Friday, March 31, 2017

conclusion = implications + discussion = fits in to the broader picture + methods = replicate & road map

remember to break up your annotations + methods section addendum

Mar 31 at 11:24am

No unread replies.No replies.

Remember that you

have two annotations due this Sunday, and also
have to break them up into two audio files (I don't just want one 10 minute file; I want two clearly labeled files)

For the methods section, which is due this next Friday, not today, a week from today (see the schedule (Links to an external site.)), it's supposed to be 2 pages. I wanted to be consistent with the two pages across the board (the discussion, intro, conclusion, etc.), but, for the methods, I understand if it's, say, 1.5: the purpose of this particluar assignment (the methods section) is

to generate a surplus of language that encompasses your search strategy, with the goal of being so generous with your reasoning that another researcher could exactly replicate your search process to find the exact same articles. That's the goal. Remember to watch the video to where I explain the whole thing (Links to an external site.). But also remember that the goal is
to do two things, the search strategy and the road map. Before, you wrote a draft of the road map. I want you to keep drafting it, though this time where it really belongs, which is in the methods/search strategy section. Same with the discussion section. The discussion section you wrote was a draft. You won't really even be able to finish it until you finish Berridge (2016), since only then will you know how your 10 results fit into the field, that source representing for us the field of public health. The discussion section is not a conclusion. Rather, again, it shows how your topic as you articulate it fits into the wider conversation about public health.

But, because of the nature of the search strategy, I can easily imagine people having trouble reaching a full two pages on this one. But stretch yourself. We want more language than we need.

The conclusion will go on to think through the implications of how "a" (your research, what you found to answer your question, etc.) fits into "b" (public health).

Drake

3-31, in class

3-31

Wednesday, March 29, 2017

and then the rest. it jumps from 11 to 13 i think, which is even more confusing. sorry.

The only two things I forgot to add were: (13) there's an extra space between the reference and the annotation. These need to be in (14) APA, too. Look at this example.

Crap. (15) NO QUOTES. If you look at the example, and this resonates with our project, there is not a single quote. Likewise, there ought to be no quotes.

10-11

7-9

cryptic instructions, larger (1-7): wait for the rest

3-29

written annotation in mla--not APA: also, let's get out of the habit of quoting. this is confusing because this has quotes. just use the parentheticals but with no quotes

example annotation

Link to MLA--not APA--example. The moves of the annotation are the same. Just not the style (APA or MLA).

link to instructions for audio; context for annotations

Here's the link to the instructions for the audio. I was bad and wrote them very cryptically into the picture itself. But there are 15 I think numbers in total, some of which are in the picture, others which are in the post to which this post is linked. So I think it goes 1-12 in the picture and then 13-15 on the post. But these are just things to keep in mind for the written version.

If you're doing the audio, you're still following the format, kind of. Click here, though, for the condensed version--the version that has the audio explicitly in mind.

Monday, March 27, 2017

Beginning of paper

two important moves

3-27

notice the difference between this and MLA in text citations; also notice the topoi of prevalence

research verbs

Here's a great link to good verbs to use for the results section.

transitions in the wild

format of annotation, if you're doing an audio

the argument/what the chapter "does," what it intends to do (things the author would take ownership of)
context of the argument, or anything that you find interesting or strange
how you could imagine using it

Sunday, March 26, 2017

what to include in a methods section

given --> new + transition

assessing a result section

Topoi or given-->new-->transition

The road map isn't an intro, but it's located in the area of introduction

3-26->4/2

Here's the new schedule. Be sure and check the announcement on Canvas as well, as there's a lot of important information on there.

another methods section

better example of more developed road map; for us, the roadmap goes at the bottom of the methods section; note the passive voice

example of methods section (warning: this example has a scant road map. yours will need to be significantly more developed than this)

example of an annotation (warning: the reference is in MLA; your reference will need to be in APA)

Monday, March 13, 2017

notice how I'm breaking up these paragraphs and how this student built a paragraph around a single study: later, we could add in more studies, ones that are somehow comparable with (topoi) the observation being made (and there are three different observations here)

how many studies should be in a paragraph? + how to generate paragraphs with multiple studies in them

compare this to the student paragraphs in these examples.

