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

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

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. 

conclusion vs discussion

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])

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

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.