Editing Practice of scholarship (Spring 2019)
From CommunityData
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
# Details on this syllabus will change, but I will not change readings or assignments less than one week before they are due. If I don't fill in a "To Be Determined" one week before it's due, it is dropped. If you plan to read more than one week ahead, contact me first. | # Details on this syllabus will change, but I will not change readings or assignments less than one week before they are due. If I don't fill in a "To Be Determined" one week before it's due, it is dropped. If you plan to read more than one week ahead, contact me first. | ||
# Keep an eye out for emails and announcements I send through [https://canvas.northwestern.edu Canvas] re: updates to the syllabus. You can also review the [http://wiki.communitydata.cc/index.php?title=Practice_of_scholarship_(Spring_2016)&action=history edit history of this page] to track what has changed recently and compare it against earlier versions. | # Keep an eye out for emails and announcements I send through [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/courses/36533 Canvas] re: updates to the syllabus. You can also review the [http://wiki.communitydata.cc/index.php?title=Practice_of_scholarship_(Spring_2016)&action=history edit history of this page] to track what has changed recently and compare it against earlier versions. | ||
# You can ''always'' give me feedback and suggestions related to what works and what doesn't about the course. I will explicitly solicit your input a few times during the quarter, but '''be bold''' and feel free to submit your feedback to me at any time in any format. In the past, I have made substantive changes to courses on-the-fly in response to student feedback. | # You can ''always'' give me feedback and suggestions related to what works and what doesn't about the course. I will explicitly solicit your input a few times during the quarter, but '''be bold''' and feel free to submit your feedback to me at any time in any format. In the past, I have made substantive changes to courses on-the-fly in response to student feedback. | ||
Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
: Becker, Howard S. ''Writing for Social Scientists.'' Chicago: University of Chicago Press. | : Becker, Howard S. ''Writing for Social Scientists.'' Chicago: University of Chicago Press. | ||
I have also included readings from | I have also included recommended readings from a second book: | ||
: Booth, Wayne C., Gregory G. Colomb, Joseph M. Williams. ''The Craft of Research.'' Chicago: University of Chicago Press. | : Booth, Wayne C., Gregory G. Colomb, Joseph M. Williams. ''The Craft of Research.'' Chicago: University of Chicago Press. | ||
I have used this in the past to mixed reviews. As a result, I strongly recommend you at least take a look at some of the selections. If you like the tone and find the content useful, you may want to read more and acquire a copy. | |||
=== | === Writing assignments === | ||
Every week, I ask you to produce and submit some written work. Unless otherwise noted, you should upload this work to Canvas by 5pm on Friday each week. This will make it possible for me and your colleagues to read and comment on your work before class | Every week, I ask you to produce and submit some written work. Unless otherwise noted, you should plan to upload this work to Canvas by 5pm on Friday each week. This will make it possible for me and your colleagues to read and comment on your work before class. | ||
=== Feedback assignments === | === Feedback assignments === | ||
Line 70: | Line 67: | ||
Your final project for the course is a submission-ready manuscript for a peer reviewed conference or journal of your choosing. It should follow the style, length, and formatting guidelines of the venue in which you seek to publish it. | Your final project for the course is a submission-ready manuscript for a peer reviewed conference or journal of your choosing. It should follow the style, length, and formatting guidelines of the venue in which you seek to publish it. | ||
== Evaluation and grades == | == Evaluation and grades == | ||
In addition to the assignments and frequent feedback you will provide and receive on your work, you will also perform self, peer, and course evaluations at several points throughout the quarter. Your final grades for the course will be constructed based on an aggregation of all these materials with the following weights: | In addition to the assignments and frequent feedback you will provide and receive on your work, you will also perform self, peer, and course evaluations at several points throughout the quarter. Your final grades for the course will be constructed based on an aggregation of all these materials with the following weights: | ||
