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])

research verbs

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

assessing a result 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

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. 

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.

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

Example of a good, realistic distribution of transition words in published public health prose

active verbs

the difference between a results and a discussion section

Example of what not to do

What if my papers don't have a method section?

Perfect example paragraph p. 152

how to add word documents via google drive and hyperlinks

going over the APA model and the numbering

new, authoritative model for the results section

Click here for the model to follow. I'll discuss this one briefly in class on 3/1. While both in APA, I think this version is a little more intuitive to follow as a model because of the numbering. I'm not saying the one discussed on 2/27 is better or worse. It's just that the other one, this one, follows a consistent numbering patterning--in other words, the introduction = 1, the methods will then be 1.1, while the results section will start on 2. And then you can do each of your theme groups 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and so on. The discussion section will be 3, the conclusion 4, and then "references." Remember, "work cited" is MLA. In APA, it's "references."

Like I said, I chose this version to obviate the quandary as to whether to number the whole thing. Now you know. You have to number the whole thing. And the results section will be converted into a series of thematically grouped numbers: