/246615 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 31 β Submission, reviews, and revision in publication === '''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''. * Robin et al's CHI reviews and rebuttal (link tbd). * Jeremy et al's ''Social Science Research'' reviews and response letter (link tbd). '''Assignment:''' * Make progress on your final projects! === Week 10: June 7 β Final projects due === No class meeting today. Submit your final projects 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