HIST 7070: Research Seminar in 17th and 18th Century African-American HistoryCourse: History 7080/8080: Research Seminar in 17th and 18th
Century African-American History
Professor: Dr. Arwin D. Smallwood
Office: 121 Mitchell Hall, Phone: 678-3869,
asmallwd@memphis.edu
Grading
The
grading scale basically follows the departmental standards for graduate
students, with a focus upon those getting or considering getting their
doctorate:
A: Outstanding, excellent work: approaches the quality and demonstrates the
potential for professional quality work.
A-: Very good work. High quality performance, but falls short of excellence.
B+: Good Work. Solid effort shows potential for higher achievement.
B: Needs improvement: Reflects serious effort, but raises doubts about the
potential for achieving professional quality, so students should consult with
professors about how to improve their work, especially if they are in the Ph.D.
program or would like to be.
B-: Marginal. A few positive qualities, but plagued by serious problems that
must be immediately addressed.
C+ and below: unacceptable.
I will not write grades on every review, but I will provide feedback and we
will have individual discussions throughout the semester about your progress and
performance. Grades are based upon the quality of your written work and your
participation in class discussions.
Writing Assignments
Weekly Reviews
You will write professional-quality reviews of the books. Reviews should answer
the same three questions that we will address in class discussions. The reviews
should not have a title page; only the bibliographic information should appear
at the top of the page. Reviews of a single book should be 500-600 words.
Reviews of two books should be 800-1000 words. The reviews are always due the
week after we have discussed the book. I have provided a list of guidelines
below, paraphrased from Richard Marius, A Short Guide to Writing About History
that are helpful for producing quality reviews:
1. Always give the author’s purpose in writing the book. This idea is often
best addressed in the preface or introduction, which you should always read
super-extra-carefully.
2. Summarize the author’s evidence. Look through the notes section.
3. Focus on the book, not its author. Avoid such clichés as deeming the author
“well-qualified.”
4. The review should not entirely focus on style issues. Avoid prolonged
comments on the style of the book. However, one can note whether a book is
well-written or incoherent, and one can even quote a sentence to illustrate an
author’s style.
5. Show, don’t tell. Avoid such generalizations as, “The book is very
interesting,” or “The book is very boring.” A good review will illustrate your
opinions without using such banalities.
6. Be courteous. Passionate attacks reflect poorly upon the reviewer.
Professional scholarship demands a level of detachment and comportment.
7. Quote judiciously. The author’s prose may spice up your review, and it may
deliver an idea more sharply than you can through paraphrasing. But it is your
job to analyze the book, and you shirk that duty if you include too many long
quotations.
8. Do not feel compelled to say negative things about the book. One should note
important inaccuracies, disagreements over interpretations, problems with the
evidence, major stylistic issues, and so on. But avoid petty complaints about an
insignificant detail or an isolated typographical error.
9. Accept the book on its own terms. You may wish that the author wrote a
different book, but you must review whether the author has succeeded in
accomplishing his or her goal.
10. Place the book in historical context. How does this book contribute to our
understanding of African American history?
Once during the semester, you will be asked to distribute copies of your review
to the class, and you will read it out loud, so that the class can revisit the
themes you highlight and assess your review. For examples of professional
reviews, consult any major journal such as Journal of American History. Remember
that one can competently review a book based upon a careful reading, a
familiarity with the historical and historiographical issues, and a cogent
presentation of ideas.
Final Paper
Also, at the end of the semester, you will be expected to write a thematic
bibliographic essay (15-20 pages) on a particular theme covered by the core and
supplemental readings on the weekly schedule. Along with the readings listed
each student should conduct an OCLC search for all Books, articles, Theses,
Dissertations, and primary materials related to their chosen topic, This
bibliographic essay should have a unifying argument expressed through a thesis
statement.
Evaluation
Your final grade is 50% based on the process leading to the final essay (topic presentation, bibliography, prospectus, oral presentation, rough draft) and 50% based on your final article. The grading scale basically follows the departmental standards for graduate students, with a focus upon those getting or considering getting their doctorate:
A: Outstanding, excellent work: professional quality work, an article suitable for publication in a scholarly journal
A-: Very good work. High quality performance, but falls short of excellence. Potential for publication.
B+: Good Work. Solid effort, shows potential for higher achievement.
B: Needs improvement: Reflects serious effort, but raises doubts about the potential for achieving professional quality, so students should consult with professors about how to improve their work, especially if they are in the Ph.D. program or would like to be.
B-: Marginal. A few positive qualities, but plagued by serious problems that must be immediately addressed.
C+ and below: unacceptable.
Schedule
Week 1: Introduction (class meeting)
Read articles by Tyson and Boyle. Discuss use of primary sources, contribution to the secondary literature, and style and composition of a scholarly article. Also discuss potential avenues for research this semester. Emphasize importance of specific, limited topic which offers opportunity for larger analysis (the famous “So what?” question). Consider local collections of archival material.
Week 2: Topic Presentations (class meeting)
Discuss (for five minutes) your topic for your research paper. Be specific with your topic. Address what field of scholarly literature you will make a contribution to, and what primary sources will be the basis of your research.
Week 3: Annotated Bibliography Due
Your bibliography should include two types of secondary sources. Some of these books and articles should address the existing contributions to the larger field; with these books, your annotated description should address the book’s argument. Other secondary sources may speak directly to your topic; your annotated description should describe what this source reveals about your topic, and what openings it leaves for your own research. Some sources, of course, may be relevant for both historical information and historiographical purposes.
Week 4: Research Prospectus Due
Your prospectus is your formal plan for research and writing. It should be five to ten pages long, and it should answer three major questions:
1. What is the historical problem? What is the conflict, or event, or person (or whatever) under investigation? Why is it important?
2. What is the nature of this problem? What have other scholars contributed to this field, both in terms of the specific topic under investigation and in terms of the larger historiographical field? Here you can flesh out the material from your annotated bibliography.
3. How will you solve the problem? What is your research plan? What are the potential avenues for your argument?
Week 5:
Schedule an individual consultation. By this time you should have not only developed a research plan and devised a system of note–taking and organization, but also be immersed in your primary source research.
Week 6:
Schedule another individual consultation. By this meeting you should have completed the bulk of your primary source research and should be considering ways to formulate your argument in written form. Arrive for this meeting with a one-paragraph summary of your argument (a long thesis statement, if you will).
Week 7: Oral Presentations (class meeting)
Formally present your argument. Please do not read it (as you might with a conference paper) but do uphold standards of professionalism. Your presentation cannot exceed ten minutes, but we will allow additional time for questions and discussion. Presentations by Bass, Conway, Ellis, Ewing, Fraley, Long-Young, Newsom, Saunders.
Week 8: Oral Presentations, continued (class meeting)
Presentations by Baroff, Chandonnet, Cunningham, Foster, Holt, Kinchen, Nelson, Young.
Week 9: Rough Drafts Due
Your rough draft should be a fairly complete version of your article. There should not be grammatical errors, gaps in the argument, or problems with source documentation. In other words, it is useful to consider this as a final draft under review.
Week 10: Final Papers Due