Research Lab #2 post-game and reminders for the weekend

Thanks for your attentiveness yesterday. I know it's a dry subject, albeit an important one.

If you missed class, you missed a lot, but this video on popular vs. scholarly sources and this website on primary vs. secondary sources will cover some of it.

And then Aaron's 302H research project got _really_ wild.

Homework: Find 5 good research sources that really fit your topic. This might mean browsing through a lot of other ones first. Don't forget the "forward" and "backward" methods of bibliography surfing I showed you, and also recycling/rearranging keywords found at the bottom of database search hits. You need to have these available for Monday's class, so make a Google Doc, or email them to yourself, or put them on a flash drive, or post them to the course blog, or whatever.

Homework: They Say I Say doesn't cover research, so I am giving you two additional chapters from another book. Read both of them: part 1, part 2.

Other Useful Research Links:
-Main GMU library site
-Databases by discipline/subject
-When you find the articles you want, put the title of the journal here to look for an online copy.
-Google Scholar

Reminder: Don't forget to look at the topic and question brainstorms your classmates generated on Monday & Tuesday. There are a lot of good ideas in there. Just click on the comments to the next post, and they're all posted there.

Reminder: You have all been shared to a Google Doc called "302-grades-nonames." Make sure you can open it, and double check your essay #1 grade. I made at least one transcription error.

Clarification: Because I stressed that the research paper needs to have a true thesis and argument instead of just being a 'book report' compiling information from sources, some of you have expressed concern to me about the need for originality. The truth is that originality, and original research in particular, are very rare things in this world. Synthesizing, summarizing, reframing, applying, extending, translating something from one context to another... those are all "value-added" research activities, and important ones that make up the bulk of scholarship. Bolts of pure genius striking down from the sky are comparatively rare. That's why I gave you the they-say-I-say model... all you need to do is capture the current nature of a disciplinary conversation about a topic, and nudge it forward the slightest little bit. You don't have to invent the McNugget. One model thesis would be: Some people say X about this topic, and some people say Y, and some people say Z. I am inclined to favor... because... Or perhaps: Some people say X about this topic and some people say Y, but I think both of them are asking the wrong question. What about Z, which other people are saying about a related topic?

Keeping a Promise: I said I would write a summary post to the exercise I gave you guys a couple of weeks back about disciplinary differences in writing tasks and rules. This is becoming all the more salient since you are now going to be writing somewhat different research papers pursuing various disciplinary and interdisciplinary topics. So here's what I found interesting.

-Language rules. Different grammatical and syntactical patterns in English vs. other languages.
-Use of technical terms. This is partly an issue of mastery, but also an issue of audience. Many of you have to switch between technical and non-technical audiences, which can be difficult.
-Detail vs. concision. Many of those entering professional fields expressed this dilemma. It can be hard to find a balance, and you don't deal with this as much in school essays.
-Control of emotional tone. Especially in customer-oriented professions. Someone mentioned the utility of "yes, but" as a rhetorical tactic. 
-English majors getting a rude awakening that most of the writing they have to do is analytical rather than creative. (Read the label, ha ha.)
-Reviews of current exhibits/productions. A review is actually somewhat different than an analysis, since it usually contains a judgment of value. You'll notice this is different than the writing I've had you do.
-People in the PR end of the communications field talked about the idea of tailoring for multiple publics, and the importance of persuasion. Persuasion is another task we're not really taking on this semester. It's somewhat different than being convincing about an argument.
-Many of you mentioned the importance of context for various writing tasks. Simon/Burns have hopefully offered an importance lesson about that.
-Evolution of language due to texting, email, etc. How to do this well, but also respect the more formal types of writing. How to switch back and forth.
-In the sciences, the importance of attending to research methodology. I try to put some focus on this area.
-Differing standards by field about the need for 'originality,' and what originality actually means.