* Participation | * Participation 20% | ||
* Written assignments 20% | * Written assignments 20% | ||
* Feedback assignments 20% | * Feedback assignments 20% | ||
* Peer and self evaluations | * Peer and self evaluations 15% | ||
* Final manuscript 25% | * Final manuscript 25% | ||
Line 85: | Line 80: | ||
=== Week 1: April 1 — Introductions === | === Week 1: April 1 — Introductions === | ||
Note that this week | Note that this week we will complete the reading and assignment in class. | ||
'''Reading:''' | '''Reading:''' | ||
Line 104: | Line 99: | ||
=== Week 2: April 8 — Planning your work & work your plan === | === Week 2: April 8 — Planning your work & work your plan === | ||
'''Reading Part I:''' | '''Reading Part I:''' | ||
* Becker, Howard. ''Writing for Social Scientists.'' Chapters 1 ("Freshman English for Graduate Students") & 7 ("Getting It out the Door" | * 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). | * Booth et al. Prologue to Section IV ("Planning Again") and Quick Tip on Outlining (pp. 185-188). | ||
Line 117: | Line 112: | ||
'''Assignment:''' | '''Assignment:''' | ||
* Identify, summarize, and outline an exemplary paper: | * Identify, summarize, and outline an exemplary paper: | ||
Line 129: | Line 122: | ||
** Be sure to include all of the elements I listed above. | ** 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. | ** 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 | ** Submit the synopsis to [https://canvas.northwestern.edu the corresponding "Discussion" in Canvas]. | ||
* Review a peer's synopsis. Write comments | * Review a peer's synopsis. Write your comments as a response to the peer's "Discussion" posting. | ||
=== Week 3: April 15 — Research question: Where's the puzzle? === | === Week 3: April 15 — Research question: Where's the puzzle? === | ||
'''Reading:''' | '''Reading:''' | ||
* Booth et al., Chapter 3 ("From Topics to Questions") & Chapter 4 ("From Questions to Problems"). | * Booth et al., Chapter 3 ("From Topics to Questions") & Chapter 4 ("From Questions to Problems"). | ||
* Durkheim, Émile. 1897. ''Suicide''. Excerpt — final section of the Introduction ([https://canvas.northwestern.edu/ available via Canvas]). | * Durkheim, Émile. 1897. ''Suicide''. Excerpt — 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 — The Critical Decision]." ''The New England Journal of Medicine 330''(21):1530-1533. | * Kahn, C. Ronald. 1994. "[http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199405263302113 Sounding Board: Picking a Research Problem — The Critical Decision]." ''The New England Journal of Medicine 330''(21):1530-1533. | ||
* Zuckerman, Ezra. 2017. [https://www.dropbox.com/s/a3n1ux6lnu7wbpe/On%20Genre.pdf?dl=1 On genre: A few more tips to article-writers] (pdf). | * Zuckerman, Ezra. 2017. [https://www.dropbox.com/s/a3n1ux6lnu7wbpe/On%20Genre.pdf?dl=1 On genre: A few more tips to article-writers] (pdf). | ||
Line 150: | Line 138: | ||
** A brief statement posing your research around a puzzle or some other genre/framing device (see the Zuckerman reading for ideas). | ** 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. | ** 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. | * Review a peer's "intro to the intro." Evaluate whether it effectively articulates a research topic, question, puzzle, and significance. Post your review as a response to your peer's post in the appropriate "Discussion" on Canvas. | ||
=== Week 4: April 22 — Prior Work: Interrupting a conversation === | === Week 4: April 22 — Prior Work: Interrupting a conversation === | ||
'''Reading:''' | '''Reading:''' | ||
* Becker, Chapter 8 ("Terrorized by the Literature"). | * Becker, Chapter 8 ("Terrorized by the Literature"). | ||
* Booth et al., Chapter 6 ("Engaging Sources"). | * 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. | * 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. 2017. [http://kieranhealy.org/files/papers/fuck-nuance.pdf Fuck Nuance](pdf). ''Sociological Theory'', ''(35)''2: 118-127. | * '''Optional:''' Healy, Kieran. 2017. [http://kieranhealy.org/files/papers/fuck-nuance.pdf Fuck Nuance](pdf). ''Sociological Theory'', ''(35)''2: 118-127. | ||
Line 166: | Line 150: | ||
* 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]. | * 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? | * 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:// | * Complete [https://1.1.1.1 mid-quarter course evaluation]. | ||
=== Week 5: April 29 — Method & | === Week 5: April 29 — Method: Research design & justification === | ||
