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 70: | Line 70: | ||
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 == | ||
Line 104: | Line 102: | ||
=== 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 115: | ||
'''Assignment:''' | '''Assignment:''' | ||
* Identify, summarize, and outline an exemplary paper: | * Identify, summarize, and outline an exemplary paper: | ||
Line 129: | Line 125: | ||
** 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 comments and bring them to class. | ||
=== 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 153: | Line 144: | ||
=== 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 153: | ||
* 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 (link TBA). | |||
* 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 179: | ||
'''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 200: | ||
#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 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. | * 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 215: | ||
=== 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''. | ||
* Elmqvist, Niklas. 2016. [https://sites.umiacs.umd.edu/elm/2016/11/19/writing-rebuttals/ Writing rebuttals]. | * 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 | * Sample paper(s) with sample reviews and sample response(s) to reviews (TBD). | ||
'''Assignment:''' | '''Assignment:''' | ||
Line 251: | Line 225: | ||
=== 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 == |