In-Between Peoples

By today, you should have a working draft of your inquiry module that includes both your sources and your narrative in an exhibit layout. The next step in our process is peer review. We have several steps and critical questions to focus that work.

1. After class this evening, take 20 minutes to write a short blog post entitled “Inquiry Module Reflections” in which you outline the elements of your inquiry module that you think need the most work.  If you have any questions about your work so far, include them here.  The idea of this post is that it will help to guide your partner’s work when they review and comment on your module.
2. Next, you should go carefully read and interact with your partner’s inquiry module.  Then, answer the following questions in comment on their “Inquiry Module Reflections” post:

Additional notes on items and modules:

• Those of you who can successfully take pictures with your phones and upload them to facebook can also upload them to Omeka.net.  Image files are generally jpegs (.jpg).  Upload those individual files.  DO NOT place them into a Word Document and then upload that.
• For text documents, transcribe the text directly in the “Text” field of the item type metadata.  DO NOT upload Word Documents.
• The Library of Congress is mostly not the original publisher of anything.  It is a host that aggregates other content in archives and traditional holdings. Think carefully about the information that you include in your metadata. This is all part of your grade on the project.

Thanks for a nice brainstorming session on criticism and peer review last week.  I think that we came to some good principles to guide our reading of our secondary sources and each other.  In the long run, our reading and styles of criticism shouldn’t be terribly different regardless of the author of the work that we’re critiquing.  Your general perspective seems to lean toward generosity and curiosity, and I agree that we should take that tone.

So, here are your suggestions:

Criticism of Scholarly Work: What is our job?

• Analysis is a synonym for criticism. This means we should avoid hostility and negativity that isn’t grounded in the specifics of the work itself.
• Read between the lines. This means we should try to grasp the larger goals and implications of work in the context of our work as a whole.
• Assess the value of the work. This means placing the work in relationship to its peers to judge its contributions and its challenges to our larger understanding.
• Question whether the reader is getting the ideas that the author is trying to express. Clarity and writing style are important and we need to pay attention to those things as well as the intellectual contribution of the work.
• Present another view that might challenge the author’s conclusions. This means we need to consider as many perspectives as possible, even if we don’t agree with them.
• Show a route to improvement. The only way we can truly discern the importance of a work is to identify its logical gaps and to try to bridge them.
• Don’t demand that the author change the thesis, but provide new perspectives. See above.

Good Peer Review: What is helpful?

• Ask questions that provide a new perspective for the author.
• Make sure that all of the elements of the writing are necessary and well-integrated.
• Offer suggestions that help the author focus a clear argument.
• Don’t pull punches. Balancing affirmation and criticism just for the sake of being nice is not helpful.

Good Writing: What are the qualities that we like?

• Start with a good inquiry question that sets up an interesting problem for the reader.
• Craft prose that brings the reader along and lets her make her own conclusions.
• Try to carefully use intertextuality & good vehicles (sources) to carry the argument.
• Offer connections to everyday life.
• Try for witty prose. At least make an effort to avoid being dull.
• Work hard to craft a good introduction. (This can only happen after the initial writing is complete.)