flush numbers; don't bullet numbers

the full 6 pages does not include the title page and the results section

template for the results section

Here is the template we went over on 3-13

if you look at the template on Google, the telegraphic statement goes over the allowed one line. when you download it, it shouldn't run over one line. but just try to keep the telegraphic title to one line

Saturday, March 11, 2017

weak verbs

Remember, there is a verb component in the rubric for your result section. I'm asking that your usage of verbs approximate published literature reviews in the field of public health. This approximation will require you to write a first draft before revising out weak and passive verbs and revising in more active verbs. Also remember the exception to this rule, which is the baby intro/road map/research question part and, for now, the discussion section. This contradiction refers us to the ideology of social sciences and does not concern us. Again, an attention to verbs and organization is an activity that is only realistically possible in a paper's revision stage; and in that way, "a" papers will certainly evidence a going-back-through and revising of the paper at the level of verb usage, sure, but also organization, which encompasses the emphasis on transitions, topoi, themes, and subsections.

Friday, March 10, 2017

Purpose of the introductory context

I wanted to highlight this one part in upper left corner. It says

Impetus: What caused these sources to come together in this way? And for what reasons? This is partly the purpose of the introduction. But you should be aware of this for later.

This is context, context that explains the arrangement of the results section. But it is a different sort of context from our normal, everyday context. The same goes for the discussion. The purpose of the discussion section is to ask whether and how the results fit into the field, which is another context. There are, then, at least three different types of context. We'll worry about this more after spring break.

thematic continuity + transitions + active verbs

What I want you to notice here is the thematic continuity across the two paragraphs of the subsection. The subsection is entitled "adolescence." And then, even a paragraph later, adolescence is still being talked about. This is the topoi of time or duration.

Also notice the transition words and the active verbs.

You'll also notice other topoi, such as prevalence and likelihood. But time dominants.

Arrangement of the sections

Notice the baby intro/road map first. I said on Friday that I don't mind whether your research question is embedded into the road map paragraph or not, but it definitely needs to be there. In the AJPH and thus AMA literature review we looked at, the research question is in bullet points. But in the APA ones, they seem to be more embedded.

Also notice how the sections go

1. Introduction

Technically the research question + road map goes here.

1.1. Methods/Search Strategy

2. Results

2.1. Theme One (don't call it this; it has to have a helpful title [see rubric])

2.2. Theme Two

2.3. Etc.

2.4. Etc.

3. Discussion

And, also technically, the answer to your research question goes here.

Also notice how the verbs will tend to be more passive in the intro and more active in the results section.

reminder about the application of topoi in the results section

Remember, I'm not saying you should apply the topoi to every paragraph. Some paragraphs will be so contextualized in the research of someone else's study that they won't call for a topoi. However, the more paragraphs in the themed subsection, the more that subsection will call for a topoi--that is, for you to write the paragraphs, first, and then, second, ask: what was I trying to do with these three paragraphs? What was I trying to accomplish? How could I re-tool these three paragraphs so that an implicit order already in them would be made explicit? Was I really doing a

compare and contrast?
defining something?
dividing into parts?
talking about likelihood?
prevalence?
size or magnitude?
appearance versus reality?

And so on. But I do want to emphasize that these are an afterthought. This level of attention to verbs and organization occurs later in a paper's revision stage.

baby intro = road map

Here is the road-map from one of the literature reviews we looked at. What I've highlighted is the paragraph's form, thus trying to convert it into a kind of topoi or model you can follow. You'll see that the road map/baby intro

contends
asserts
highlights (notice the passives and the lack of the first person singular)
and then goes into how it is organized (p)
what is draws on theoretically to do so
what they define and how
what each of the sections do and how they do it, plus
how it fits into the field

As I was doing this, I noticed that the verbs here are more passive than active. The reason why is you can't use the first person, but you're still having to talk about what the research is doing and plan to do, which is a form of activity. As a result, the baby intro/road map should be more passive, while the results sections should be more active.

