Diplomatic History
Research Seminar
SPECIAL ASSIGNMENTS
Special Assignment #1:
Research Prospectus and Peer Review
For this assignment, you
need to write a short research
prospectus (proposal) and participate in peer review.
Write a short proposal
for your research topic (max. 2 pages, plus bibliography). Identify what subject you are
researching, what sources you are using, and what ideas you are exploring. The prospectus should be double-spaced,
but you may single-space your bibliography.
The prospectus should
contain the following:
Working
Title. This should describe as precisely and
specifically as possible the topic of your paper. If it is constrained chronologically
that should be indicated as well.
Summary
of Topic:
Here
you should provide a one-paragraph summary of your particular topic: it should identify
the specific problem you are examining and testify to its significance.
Discussion
of Topic:
Here
is where you address the “so what?” question. Why is this study worthy of
investigation? What are you doing
that is unique, original, and significant?
How does it differ from other work that has been done? You may articulate a working hypothesis
or provisional thesis, or you might specify what kinds of questions you are
going to ask. In short, you say what you know you are going to look into, why
it matters, and what questions remain.
Although I don’t expect this to be the final word on your topic, I
do expect you to be very specific in identifying your research focus.
Working
Bibliography:
This
identifies relevant primary and secondary sources, and accordingly should be
broken into two sections. The first
section should be headed “primary sources,” and should state in
very specific terms the primary sources you will consult. You do not need to list individual
documents, but you should indicate very precisely the kinds of documents you
are using and where you are getting them from. You should provide some indication of
the quantity of sources available,
such as by listing page numbers or document numbers for published collections
of sources. The second section
should be headed “secondary sources.” It should identify secondary
sources that you will consult. It
should be formatted appropriately, according to the Chicago Manual of Style.
Special Assignment #2:
Draft Introduction, Outline and Peer
Review
For this assignment you
must write a complete introduction
for your research paper (the
beginning to your rough draft) and submit a 1-page outline for the paper as a whole. You also must participate in a peer review assignment. Introductions should be double-spaced, but
outlines may be single-spaced.
The introduction of your
research paper is arguably the most important part. In the introduction, you tell your
reader what your paper argues and why it is important. You also direct your reader’s
attention to what s/he should be looking for as s/he reads the paper. It is thus incredibly important, and you
should work very hard on making your introduction a solid piece of writing. You should work harder on your intro
than on anything else.
But of course to write a
good introduction, you have to know what you are arguing – you have to
know your thesis. Thus by the time
this assignment comes due, you should have developed a clear idea of your
thesis. It will probably not be the
last word on your thesis – undoubtedly you will revise it based on my
comments and those of your peers, as well as your own rethinking of your
ideas. But you need to have an idea
of where you would like to go.
For this particular
assignment, you must email your draft introduction to me and your classmates by
4 pm on Monday, June 8. Before class on Wednesday, you should
read the all the introductions written by your classmates, and come prepared to
discuss them.
You will also act as Peer
Reviewer for one of the
introductions. As peer reviewer,
your job is twofold:
General Principles of
Introductions:
Many
historians have different ideas of what a good introduction should do, or what
it should contain, but here is how I envision a solid introduction.
Length:
Length will vary, but you want to strike a balance between an
introduction that is too short and does not explain its argument fully, and an
introduction which is too long, dwarfed by unnecessary background information,
or redundant. As a general rule
only, I would recommend thinking of your intro as being 3-4 pages. (It will be very helpful for you to
browse the articles in Diplomatic History
or the Journal of American History to
search for models to emulate as you write your introduction.) Think of the following as a guide:
1. Introductory “hook” and
summary of your thesis.
Usually
it is a good idea to begin your paper with an illustrative anecdote, or
compelling introductory concept.
Perhaps recount a speech, describe a picture/cartoon/advertisement,
highlight an incident, etc. THEN,
use that illustration to introduce your topic. E.g. “This ___ illustrates the
broader problem of ____.” And
conclude this first paragraph with a short one-sentence version of your thesis.
You
do not usually want to go into a lengthy summary of all the background
information here. You certainly
want to give the reader enough to go on so that they identify the basic issue. But
you don’t want to retell the entire history here. For example, if you are writing on the
2. Discussion of “the problem”
and “methodology”:
Here
is where you go into detail on what issue your paper will explore, and where
others who have written about it stand.
You explain how other historians have interpreted this issue, and
suggest how your explanation differs.
E.g. “David Halberstam explains Johnson’s decision to
escalate the war in
You
may also clarify the precise scope of your essay by identifying the
methodology, chronology, etc. that informed your research. So, for example, if you chose to write
an essay on how the American press responded to news of the Soviet atomic bomb,
you might explain such things as: (1) that you are focusing on press reactions
to this event, not on other questions like how they developed an A-bomb; (2)
that you have used such and such newspapers, and list them, and state why they
are revealing. For another example,
if you are writing on Eisenhower’s views on nuclear weapons during 1953-1954,
you would defend your decision to focus only on this one year (e.g. “I am
looking at Eisenhower’s view on nuclear weapons from 1953-1954, because
during the crucial first year of his presidency he established important
precedents that would come influence his policies throughout his
presidency.”)
