numbering format for the paper as a whole

for claire. but for anyone else, really

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

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

Beginning of paper

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

flush numbers; don't bullet numbers

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

What if all my results say the same thing?

then emphasize the relation between method and results, or the context of the study itself--basically, the setting in which the research took place, and how the researcher arrived at the results

notes from 3/6

Here's the notes from class 3/6.

the difference between a results and a discussion section

3/1

Direct vs. Indirect relevance

Research vs. Policy/practice

For this question, as you can see, you might get hung up on whether to look primarily to research literature, or whether to look to policy or practice literature. If you are primary interested in whether something is true or grounded in a methodological reading of data, then you want research. If you are interested in whether something is right, ethical, or applicable in this context, then you want policy or practice.

subject terms/keywords

There was a question today about how to effectively use subject terms/keywords. I made a video about this a week or so ago. You can watch the video here. Also, I added the category under labels, "subject terms/key words." So you can search for it that way too.

html code for audio

<audio controls>
<source src="Your-Copied-Google-Site-URL-Here" />
If you cannot see the audio controls, your browser does not support the audio element
</audio>

the types of literature google doc

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N4rW27eHs879eFdlT8dUjSB0TKtHEbat9bPQxRs15WQ/edit?usp=sharing

here

What if a journal is online?

I found this. This should answer the question: What do I do with an online peer-reviewed journal in APA? How do I cite that?