Wednesday, March 8, 2017

these are the student literature reviews we looked at in class on Wednesday

Here is the literature review we actually looked at in class on 3/8

And here is the one I intended to look at on 3/8, which resulted from categorization error on my part. Always helpfully label your stuff, and put it in the same place consistently. This latter one is significantly more helpful. If you look at the colors, you'll notice how I break paragraphs into ideas, checking to see not only if a paragraph could be broken into two, but also whether a section could be rearranged according to a self-conscious application of the topoi. Remember, all organizational decisions ought to have taken place consciously. On the rubric, I say you must at least be able to discern an implicit strategy in your results section's prose, and the job of the "baby intro," as I'll call it, is to make what implicit strategy you do in fact write explicit and available for critique.

This is one way to synthesize

In this photo, I discuss one way to synthesize. In class, I talked about how one good way to write is to

write the source's result at the top (*) (see picture closest to the bottom of this post)
notice as many things as you can about the source, i.e., how the results relate to the method, argument, evidence, setting/context (context of the study, not to the context of everyday life in general), etc.
break up the things you notice each into paragraphs of their own (again, see picture closest to bottom of this post)
craft them with topic sentences each of their own
re-craft the original source you started with, that is, with a topic sentence, too (refer back to asterisk *)
check to see if you can consciously apply a topoi to derive greater control over the order/ordering of the paragraphs
re-write what's interesting about the source, or each one of your observations, by triangulating the observation with your research question and the context of the source itself, that is, with the topoi in mind: this is one way to make your prose more specific (see picture closest to top in this post)

You're not writing an intro or a conclusion, but...

This was a great question after class that I did not make it to in the discussion today. The question was, "So, you were working with an intro in class, but you also said that we're not required to write one--what's up with that?" I could see how this would be confusing. I do not want you to write a formal introduction or conclusion. What is different about the rubric, though, is I say you need to, that is, prior to the writing of the results section, insert your research question and lay out what your strategy is (look to the middle of this document to see what I mean; look for the "RQ"; whenever I write "RQ," that's short for "research question"). This only need be a paragraph, and, as I say in this picture (below), it can be informal. Also conclude like this as well. In the rubric, I say something like, you need an 11th result, and then also a strategy to begin with. The 11th result should be in the discussion section. But you weren't required to write the discussion section, obviously, which is why I just want to you make the section title and then informally write what you think it all means, i.e., whether, to what extent, and how your research question was answered, plus a brief contextualization. Thus, while you do need an intro and a conclusion, they can be informal/colloquial and shouldn't be in the results section.

If you go to the the bottom most picture, you'll see how research questions are actually embedded into a published, AJPH literature review, and then even how there's a little paragraph after that. I just want you to make what I called in a former post the "baby intro": i.e., just write a brief paragraph wherein you strategize and wherein you make your strategy available for critique. You don't have to commit to this strategy. But I want you to discuss what you intend for your results section to do, and the way in which you intend for that section to do it (= strategy). Informal, low stakes.

Do the same thing for the conclusion. Just unwind for a little bit (see second to last picture) and talk about what you think it all means. But I'd like for you to think about what the 11th result would be: that is, what conclusion you yourself come to after having worked with the other 10 sources--but more importantly, whether, to what extent, and how your research question was answered. Do that in a section entitled "discussion" (see second to last picture). You can be informal here. Unwind. But do conclude. Wrap up. Just think for a second, but, while your doing that, try to draw an inference as to the meaning of all 10 results taken as a whole.

How the results relates to the discussion section

This is getting a little ahead of ourselves, but, I was asked a question as to what to do with so-called "straggler sources": sources that don't exactly belong in the results section of the paper, but are interesting enough to keep. Save them. Don't think that everything, every source, really, belongs in the results section. Not every source does. The purpose of the discussion section is ask whether x is consistent with y.

x = the 11th result.

y = the field of public health in general, or, in this case, whatever else you know and find interesting. this is also where the A Very Short Introduction to Public Health will come in handy.

Or, is

x, when x = my 10 results, plus my own conclusion as to their broader meaning, how does x fit in with y, when y = everything else I know about public health, or about the world in general