Diplomatic History Research Seminar

SPECIAL ASSIGNMENTS

 

Special Assignment #1:

 Research Prospectus and Peer Review

  • Email a copy – as  a Microsoft Word attachment – to me and to all your classmates by 4pm on Monday, 5/25.

 

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. 

 

  • In class, each of you will spend 5 minutes summarizing your research topic and progress to date. 
  • You will also act as Peer Review Discussant for one of your peers.  After each presentation, the Peer Review Discussant will comment for 5 minutes.  As discussant, please address the viability of the proposed topic, make suggestions for improving the research, and raise questions for the author to consider.  Please also provide the author (and me) with written comments that address these points.
  • Prior to coming to class, please read the prospectuses of each of your classmates.  After each presentation and peer review, we will then open up the discussion to the entire class. 

 

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

  • Email a copy – as  a Microsoft Word attachment – to me and to all your classmates by 4pm on Monday, 6/8.

 

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:

  1. Provide helpful written comments to your colleague that will improve the overall thesis of the paper as well as the specific writing of the introduction itself
  2. Initiate discussion in class of your peer’s introduction, by providing a short (5 minute) commentary that both identifies the strengths of the introduction and offers suggestions for improving.

 

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 Gulf of Tonkin incident.  You would want to begin with a “hook” that identifies the incident as a significant event in the history of the Vietnam War, and include a sentence or two that reminds readers what happened (alleged attacks on U.S. ships used to justify escalation of war in Vietnam), but you don’t want to go into all the details here (the specific circumstances surrounding the attacks, etc.).  That you will do later, if necessary.  Here you are setting the stage and specifying your argument.  Generally, the background narrative will appear after the introduction identifies the main thesis of your paper.

 

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 Vietnam in such and such a way, and some other historians explain it another way, but I explain it this way.” 

 

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 United States dispatched troops to Lebanon in 1958…”  Instead, say “In this essay I argue that Eisenhower dispatched US troops to Lebanon because he held a Middle Eastern version of the domino theory, which suggested that once one Arab government fell to nationalist revolution, others would soon follow.”  Then explain exactly why it is you think so.  In the body of your paper, you will present the evidence to prove this thesis. But for now, you need to let your readers know what you are going to prove, and why. 

 

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 Korea, in fact Truman’s personal dislike of MacArthur was the greatest factor.”

 

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

  • Hard copies of rough drafts should be turned in to my mailbox in the History Department by 4pm on Wednesday, 7/1.
  • An electronic version should be emailed to your assigned peer reviewer by 4pm on Friday.

 

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):

  • You will present your research findings in a formal presentation that is no longer than 10 minutes.  Please prepare and practice. You will be cut off at 10 minutes.
  • In addition to presenting your own research findings, you will also be asked to act as a peer reviewer for another student’s paper.  As peer reviewer, you will not only make detailed, written comments on your classmate’s work, you will also present a short (5-7 minute) critique of the paper to the class.  You will be cut off at 7 minutes.

 

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 Course Home Page

Return to Kenneth Osgood’s Home Page