Hi, please let me know which time you want for an optional conference.
Nor has the 2 PM slot. The following are free. Reply on comments so we know which ones are taken as sign-ups occur. Thanks!
2:30
3:00
3:30
4:00
Please look at the National Council for Undergraduate Research Conference website for information about the Conference and deadline for Abstracts. This is a terrific opportunity to share your work with students from across the country.
FYI–in case anyone is inclined toward end time fascination, here’s the link to the film festival I mentioned:
http://doomsdayfilmfest.com/
If anyone wants to meet at 4:30, it is an open slot. Stan, please send me your proposal and come in for an appointment tomorrow if possible. If you want the 4:30 time, please indicate it.
Noia,
What you wrote on your peer evaluation form for the first comment works well as your claim: “Both psychoanalysis and Deconstruction appeal to the recognition of Otherness as the basis of their ethical goals.” Your proposal draft, however, is still too much in the middle of an argument that you are going to make about certain writings of your three key theorists, Freud, Levinas, and Derrida. For your revision, turn more to the process you will undertake to investigate the issue at hand, indicating your supporting reasons for this working hypothesis about the role of the Other for all three thinkers, the approach you will take to isolate the function of alterity in each (as a reader/thinker), and the arguments that go against your claim. Be as clear and precise as possible in organizing this as a proposal for research.
To some extent, your research is geared toward gaining an understanding about the ethical impulse of all three theorists and theories. Since there are many works on their writings, much of what you will be doing is indicating basic categories of thought for each one, with a specific concern on the ethical dimension of Otherness for each one. You will also indicate your agreement or disagreement with certain critics on what the theorists are saying. The struggle I imagine you to be having is what you can add to this great and lively debate. If you know at this point, then say so. I may be missing it. But I am also not worried at this stage of the project about whether you are adding something entirely new or refining certain insights. It does seem that using the Encounter by way of Levinas is promising for the study of Freud and Derrida and for showing their theories to be more compatible than some have said.
Emmanuel,
Using the model of “I propose. . .” that I wrote about in the Proposals blog, revise your opening statement to indicate that you propose to examine the relationships between a character’s moral value and the construction of that character and values as it is carried forward through such cinematic elements as casting, shot composition, etc. After that, you can use your existing prose to point out the supporting reasons for your working hypothesis that these elements guide viewers’ responses.
The methods question is one I want you to keep working on. Do so by looking at some of the sources you will draw on to see how they have gathered their evidence to support their conclusions. Try to figure out from there what their method of research is. You could also look at some basic textbooks on cinematography for methods of analysis. The key here is to figure how what the cinematic elements tell you—that is, how one interprets certain lighting techniques, camera cuts, etc. Do they always mean the same thing, regardless of viewer and context? Might there be an interaction between these elements and the viewer’s class, gender, race? These are some of the questions that I think would be useful for you to think about at the proposal stage (even if you only have the questions at this point).
Nor,
At times, your proposal moves from a general focus to a set of claims that should come at a later point. In the first instance, you are indicating that you will examine Pakistan’s policies that have a direct affect on Afghanistan. In the second, you have indicated that these practices (perhaps distinct from policies per se) have jeopardized efforts to stabilize Afghanistan. I suggest you explore more fully the first instance before researching only that which comes under the second. That way, you will be able to make a stronger case for your claim about the catastrophic consequences of Pakistan’s policies and practices. It would be useful for you to make this distinction between official policy and actual practice as well.
For your final proposal, revise the first part with these issues in mind and then add more explicit discussion about the way your methods of research will take place in regard to your specific topic. It is a good idea to do what you did by looking up Political Science Research Methods—but now apply them more specifically to your topic and your proposal will be ready to post.
Talia,
Your first sentence follows the “I propose” model that I recommend (below in the earlier post). Make it even clearer immediately by going directly to your supporting reasons for examining the “ideological birth of military conscription,” which you have stated in your first paragraph, to fill out the basic proposal of research. The component most missing in your draft is an acknowledgment of views that would oppose your working assumptions. The discussion of methods that you will use to conduct this research and gather the data that you need should also be developed more fully in the ways I described in my post to Larry. This kind of discussion is not quite the same thing as saying what you will read (like history books) but, rather, indicating that you will use historical methods to ascertain what has happened over the past 60 years—and saying what that means.
Janet,
Once you have read my two posts about Proposals and Methods, I think you will see what needs to be done with your first draft. Rather than focusing your topic, you actually over-narrowed it by discussing only the part about student adjustment and/or mistreatment in the U.S. Your earlier paper indicated much more on the other elements that are part of this process of young people leaving South Korea for the United States for education and the problems that ensue. So when you rewrite your proposal using all of the elements I mention, it will be necessary for you to clarify your research on demographic data and certain economic and educational trends in South Korea as well. As I understand it, you will have a section that deals with emotional and economic life in the U.S., but please keep that in perspective as you provide the cultural context for this phenomenon.
Patrick, please read the 2 posts I have written to the group: the one to Larry and class on method and the one how to propose your main focus (posted Oct. 1). Overall, your proposal only needs minor refinement. It is clear in its stated focus and rationale for why the study is warranted, especially in terms of the spatial analysis that you offer as a corrective to previous studies of jazz. I would like to see you state your own method of research more explicitly. Although you have cited a number of articles and books, these will be more appropriate for your annotated bibliography (though with more description on each). This is not the same as indicating the method, however. You come closer in your note about Bourdieu’s Marxist approach. But what is not yet clear is what method you are using for spatial analysis. Here David Harvey and other postmodern geographers will be useful. Also Setha Lowe in terms of urban spaces.
