good example of first three pages of this literature review

here is a good example of the first three pages of our literature review

title page in APA

example of abstract in APA

template

here's a document with a different first page (running head + title --> just title) and page numbers

running head on 1st but not on 2nd + page #s

Here's a pdf that'll help you get not only a different first page for the running header/title distinction, but also the page number. 

whatever individuates your research

• whatever individuates your research
• i mean, people have talked about this before, so it's not like it's totally new or unprecedented, but no one's talked about it in exactly this way, or, while there's this thing that's been going on in the background of lots of research, no one has had a reason to bring it to the forefront of a research program, but i do 
• so, for example, while i realize that scholars have talked about how pollution impacts children's respiratory health, they've background that relationship for this reason ("because"); but, because i'm coming at it from this angle, i have this reason to talk about it explicitly in the foreground and here's why ("because)

inclusion criteria

• i included things for this reason
• i excluded things for this reason 

4-26: discussing the intro

title page is the first page

abstract is the second

the intro ought to be composed of three parts: (a) the stable context, or the sense of ongoing conversation in the field of public health today. here, you could use the berridge (2016) but you could also use some section from another article's introduction or conclusion, purposing that history or context in order to give your topic a way of fitting in with something bigger that's going on. remember, the key here is also to make sure that another researcher in the field would be interested in your topic. the key words and phrases here are

• interested
• distinction between topic and field
• ongoing conversation and 
• something bigger that's going on now in public health

then there's (b) the gap, where you detail what the motive is for asking your research question is, that is, not in the sense that you just find it interesting, but why the field of public health in general or, more realistically, the sub-field of whatever you're doing actually has overlooked or misrepresented or discussed wrongly etc. some aspect of your topic. i would put this in the second paragraph of the intro but it's not required. but, if i were writing this paper, the intro would be two paragraphs. one for (a) and the other for (b), but in the second paragraph i would also put (c): that is, the research question itself. i would embed that question towards the end and put it in a single bullet point.

different strategy for the abstract

here's a different strategy for the abstract. remember it has to be on a page of its own, the second page

great example of an abstract in the context of a literature review

example of a "gap"

"

numbering format for the paper as a whole

for claire. but for anyone else, really

abstract + introduction

the abstract (two parts = green and yellow)

the abstract must include

• the keywords, search terms
• Briefly state the purpose, rationale, and scope of the research
• Explain how the problem was studied
• Results: Present major findings (how your results is valuable)
• Interpretation: Describe the meaning and significance 

where i'm getting this from

3 requirements for intro

1. identifying with a field of study + articulating why that field of study would be interested in your topic, with reasons 

topic <--> what professional or academic field would be interested in that topic and why? why is this topic relevant now? plus, how does this topic connect to what's going on in public health in general right now? how does this topic connect to or fit into larger trends in public health as articulated by Berridge (2016)?

2. "gap," motive for research question

why would that other audience have a motive to read your paper? what does your paper contribute to the ongoing conversation happening right now in public health? what would they miss out on if they didn't keep reading? why is there an urgency to ask specifically your question as you ask it? what are the costs and benefits if we don't? what do you move from the background to the foreground?

3. the research question itself

function of intro

1. only the context necessary for your research question
2. only reliable sources, and probably only Berridge (2016)
3. context out of which your RQ emerges, back and fourth, some sort of discussion, "they say," "these other people say," etc. sense of the conversation and how the RG emerges out or or fits into the conversation 
4. gap
5. RQ that speaks to or tries to fill gap

sequence

1. description of organization, who they are, what the audience's needs are, beliefs values, age, why your research is important at this site and now + berridge 2016?
2. 3 most imporatnt moments of your paper and why
3. quote from the primary research, the most important source i had
4. discuss how i used that quote academically; this is how the quote manifested itself in the context of my lit review
5. how would i have to talk about this differently in this diff context
6. include/exclude
7. x
8. x

2-24

for karina

1.  brief synopsis of my research in general
2. these are the 3 most important things for academics you'd need to know in an academic way 
3. 3 most important things for the public
4. description of a couple organization, who they are, what the audience's needs are, beliefs values, age, why your research is important at this site and now + berridge 2016? + potential audiences + what their needs are
5. these are the 5 most important things you need to know about my organization  + or you could talk about 5 potential challenges to any repurposing of academic to public
6. 3 most imporatnt moments of your paper and why
7. quote from the primary research, the most important source i had
8. discuss how i used that quote academically; this is how the quote manifested itself in the context of my lit review
9. how would i have to talk about this differently in this diff context
10. include/exclude
11. x

