As indicated in the 2017-18 schedule, some preparation is required for certain colloquia. More detailed instructions for these assignments can be found below. All assignments, unless due on the day of a colloquium, should be emailed to the Arnhold Graduate Fellow at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Due Friday, January 26: “Choosing and Developing a Research Question”
Identify – and bring with you to our meeting – a selection of key scene(s), moment(s), or passage(s) from a text or texts that engages you emotionally, intellectually, critically, or some combination of the three.
– Think about why you chose these texts by identifying a couple key scenes or moments in each text that you are drawn to (these would be moments that you likely feel compelled to close read and analyze in detail)
– What is it about these moments that intrigues or interests you? Do they present a particular problem or concern? Do they resist clear interpretation, and if so, why do you think this is? Does the form of the text provide any insight as to why these moments are so compelling?
– Do you notice any patterns in your observations about these scenes? Are they linked by a common thread, and if so, what might this commonality be?
– From here, you may begin to shape a series of guiding research questions focused around these primary texts, their shared themes/ideas, and your own interests. For help shaping these questions, see the following handout: “Choosing and Developing a Research Question handout“
Due Friday, February 9: “Close Reading: Narrowing Primary Texts”
– All research – no matter the depth and scope of the project – begins with the act of close reading. Reading closely means developing a deep understanding and precise interpretation of a literary passage that is based first and foremost on the words themselves. But a close reading does not stop there; rather, it embraces larger themes and ideas evoked and/or implied by the passage itself.
– In the past, students have found the following handout helpful in serving as a guide for organizing their thoughts and focus during the close reading process: “How To Do a Close Reading.”
Due Friday, February 15: “Research Perspectives, Approaches, and Methodologies”
– Develop a list of 5-7 key terms that embody your current research interests. These terms should reflect the “bigger picture” of your project and the research fields that you potentially will be working in. One way to approach this is to consider what terms you would have to use if you were to explain your research interests to another Arnhold Fellow.
Due Friday, March 2: “Building a Research Proposal”
– Initial research question(s) and bibliography. This should be your overarching question that will guide your research, but it should also begin to narrow down your focus to include the particular texts, contexts, and analytical tools and terminology that are most important to your project. The bibliography should still focus on establishing your primary texts, but it is also good to begin to think about what theoretical or secondary texts might help you situate your research in a particular field.
- Due Friday, March 16: “The Research Paper Proposal and Bibliography”
– This 350-500 word proposal* should state the following:
– General topic and research area
– Potential primary texts
– Potential secondary sources (if you have specific ones you know you will be using or are crucial to your argument; however, it is ok if you are still determining these)
– The basic parameters of your project (i.e. a specific genre or media form, the historical time frame).
– The driving question(s) your research paper will be addressing (note, there needn’t be an argument/thesis yet)
– Significance or stakes: why are these research questions important or meaningful to your understanding of the text(s)? What new insight or interpretations will they potentially offer about your text(s)?
– Also feel free to mention any concerns you have either in the proposal or in a separate document- this way I will know what to think about for our meeting.
– Your bibliography should include 12-15 primary and secondary sources and reflect the further research and insights you have made since you first developed your initial research question and bibliography.
*Please make sure that you define/gloss any relevant terms: assume that your proposal is being read by someone out of your field. Try to be as specific and concrete as possible. There are several examples of past Arnhold Fellows’ proposals on the Resources page.
- Due Friday, March 23rd**: “Attend and Review an Academic Research Talk or Presentation”
– Attend an academic research talk or presentation sometime during Winter Quarter. This can be any formal talk or research presentation in English or any other department that is related to your interests.
– Write a 3-5 page review of the talk that summarizes the research presented, analyzes how the speaker presented their argument, and discusses what response and questions the audience asked.
- Questions to Answer in Your Review:
- How did the speaker structure their talk?
- What was the speaker’s methodology?
- What was their overarching argument (or results)? Did you find the argument convincing? Why or why not?
- What kind of questions were asked in the Q&A? What did the questions help reveal about the talk or research?
- What questions did you ask or would you have asked given the opportunity?
**This assignment can be done at any point in the quarter and I encourage Arnhold Fellows to do it sooner rather than later as it will help them see how scholars engage with research. The English Dept. lists current events here. The Interdisciplinary Humanities Center also hosts a wide variety of engaging and interesting talks (their schedule is here).
Due Friday, May 4, 2018: Poster Abstract (350 words max)
- Your abstract of no more than 350 words should include the following:
– Necessary background information including the titles and authors of texts/media you will be analyzing
– Problems/questions you are investigating
– Tentative hypothesis or claim you think you will be making
- The Writing Center at UNC has some good advice and examples here. More examples and information can be found on the Southern California Conferences for Undergraduate Research website.
Revised and Expanded Project Proposal Due by Friday, June 8, 2018:
The revised and expanded proposal of 500-800 words should take into account feedback you received from the Arnhold Graduate Fellow in the beginning of Spring quarter, the Research Roundtable (if you attended), and the poster showcase. It should contain the elements required in the first proposal (see above), a clear thesis, and a concrete and explicit explanation of the stakes/significance* of your project (see below). Even if you don’t feel that your project has changed a lot since the first proposal please revise it so that it reflects the feedback you have been given. Also, if you are hoping to continue with the program next year please specify the faculty member you have either asked or are anticipating asking to be your faculty mentor in Fall of 2018.
**The significance of your project can be thought of as its stakes or “so what” component. What knowledge will be produced by your research? What new insight will it offer scholars? In other words, what knowledge will scholars gain by reading about your research?
FRAMING in terms of the conversation you are taking part in: When establishing the significance of your project you will need to situate yourself within your field by very concisely explaining how your research fits into the existing scholarship on the subject. What scholars are you in conversation with? How have other scholars approached the same concern or problem? By locating your work you make explicit how your research is relevant to the ongoing discussion.
Questions to consider:
1. Significance in terms of the text itself: What new light will it shed on these texts? Does your project offer new interpretations?
2. Significance in terms of research field: What knowledge are you contributing to your research field (ex. cultural studies, feminist studies, chicano studies, etc.)? Does your work shed new light on key concepts within this field (ex. does it interrogate the boundaries of genre?)? Why does it matter to other scholars? Why should they be interested? Why are these questions worth asking?