Editing Practice of scholarship (Spring 2019)
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 20: | Line 20: | ||
== Overview & objectives == | == Overview & objectives == | ||
The goal for this course is simple: submit a piece of academic research for publication by the end of the quarter. The piece should (obviously) be original. You should be the primary person responsible for the research and should be the lead | The goal for this course is simple: submit a piece of academic research for publication by the end of the quarter. The piece should (obviously) be original. You should be the primary person responsible for the research and should be the lead author of the submission. | ||
The course and assignments are structured to help you cultivate (more of) the skills, wisdom, and experience necessary to publish independent, original, and high-quality scholarship in relevant venues for your work. There are several milestones to help you measure your progress towards manuscript submission at the end of the quarter. The seminar will be run as a workshop in which you will produce written work and provide feedback on each other's work every week. Most weeks, we will also read and discuss materials related to the crafts of designing, conducting, writing, submitting, reviewing, revising, and publishing scholarly research. The experience will probably feel like a combination of a writing bootcamp and an extended group therapy session. | The course and assignments are structured to help you cultivate (more of) the skills, wisdom, and experience necessary to publish independent, original, and high-quality scholarship in relevant venues for your work. There are several milestones to help you measure your progress towards manuscript submission at the end of the quarter. The seminar will be run as a workshop in which you will produce written work and provide feedback on each other's work every week. Most weeks, we will also read and discuss materials related to the crafts of designing, conducting, writing, submitting, reviewing, revising, and publishing scholarly research. The experience will probably feel like a combination of a writing bootcamp and an extended group therapy session. | ||
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 40: | Line 40: | ||
Almost every week will have some required readings. In general, I will provide links to readings or distribute them via [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/courses/36533 Canvas]. You are expected to have read these before you come to class and to have prepared for discussion. There are also some suggested readings and other resources you might find useful. | Almost every week will have some required readings. In general, I will provide links to readings or distribute them via [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/courses/36533 Canvas]. You are expected to have read these before you come to class and to have prepared for discussion. There are also some suggested readings and other resources you might find useful. | ||
There is one book that we will read multiple selections from. I recommend you | There is one book that we will read multiple selections from. I recommend you buy it. There are multiple editions/versions, but I don't think it matters which edition you use (I think the chapter numbers and titles are consistent): | ||
<!---* Booth, Wayne C., Gregory G. Colomb, Joseph M. Williams. ''The Craft of Research.'' Chicago: University of Chicago Press.---> | |||
* Becker, Howard S. ''Writing for Social Scientists.'' Chicago: University of Chicago Press. | |||
=== Writing assignments === | |||
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. | |||
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 | |||
=== Feedback assignments === | === Feedback assignments === | ||
Line 61: | Line 52: | ||
Almost every week, I ask you to review and comment on colleagues' work prior to class. In general, you should provide your comments as a response to their post on Canvas and come to class prepared to discuss the work and your feedback. | Almost every week, I ask you to review and comment on colleagues' work prior to class. In general, you should provide your comments as a response to their post on Canvas and come to class prepared to discuss the work and your feedback. | ||
=== | === Research journal === | ||
Throughout the quarter, you | Throughout the quarter, you should keep a research journal documenting your effort, progress, and reflections on your project in this course. I encourage you to write brief daily entries (or as close to daily as you can) and, at minimum, two entries per week. Entries can be brief and might simply record what you worked on that day, how long you worked on it, and a sentence or two reflection on your work experience. You may also find yourself inspired to write more. I have asked you to submit journal entries to me twice during the quarter for review. | ||
=== Final Project: Manuscript submission === | === Final Project: Manuscript submission === | ||
Line 70: | Line 61: | ||
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 74: | ||
=== 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 94: | Line 83: | ||
** A statement of the research topic. | ** A statement of the research topic. | ||
** A question, puzzle, or problem you aim to answer or resolve in this project. | ** A question, puzzle, or problem you aim to answer or resolve in this project. | ||
** What you anticipate you will find. | |||
** What you anticipate you will find | ** What the contribution of your anticipated findings would be (assuming you found them). | ||
** What | |||
** Why you believe this work and the anticipated findings are important. | ** 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. | ** A target venue (peer reviewed journal or archival conference) to which you plan to submit your work. | ||
Line 104: | Line 92: | ||
=== 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"). | ||
'''Reading Part II (pick any two):''' | '''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). | * 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). | * 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... | * 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... | ||
'''Recommended Reading:''' | |||
* Booth et al. Prologue to Section IV ("Planning Again") and Quick Tip on Outlining (pp. 185-188). | |||
'''Assignment:''' | '''Assignment:''' | ||
* Identify, summarize, and outline an exemplary paper: | * Identify, summarize, and outline an exemplary paper: | ||
Line 129: | Line 114: | ||
** 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). | ||
'''Assignment:''' | '''Assignment:''' | ||
* | * A very brief motivation of your research project 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. | ** 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 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 | * Review a peer's project synopsis. 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. | ||
* Complete weekly research journal entries. | |||
=== 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. 2016. [http://kieranhealy.org/files/papers/fuck-nuance.pdf Fuck Nuance](pdf). (forthcoming in ''Sociological Theory''). | |||
* '''Optional:''' Healy, Kieran. | |||
'''Assignment:''' | '''Assignment:''' | ||
* Identify | * 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? | * 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/ | * 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: 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. | ||
* Complete weekly research journal entries. | |||
=== 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 (Available on [https://canvas.northwestern.edu/courses/36533/files Canvas]). | |||
* 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 171: | ||
'''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/ | * 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/ | * 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 | ** 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/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. | #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 192: | ||
#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/courses/ | * 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. | * 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. | ||
=== Week 9: May 27 — No class | === Week 9: May 27 — '''No class''' (Memorial Day) | ||
=== 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''. | ||
* | * Robin et al's CHI reviews and rebuttal (link tbd). | ||
* Jeremy et al's ''Social Science Research'' reviews and response letter (link tbd). | |||
* | |||
'''Assignment:''' | '''Assignment:''' | ||
Line 251: | Line 217: | ||
=== 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 == |