3 requirements for intro

1. identifying with a field of study + articulating why that field of study would be interested in your topic, with reasons 
2. gap, motive for research question
3. the 3rd is just the research question itself; 2nd is the "gap," or the motive to ask the research question

sign in sheet

here

attention is still needed here...

notice the speculation, i.e., the future-oriented-ness, or, this is what we've attempted to do, and this is what we can speculate about given what we did do, plus where there are needs still to be met

ama

relief, conversation, motive to ask RQ, reasons for putting field of study into questions, consideration of other contexts

identifying with a field of study + articulating why that field of study would be interested in your topic, with reasons <--1st of out 3 requirements [the 3rd is just the research question itself; 2nd is the "gap," or the motive to ask the research question]

gap, motive for research question<--requirement 2 out of 3

4-19

Intro

3 things, still

2 paragraphs

more functional take on the discussion; 3 required things

1. some sense of (a) how other researchers come to a conclusion (what their conclusion is and how they got there), and then (b) not only what your conclusion is, but also how you arrived at that conclusion, with "because" statements for (a) and (b); how you reason with and against other available positions in the field 
2. how your conclusion is (in)consistent with the field of public health at large, how it "fits" or doesn't "fit in" and "where"
3. some sense of a context that would put your reasoning in question; something that at least complicated (b) the way that you arrived at your conclusion or (a) your conclusion itself, that is, so that the reader can get a sense that you acknowledge that your results is just one results among other various results, and that your results is limited to a context at one time and in one place

you cannot pass the class without...but we're collapsing the deliverable into the presentation, for efficiency's sake

final project, re-purposing

• public translation ; academic audience ; re-purpose ; e.g., executive summary 
• talk about your project 
• what major decisions you'd be making and why
• how'd you'd  
• different audience 
• audience's needs + expectations  <--
• document itself 
• sell it this way, for these reasons, and to this effect

objective = for you to rethink your entire project on the basis of a public and not an academic audience. your LR is for an academic audience. what audience would your research be most relevant to and why? what genre would you sell it to them and why? what would that pitch look like and why? on what basis would you try to persuade them and of what? and why? how would your imagined document's design be designed to have an effect, what effect, and why? what design decisions would you make, and how are those decisions synced up to your audience's needs and expectations?

order of whole paper; don't forget the helpful titles

1. introduction: ht
2. methods/search strategy 
3. result: ht
4. discussion
5. conclusion

IMRAD

a conclusion does two things

two paragraphs for the rough draft ; only one paragraph for the final product

• recommending paths for future research; disclose future-oriented; NOT a repeating of what already happened; cryptic conversion with another researcher; where it goes from here; instructions for where to go from here and why, what lines of thought you'd imagine another reserach might want to take up, what sources she might want to look closely at, what you didn't have time for but wish you did, a source you had to exclude but that might be good for another purpose, etc. reserach scraps that might be relevant for differnt projects 
• any kid of personal investment in the topic

example of an embedded RQ

4-17

4-17

4-17

4-17 discussion section = i agree with 8 but not 2...

4-17

important moves for the discussion

1. stable context ; conversational they say, these others say, status now, go from the general to the more specific possible using berridge 2016 interest, motive ; establish research territory general --> specific 
2. the status now is incomplete ; there's a gap ; there;s this thing that's happening for these reasons urgency ; establish CARS, urgency to reorganize what's in the background as being in the foreground ; i had this motive for seeing this gap
3. research question fills gap again for these reasons,  

articulate context but only context necessary for the research question err on the side of being too direct

there's this thing that's happening out there--teen suicides rates have risen [y]

x might contribute to y, or at least could exacerbate y

this LR expostulates that 

why someone might be interested in the topic <-------------->stable context 

motive to ask research question  <------------------------------->and gap

1st para- = 

interest, motive

general ,  they say, these others say, 

interest . smoking. and depression. and anxiety. this is what everybody agree on. status. berridge 2016. this is what everyone is talking about and why they have a reason for doing that

because of its

foreground as such

this is what's available to talk about

this is what's on offer to talk about

this graph talks about a, b, c, d, e, f<--

but e has been really neglected 

2nd=suicide gap. 