'''Reading:''' | '''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:''' | '''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]. | * 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. | * 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 — Results & Discussion === | === Week 6: May 6 — 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 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 | '''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. | * Emerson, Fretz & Shaw. 1995. ''Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes,'' Chapter 7. | ||
* Weiss. 1994. ''Learning from Strangers,'' Chapter 7. | |||
* Gerber & Green. 2012. ''Field Experiments,'' Chapter 13. | * 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. | 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. | ||
Line 199: | Line 176: | ||
'''Assignment:''' | '''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/ | * 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/ corresponding Canvas "Discussion."] We will use these to compile lists and common themes in class (using [https://docs.google.com/ a google drive file (link TBA]). | ||
* 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/ | * 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/ 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 | ** 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? | ** 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). | * Provide feedback to your peer on their findings and discussion write up (and ''only'' their findings and discussion write up). | ||
=== Week 7: May 13 — Introduction & Conclusion: End up at the beginning === | === Week 7: May 13 — Introduction & Conclusion: End up at the beginning === | ||
'''Reading:''' | '''Reading:''' | ||
* Little, Andrew T. 2016. "[http://www.andrewtlittle.com/papers/little_intros.pdf Three Templates for Introductions to Political Science Articles]." Manuscript, Cornell University. | * Little, Andrew T. 2016. "[http://www.andrewtlittle.com/papers/little_intros.pdf Three Templates for Introductions to Political Science Articles]." Manuscript, Cornell University. | ||
'''Assignment:''' | '''Assignment:''' | ||
* Pick two articles | * 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 | ** If you choose JoC pieces, do not pick the Vorderer article. Do not pick a book review. | ||
* Read the Introduction and Conclusion for both articles (ideally, don't read anything else — not even the abstract!) and | ** 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 — not even the abstract!) and respond to the following questions ([https://canvas.northwestern.edu/ 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. | #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? | #According to Little's templates (See above), what type of introduction does each paper have? | ||
Line 220: | Line 197: | ||
#For the same article (your favorite), what suggestions would you make to the author(s) for improving the introduction? the conclusion? | #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? | #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/ | * Write an introduction for your project and submit it to [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/ 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. | * Provide feedback on your partner's Introduction. | ||
=== Week 8: May 20 — Revise, revise, revise === | === Week 8: May 20 — Revise, revise, revise === | ||
'''Reading:''' | '''Reading:''' | ||
* Becker, Chapter 3 ("One Right Way") and Chapter 4 ("Editing by Ear"). | * 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"). | * Strunk & White. Chapter 2 ("Elementary Principles of Composition") and Chapter 5 ("An Approach to Style"). | ||
'''Assignment:''' | '''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. | * 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. | ||
Line 238: | Line 212: | ||
=== Week 10: June 3 — Submission, reviews, and revision in publication === | === Week 10: June 3 — Submission, reviews, and revision in publication === | ||
'''Reading:''' | '''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''. | * 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''. | ||
* Sample paper(s) with sample reviews (TBD). | |||
* Sample paper(s) with sample reviews | |||
'''Assignment:''' | '''Assignment:''' | ||
Line 251: | Line 221: | ||
=== Week 11: June 10 — Final projects due === | === Week 11: June 10 — Final projects due === | ||
No class meeting today. Submit your final projects | No class meeting today. Submit your final projects via Canvas. | ||
== Resources == | == Resources == |