inclusion criteria

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

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 

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

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

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

remember to break up your annotations + methods section addendum

Drake Gossi

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

two important moves

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.