single out one of those as less exploited 

urgency

gap 

because 

context

bigger more general context [c]

contexts that problematize your RQ

example where someone appears to be introduced for the first time

example of a discussion section

Including your reasons, showing why you selected those reasons you selected vs. Others that could have possibly been selected

first person

hmmmm. something about the first person in APA

Clear = an active verbs that's taken some account of the papers visuality, how it will be read quickly

4-14

Always add multiple "becauses" as reasons in the context of the studies you leveraging as reasons

another example of what a discussion section looks like in the context of a student paper--the three required components

this one is an example where you clearly agree with the other 10 sources 

explanation of the three components of a discussion section in the context of a student paper

this one is more complicated. this one is an instance of not agreeing with all of the sources, but only agreeing with some of them

quote cloud

Page count= no loner than 8pg.

function of introduction

1. only the context necessary for your research question
2. only reliable sources, and probably only Berridge (2016)
3. context out of which your RQ emerges, back and fourth, some sort of discussion, "they say," "these other people say," etc. sense of the conversation and how the RG emerges out or or fits into the conversation 
4. gap
5. RQ that speaks to or tries to fill gap

objective of discussion section

3 required things

1. a clear, reasoned connection of your result with the other 10, that is, if you don't agree, and especially if you do agree
2. your result is consistent with field of PH, plus a sense of the field in the converstaional sense (they say, ... this review says, ... these other scholars say... ) some sort of sense of how it all fits together and where you fit into that
3. insertion of counterargument or meta-awareness of your reasoning's own limits

length

• extra language + exhaust reasoning = approx. 1-1.25 pages

person

no 1st or 2nd person anywhere
impersonal 3rd person ok

• this literature review...
• this review...

passives also occasionally ok, though not in the results section 

• it is stated that
• it is reasoned that

4-12

qualification

here is the qualification of the annotations 

the third of the criteria for the discussion section

gesture at the limits your your own reasoning and + show how your result is just one among a variety of competing results

you tube + screen recording

three things a discussion section needs

your discussion section, oddly, should 

• conclude. you should come to a conclusion and make an inference about what is suggested by all 10 of your studies taken together. then, you should
• verify that your conclusion is consistent with the already known.  this you will have to do with Berridge (2016). you will have to argue that your results factors in with and don't contradict what is going on in the field of public health in general. place your results into a broader context. last, you need to 
• provide some kind of relief, by which i mean, you will need to be able to articulate a competing positions and show both how and why it would be reasonable for a researcher to hold that position. but then you have to go on to say how, despite how persuasive that other position is, you ultimately have to go with your position, though for this reason. then give that reason. that is, you need a reason why someone would want to hold a competing position. but then you also obviously want a reason why someone would want to take your position instead. either a better reason, or another reason. either way, there need to be two chains of reasoning here--for and against. you can think about it as a counterargument if you want.

those are the three things a discussion section should do.

a conclusion does two things

• think of the conclusion section as a inverted pyramid in that it contains all of the information that's arguably least relevant to the topic, which might include your personal opinion and/or thoughts and feelings on the matter.

• you can also think of the conclusion as related to the methods/search strategy section. in the methods/search strategy section, the idea is to tabulate all of the information necessary such that another researcher could exactly duplicate your research process to find all of the exact same articles as you did in the exact same way. in this way, you're kind of indirectly communicating with another researcher. the same goes for the conclusion. there, you want to hand over any extra tidbits of information that might someone pick up your trail where you left off. the idea is you want to give another researcher a productive place to begin. that is, you want to specify a few good places to begin and detail why they are in fact good places to begin. you suggest directions for future research. 

