|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Writing up your collection project
What follows is a suggested template. It is designed as an aid. If it does not quite fit your work, do not try to force your data into it. If in doubt, check with one of us. I am around almost all of the time.
This is what the final paper should look like:
1. Your thesis. What were you trying to ascertain? What did you think you might find?
For example, you might be testing to see what kind(s) of people would be more likely to believe in the efficacy of the egg ceremony. Your hypothesis might be that people who are more open to alternative therapies are more likely to be positively affected by the egg ceremony. Or your hypothesis might be that people who are more body-conscious would be more likely to accept this sort of body "manipulation."
Another example: you might be looking to see what it is that makes pysanky magical. Your hypothesis might be that, since this is a very different, exotic sort of egg, people are more likely to believe that it would have a positive effect on a significant other and help cement a relationship. In this case you might compare to some of the exotic things in Ryan that are believed to be magical, such as different-looking eyes, or certain types of texts that are rare. Your hypothesis might be the magic of time and place: that an egg transformed by the special time of Easter becomes magical and can effect people more. Again, tie to Ryan, discussing the section on time and place and showing how what you did draws on similar beliefs, only in the American context.
2. Project description. Where did you collect your data? What sort of magic act did you perform? Why did you choose this act? Was it based on something in Ryan? What kind of magic was it? What is/was its original purpose and how does this compare with what you did for your project? For whom did you perform your magic act and why did you choose these people? Discuss your interviews. If you did a pre-questionnaire, what was included in that and why? Give a sample. Did you have a second questionnaire that you used after? Give a sample, discuss how it compares to the pre-questionnaire and give the rationale for what you did. How, where, and when did you conduct your collecting? The actual filled-out questionnaires will go in an appendix to your paper. Did you conduct oral interviews in addition to having people fill out a questionnaire or in place of a questionnaire? What was the interview template (what issues were you trying to cover)? Did you work with a partner? Who was it?
I don't think you need examples here. Let me know if you do.
3. The analysis. What did you find? I am expecting you to draw parallels to something out of the last two books that you read. Did you find that people in certain groups were more open to a "culture of belief?" How did skepticism play out? Were people willing to rationalize the failure of a magic act? If so, how did they do this and how does this compare to the material you read? You read about the spread of a belief in a curse. If you tried to get people to believe in the existence of a lucky object, did this work the same way as a curse; or just the opposite? Do we have the difference between positive and negative magic here or is all magical thinking fairly similar?
4. Conclusion. So, what did you find? Sum up what you did. Tie back to the hypothesis.
5. Bibliography. Your written sources cited according to a nationally accepted standard such as the MLA bibliography. Internet sources, if any. Your oral sources: a list of the people you worked with and/or interviewed using the citation format I gave you earlier. List alphabetically.
5. Appendices. These contain the raw data. Raw data would be your questionnaires as they were filled out by your respondents. They might be transcriptions of oral interviews. If you one of you conducted the magic act and the partner observed, your notes go here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|