Editing Practice of scholarship (Spring 2016)
From CommunityData
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.
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 145: | Line 145: | ||
'''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. | '''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 | * Weiss. 1994. ''Learning from Strangers,'' Chapter 7. | ||
* Gerber & Green. 2012. ''Field Experiments,'' Chapter 13. | * Gerber & Green. 2012. ''Field Experiments,'' Chapter 13. | ||
Line 154: | Line 154: | ||
'''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/courses/36533/discussion_topics/239310 corresponding Canvas "Discussion."] We will use these | * 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 as a major part of our discussion 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/36533/discussion_topics/ | * 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/23931 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 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? | ||
Line 165: | Line 165: | ||
'''Assignment:''' | '''Assignment:''' | ||
=== Week 8: May 24 — Revise, revise, revise === | === Week 8: May 24 — Revise, revise, revise === | ||
'''Reading:''' | '''Reading:''' | ||
Line 184: | Line 171: | ||
'''Assignment:''' | '''Assignment:''' | ||
=== Week 9: May 31 — Submission, reviews, and revision in publication === | === Week 9: May 31 — 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''. | ||
'''Assignment:''' | '''Assignment:''' | ||
* | * Complete peer review assignment (''tbd''). | ||
* Complete self-assessment of your own writing process and your work in the course (''tbd''). | |||
=== Week 10: June 7 — Final projects due === | === Week 10: June 7 — Final projects due === |