4-10

conclusion vs discussion

mac, different first page

how to add a different first page on a mac

locate an in text citation only where and when it's contextually relevant

Don't compartmentalize paragraphs; they need purpose in themselves and together in a unit

Ideal ratio for a student is probably 2 citations per paragraph

4-7

notice how in this one you can consistently see the writers trying to determine what distinguishes the lonely from the lonely--TO DISTINGUISH is a research verb, active verb, etc., and trying to distinguish the lonely from the non-lonely is the organizing operation of the section--either way, the section is coherent

compare and contrast topoi--notice how BOTH paragraphs have a coherent purpose and flow together despite their being multiple studies

another example

research question bullet-ed out of the intro

both paragraphs together: the search strategy + road map + inclusion criteria

link to research verbs

use research verbs for the road map; that's how to get one of those really good sentences for each subsection i've been talking about, one that

• reviews what the section does in the context of that subsection, using the topoi as a way to make what was already implicit in your reseults section explicit 

methods section draft ; organizing operation = this paper compares, divides, defines, etc.

Remember that

• This methods section that's due this Friday is an opportunity for you to "write yourself into" the language that you want to use for later on. By that I simply mean, use it mostly as an opportunity for you to really push your thinking and try to produce those really good road map sentences like in the example, sentences that explain what organizing operation the section does, possibly in the form of a topoi. The best possible thing that could happen is that you figure out a clearer and more effective way of communicating what you were trying to communicate. The topoi will really help here.
• But this is a more informal exercise. Where it really counts will be in the final literature paper that's due on the 12th. 
• Be sure that this is in a separate document that's labeled appropriately on the blog.
• also remember that you're trying to re-think your search strategy--not the strategy of the other researchers whose articles you read. 
• the purpose of the methods section is to provide enough information so that another researcher could exactly replicate your search process to find all of your same articles in the same way that you did. 
• organizing operation = the research verbs and active verbs we were talking about. the methods section is supposed to be passive, and, although I used active, I didn't use I: I used "This literature review compares..." Either way, you can't use the first or second person ever. No "I." No "We." No "you."

format for the audio annotations

this is a link to another post that talks about the basic format for an audio annotation 

Not just what you plan to do, or what the section does, but how you assembled the sources and put them into conversation with one another

4-5

very helpful link

Just figured out how to get a different first page in APA. Remember, the title page has to be different than the rest of the paper. On the title page, it's

Running head: TITLE

Whereas, in the rest of the paper, it's merely

TITLE

Where that title is an abridged version of the longer title, which is on the title page.

road map + topoi

notice the topoi, which in this case is compare & contrast. the road map isn't an opportunity for you to merely repeat what's in the results section, but to think about what you did there anew and in a different way, say, in terms of

• space or proximity or juxtaposition 
• time or duration or narrative 
• magnitude or size or prevalence
• division or isolation or containment 
• paradox or anomaly or strangeness 
• appearance vs. reality
• more or less likely
• in terms of, as in: but if we think about (a) in terms of (b), or try to use (b) as a key to (a)
• context or setting or environment
• intention vs. context
• definition, redefinition, categorization 
• consequence or implication 
• example, plus what the example is an example of (general to specific)
• motivations or reasons why
• inference, conclusion, proposition

4-3

4-3

before and after

notice how I (a) write one very long sentence that's contextualized within the specific section it refers to; (b) explain what the section does in terms of its organization logic (i.e., compare and contrast); and then also (c) recapitulate the entire section, with the idea that a busy reader could get the picture of the entire thing without even having to go to the section if he or she needed to

but I do this in one long sentence. also notice the active verb. but what I did was put the subject as "this review." regardless, it's important to note that you can't use the first person at all (neither "I" nor "we"), and that it because the literature review wasn't written as a team, and the first person singular is disallowed by the genre

as a result, it's not as though you need two sentences, each that do different things. you only really need one good sentence that, in a way, makes the reading of the section necessary--and you need to do this for each subsection

4-3

abstract =

intro = only the context necessary for the paper to begin, plus what the research question is, not what the context is of public health in general or even the general context of your topic, but the context of your research question: so it ought to be extremely specific

methods = search strategy + road map (road map = [a] what each subsection plans to do or accomplishes + [b] how it relates to the other subsections and what decisions went into choosing to design in in that way (passive)

results = (active) results + evidence + methods + reasoning  [10 studies] isolation

discussion = emplacing the 10 articles into the Berridge (2016)

conclusion = this is where you determine whether to what extent and how your research question is answered (passive) + 10 results + yours = 11 results (so instead of drawing your conclusion on the basis of the 10 articles in isolation, your drawing them in the concext of the Berridge [2016])

Two things