3. Elaboration of thesis, or “thesis
paragraph”:
Here
you explain in full the main principles of your argument. You want to lay everything out as
comprehensively as you can. Do not leave your readers in suspense! For example, do not say, “In this
paper I will discuss why the
4. Discussion of literature and importance
of topic:
Most
introductions to scholarly articles address what has been written by other
scholars, and speak to the significance of the current study. Thus, an important part of your
introduction addresses historiography: What body of scholarly work are you
speaking to, revising, challenging, or updating? In addition to a discussion of key works
– articles and books – this section typically has meaty footnotes
that document existing literature and supplement the discussion in the text. The length of this section varies
considerably depending on the topic as well as on how much an author relies on
footnotes to address historiographical issues. Typically, the historiographical
review continues for about 2-3 pages.
Miscellaneous
Notes:
A
note on using “First Person”:
You may use first person in writing such an introduction, but it is
often preferable to try and do without it if you can manage. E.g. Instead of saying “I argue
__.” Say, “This essay
argues ____.” Or, better yet,
state your argument directly: “Although most historians think Truman
fired MacArthur because of the ludicrous military strategies he advocated in
A
note on defining “essay structure”: Sometimes it is desirable to divide your
essay into sections and to let your reader know what to expect. For example, “In the first part of
my essay, I focus on the background of the Emmett Till murder … In part 2 I focus on the
trial … And in part 3 I focus on how the
national news media responded to the event…” This can be useful because it tells your
readers what to expect as they plow through your 25 page masterpiece. It lets readers know what you will and will
not talk about, and it helps provide guidance to your organization. However, you should not use such an
explanation as a substitute for your thesis! You must still elaborate and say exactly
what your essay argues in the pages that are forthcoming. Again, do not lead your readers in
suspense! Show them the money right
up front.
Special Assignment #3:
Rough Draft, Presentations, and Peer
Review
For this assignment, you
must submit a complete rough draft. During the next class meeting, you also
must make an oral presentation of
your research and participate in peer
review of rough drafts.
Your rough draft should comprise a complete first draft of
the paper – with introduction, long body of evidence and argument,
citations, and a conclusion.
Naturally, it need not be polished perfectly, but it must be complete; the better and more complete the draft, the
better the comments you will receive.
In Class the following
week(s):
For your presentation, you should do
the following:
1)
Prepare
a clear and logically organized oral presentation of your research
findings. In preparing what to present,
you should include the following:
a.
Brief
description of your topic;
b.
Identify
and explain the thesis that you argue in your paper;
c.
Include
a few illustrative examples (quotes, etc.) of the evidence you used to prove
your thesis.
d.
Note:
You may not have time to summarize all aspects of your argument, so
“pick and choose” the main ideas you are going to emphasize.
2)
Prepare
a short (one page) handout to accompany your presentation, containing:
a.
Title
b.
Thesis
c.
Outline
of presentation or select exerts from supporting evidence
As peer reviewer, you
should do the following:
(1)
Read carefully
the rough draft of one student in the class (to be assigned).
(2)
Make detailed
written comments on the draft itself.
These comments should fall into the following three categories, in order
of significance:
a.
“Global
Revisions”: Make comments for
how the overall paper should be improved – its organization, design,
argument, and use of evidence. This
is the most important part, as here you will be guiding your peer to make
changes that fundamentally improve the overall quality of the
paper.
b.
“Paragraph
Level Revisions”: If
applicable, make suggestions that point to improvements the author could make
in organizing and writing subsections of the paper. (e.g. “Clarify this
section here” or “Explain background information earlier” or “This
section needs to clarify the relationship between x and y” or “strengthen
your argument here” or “provide more supporting detail here” …
etc)
c.
“Sentence
Level Revisions”: Make
suggestions for improving wording, phraseology, grammar, and sentence-level
clarify.
Your
greatest effort should be dedicated to “global revisions,” rather
than sentence-level editing. (There
is no point in editing sentences, for example, if the overall argument needs to
be revised or reworked.)
(3)
Prepare a
brief presentation (5-7 minutes) that comments on the overall paper. This oral presentation should contain
the following elements:
a.
Articulate what
you think is the overall argument of the paper, in your own words.
b.
Identify the
main strengths of the paper.
c.
Comment on
the most important things the author should work on when turning the draft into
a final paper. (e.g. “Here
are some ideas to consider”, or “Here are some suggestions for
improvement”).
d.
Do not make
sentence-level suggestions in your presentation; instead, address big
conceptual, organizational, and content-related issues.
(1)
In both your
written and oral commentary, your suggestions for improvement should be phrased
positively, as constructive criticism and helpful suggestions. Be polite and encouraging, but don’t
soft-pedal your critique. Please keep in mind as well that your job is to help
your peer write a better paper – thus, you do your fellow student a
disservice if you merely say the paper is “good” and needs no
changes, or if you suggest merely superficial/cosmetic changes. You need to
grapple seriously and critically with the work of your colleague. Naturally, you
should do so in a friendly and constructive tone. In other words, provide the kind of
feedback you would like to receive on your own work.
Return to Kenneth Osgood’s Home Page