Research Review

WRIT 340: Natural Sciences Dr. Muniz

WRITING PROJECT TWO: WRITING THE RESEARCH REVIEW

OVERVIEW:

We will work on a research review of multiple documents on the same issue, phenomenon, or event from science-related publications. Chapter Seven of Writing Science will be very important to your understanding of this assignment and carrying it out successfully. My aim in this assignment is to increase your attentiveness to both the overt and the subtle differences among documents concerning the “same” event, issue, or phenomenon, as produced in different writing situations. Whether as a producer or consumer, you need to be aware of these differences in building your own informed perspectives on the issues, as well as in creating documents for different types of readers. With that in mind, we will be developing aspects of a project that will be based on your investigation of books, articles, and other pertinent resources in an area of scientific inquiry of interest to you. Your investigation will lead you to an understanding of the current state of knowledge and theory in this area of scientific inquiry. You will choose the subject of the investigation, with my approval. In class, we will discuss methods, materials, and presentation of the projects. Chapter 7 of WS will be important in helping you develop the research review and evaluate the materials you will be studying. Aspects of the project include the project research proposal, peer review, and the full report of the research. PURPOSE:

I intend this project to provide guided practice in designing and revising a review of scientific literature, one of the most common genres in scientific research. Not original research in itself, the research review is an integral part of the reports of original research. It is also a recognized genre of the scientific research enterprise, as it brings scientists up to date on the current state of knowledge in an area of inquiry. The project will also give you guided practice in collaborative research and writing through the peer review process. Learning to collaborate is essential to research. AUDIENCE: Although the actual readers in this context will be your beloved professor and the rest of the class, you should imagine as your principal readers other scientists with a deep interest in the area of inquiry you choose—in other words, people who would regularly read the “peer-reviewed” journals that you will be reading for this project. For example, if the journals you are reading for this project expect readers to know certain acronyms or equations, you may also expect your imagined reader to know them.

WRIT 340: Natural Sciences Dr. Muniz

Note: A number of STEM students from past semesters have used this assignment as their ‘writing sample’ when applying to graduate programs in their field so you might also include future graduate school admissions committees as part of your audience, if applicable. TOPIC: The review of literature is a key feature in many scholarly essays. It is also a great way of making sense of a topic you are interested in. The goal of this project is that it will lead you to an argument or provide new insights into an argument you are developing. By understanding the context of the arguments already made by other scholars, you are much more likely to develop a nuanced and interesting take on the topic. It may also inspire you to go in a direction you never thought of or anticipated! Developing a topic will be your first task and one that I am giving you free reign to develop. While the class is a STEM-themed course, I understand that a number of you are not from a traditional science major and am open to discussing topics that might traditionally fall outside of the range of what might be considered appropriate for this assignment. With that said, your research should include documents from the following three categories, no matter your topic: One of the three documents you choose must be an article from:

a. a national general interest online/print news source (such as The Washington Post, New York Times, etc.) -or-

b. a print or online science-related periodical such as Wired, Scientific American, Popular Mechanics, Discover, or The Smithsonian.

The audience for such publications is usually not specialized in the subject matter of the article.

The second of your documents must be from a special-interest website or blog meant for specialists in the subject of the research; for example, a technical report written for scholars or fellow scientists/specialists in an agency, lab, university, or professional society. The third document must be an article on the topic from a peer-reviewed science journal. You are free to choose your sources beyond these initial three. There is no maximum number of sources you can include but should aim for at least a minimum of six sources in order to have a fully developed review.

FORMAT:

IT

WRIT 340: Natural Sciences Dr. Muniz

The research review itself will consist of the following components, appropriately headed in the text and presented in the following order: (1) an abstract of the review (roughly 200 words) (HINT: the abstract is usually written after the report is complete); following the abstract, add a few keywords, as if the review were going to be indexed in a research journal (see Chapter 5 of WS, Section III, on writing abstracts) (2) an introduction to the subject of the inquiry, including some history of interest in the topic and why people are so interested in it now (in other words, why should scientists pay attention to this inquiry?) (3) the major changes in theory related to this inquiry and a summary of the research that have brought about these changes (4) a description of the most important research that has led to the present state of theory related to the inquiry (5) your conclusion: the current state of theory related to this inquiry and some of the important questions that remain. (6) a “Works Cited” page in either APA, CSE, MLA style. Length: The entire revised, carefully edited version of the Research Review should include roughly 2000-2500 words. Feel free to adjust the length based on the specifications of your field or intended publication. PROCESS: Once you have decided on a topic and gathered the requisite documents, we will turn to developing questions to ask about your documents by which to do a well-informed comparison. Key areas of comparison will be addressed in the proposal and peer review process (as outlined below). If this sounds like a lot, don’t worry, I am here to guide you step-by-step through the process. To help us develop a compelling framework, here are the three components we will be working on and turning in along the way: 1. THE PROPOSAL: Your process for doing this assignment will begin with my approval of your proposal of the topic and a preliminary selection of at least four pieces you wish to compare. The proposal must include:

(1) A brief description of the topic your documents concern and why you think this topic is suitable for this project (no more than 150 words)

o_

WRIT 340: Natural Sciences Dr. Muniz

(2) For each of the pieces, the title of the piece, the name of the publication and/or the URL of the websource; date, author (if given), number of words, and where you located the piece (for example, in a journal, on a specific website, or in a database).

(3) Why each of these pieces suits this assignment (no more than 50 words per article) Your proposal will be reviewed by both myself and your peers.

2. THE RESEARCH REVIEW: Once your topic is approved, you will complete the research review proper. We will look at a variety of models and structures but should follow the general guidelines as outlined in Chapter 7 of our Writing Science textbook. 3. THE CHANGE MEMO: Your revised draft will be followed by a one-page “change” memo that describes and justifies the changes in the final version you submit. The change memo you’ll include with your final draft should be no longer than one page and should account for the changes you’ve made in your draft—and why you’ve made them. For example, if your peer reviewers have suggested particular changes and you’ve followed their advice, describe what you’ve done. Conversely, if your peer reviewers have suggested a change and you decided not to follow their advice, say why. One purpose of the change memo is to increase your awareness of your process of revision and your process of editing. It should help your decision-making process moving forward.

DOCUMENTATION STYLE: I recommend MLA, American Psychological Association (APA) style or any style that you are most familiar with. Whatever style you choose, please apply that style consistently. This style should be used both for “in-text” citations and for your list of sources at the end of the analysis.

FINAL DRAFT DUE VIA BLACKBOARD/TURNITIN: MONDAY, MARCH 1

Too