Diplomatic History
Research Seminar
SPECIAL ASSIGNMENTS
Special Assignment #1: Research
Prospectus and Peer Review Discussant of Prospectus
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 or
your paper’s focus, I do expect you to be very specific in identifying
your research focus and problems.
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. 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 & Peer Review Discussant of Introduction, and Class Discussion
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 me your draft introduction by 4 pm on Friday, March
24. I will then circulate all the
introductions to the class via email. Before class on Tuesday, you should read
the introductions written by your classmates, and come prepared to discuss
them.
You will also act as Peer
Review Discussant 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, or dwarfed by unnecessary background
information, or redundant. As a
general rule only, I would recommend thinking of your intro as being 2-4
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 an
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 the existing issue is, and where others who
have written on it stand. You
explain how other historians have interpreted this issue, and suggest how your
explanation differs. E.g.
“David Halberstam explains Truman’s
firing of MacArthur in such and such a way, and some
other historians explain it another way, but I explain it this way.”
You
may also hear 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 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. Or, if you are writing
on Eisenhower’s views on nuclear weapons during the 1953-1954, you would
identify and 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 Truman fired MacArthur…” Instead, say “In this essay I argue
that Truman fired MacArthur because of
___.” 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 relevant body
of work are you speaking to, revising, challenging, updating, etc. 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 ranges from 1-2 paragraphs to 3-4 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 twenty page masterpiece. It lets readers know what you and do 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, & Peer Review Discussants
Your rough draft should resemble a final version of the
paper – with introduction, long body of evidence and argument, citations,
and a conclusion. Naturally, it
need not be polished, but it must be complete; the better and more complete the
draft, the better the comments you will receive.
In Class:
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
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.
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.
State what
you think the overall argument of the paper, and identify the main strengths as
you see them.
b.
Comment on
the most important things the author should work on when turning the draft into
a final paper. (Here are some ideas
to consider, or suggestions for improvement).
(4)
In both your
written and oral commentary, your suggestions for improvement should be phrased
positively, as constructive criticism and helpful suggestions. 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.
Return to Kenneth Osgood’s Home Page