During the introduction of the course lecture, you’ll be informed about how the course HVLC.10.009 works. We have designed the course following learning principles that support the learning of what we consider the most essential skills needed as a scientist: writing and public speaking.
When we decide to become a scientist we consider that the knowledge of our science is crucial for our success. Rarely do we consider aspects such as writing or public speaking to be the skills we need the most to be a successful scientist? Science is communication.
Writing for journal articles (or writing science) is not a creative process per se. We certainly do not ask writers to create a text which no other scientist has ever written before. As such, articles that have been accepted and published provide a rich source for analysis.
We’ll be applying the same rhetorical analysis on the methods section of your manuscript. Quite often we write the methods section first, but depending on the discipline, methods are often the most important section to consider.
Specifically first year PhD students engage in writing a literature review. Primarily because it’s a way into the subject. The lit review is a specific genre with specific rules. This session will cover the topic how to write a lit review.
We’ll be applying the same rhetorical analysis on the Results section of your manuscript. In comparison to the introduction section, we find quite a bit of variability in the Results section.
Writing science involves writing with references. References need to be managed and structured in all sorts of ways. We encourage early writers of science to adopt these tools in their writing process simply because it will make their lives easier the more they write as scientists.
In the peer feedback process, you play two distinct and separate roles. As a reviewer, you give written feedback to your group members based upon their cover letter and draft. As an author, you receive written feedback from your group members based upon your cover letter and draft.
Plagiarism is a sensitive topic to address, primarily because when we talk about plagiarism, we should talk about academic honesty. When we conduct our science, and write up our paper honestly, we avoid the trap of plagiarism all together.
The literature search starts with an introduction describing the subject area and the associated problem area. The problem area consists of three parts: Broad context, Relevance, and Previous findings.
Quite often we resort to the only tool we know to create our texts: Microsoft Word. However, there are many different tools available that support writing science. LaTeX is one example of such a tool. Investing energy in learning how to write in a different environment might save you time in the future. This workshop provides a first inside look into LaTeX and its many possibilities.
In the Discussion section of your manuscript, we’ll be applying the same rhetorical analysis. In comparison to the previous sections, we find quite a bit of variability.
In the sixth structured Writing Group meeting, you will be commenting and receiving comments on your final draft. We also suggest that you make arrangements for the future. Having a writing group can make all the difference.
We’ll be applying the same rhetorical analysis on the Conclusion and Abstract section of your manuscript.
