Antoine Compagnon
- Published in print:
- 2020
- Published Online:
- September 2020
- ISBN:
- 9780197266670
- eISBN:
- 9780191905391
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- British Academy
- DOI:
- 10.5871/bacad/9780197266670.003.0014
- Subject:
- Literature, Film, Media, and Cultural Studies
Roland Barthes constantly complained about being overwhelmed with requests and importunities; people were always sending him texts to read, and strangers would write or phone for appointments, ...
More
Roland Barthes constantly complained about being overwhelmed with requests and importunities; people were always sending him texts to read, and strangers would write or phone for appointments, articles, and advice. What he called the burden of administration (‘la gestion’) took up as much of his time as creative work. And he entertained the dream of a Vita Nova, liberated from supplications. The decision of ‘15 April 1978’, recorded in La Préparation du roman, was a revelation: henceforth, all of his life would be concentrated around literature – the novel – and he would switch to an ex-directory phone number. Yet Barthes, at the same time, loved the pressure of demands; he was addicted to the flow of requests and could not work without the stimulus of commissions and deadlines. In fact, as he well knew, most of what he produced started out as a commission (whether a ‘demande’ or a ‘commande’), right from the very first articles in Combat and his many contributions to book clubs. All through his life the pressure of writing for journals never ceased: Existences, Esprit, Théâtre populaire, Lettres nouvelles, L’Observateur or France-Observateur; later Critique, Communications, Tel Quel… This is the paradox to be explored in this chapter.Less
Roland Barthes constantly complained about being overwhelmed with requests and importunities; people were always sending him texts to read, and strangers would write or phone for appointments, articles, and advice. What he called the burden of administration (‘la gestion’) took up as much of his time as creative work. And he entertained the dream of a Vita Nova, liberated from supplications. The decision of ‘15 April 1978’, recorded in La Préparation du roman, was a revelation: henceforth, all of his life would be concentrated around literature – the novel – and he would switch to an ex-directory phone number. Yet Barthes, at the same time, loved the pressure of demands; he was addicted to the flow of requests and could not work without the stimulus of commissions and deadlines. In fact, as he well knew, most of what he produced started out as a commission (whether a ‘demande’ or a ‘commande’), right from the very first articles in Combat and his many contributions to book clubs. All through his life the pressure of writing for journals never ceased: Existences, Esprit, Théâtre populaire, Lettres nouvelles, L’Observateur or France-Observateur; later Critique, Communications, Tel Quel… This is the paradox to be explored in this chapter.
Curtis L. Meinert
- Published in print:
- 2011
- Published Online:
- September 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780199742967
- eISBN:
- 9780199897278
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199742967.003.0013
- Subject:
- Public Health and Epidemiology, Epidemiology, Public Health
Results papers are akin to reference books in that they are not meant to be read like novels, from cover to cover. Indeed, it is likely that the only persons reading them from beginning to end are ...
More
Results papers are akin to reference books in that they are not meant to be read like novels, from cover to cover. Indeed, it is likely that the only persons reading them from beginning to end are the authors, referees, and copy editors. In everyday life, we usually ignore the “fine print”, but that can be a mistake when reading research papers. This chapter argues that when reading journal articles, the methods section of a results paper is the most important part. If you want to understand the results, you have to understand how they were generated, and for that, you have to comb through the methods section, line by line. But, when reading, you must be as mindful of what is not there as you are of what is there. Authors are not inclined to tell you what they did not do. You have to infer that from what is not said. The most important words in any paper are the few represented in the title of the manuscript. The second most important words are those in the abstract, which gives the conclusion reached by the study investigators. Other tips for reading between the lines are presented.Less
Results papers are akin to reference books in that they are not meant to be read like novels, from cover to cover. Indeed, it is likely that the only persons reading them from beginning to end are the authors, referees, and copy editors. In everyday life, we usually ignore the “fine print”, but that can be a mistake when reading research papers. This chapter argues that when reading journal articles, the methods section of a results paper is the most important part. If you want to understand the results, you have to understand how they were generated, and for that, you have to comb through the methods section, line by line. But, when reading, you must be as mindful of what is not there as you are of what is there. Authors are not inclined to tell you what they did not do. You have to infer that from what is not said. The most important words in any paper are the few represented in the title of the manuscript. The second most important words are those in the abstract, which gives the conclusion reached by the study investigators. Other tips for reading between the lines are presented.
TIM FARRANT
- Published in print:
- 2002
- Published Online:
- January 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780198151975
- eISBN:
- 9780191710247
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198151975.003.0007
- Subject:
- Literature, European Literature
This chapter begins with an analysis of La Peau de chagrin, which is a summation of Balzac's work to date. It grows out of journal articles: Les Litanies romantiques, where it is first mentioned as ...
More
This chapter begins with an analysis of La Peau de chagrin, which is a summation of Balzac's work to date. It grows out of journal articles: Les Litanies romantiques, where it is first mentioned as ‘mon célèbre conte fantastique’ in December 1830, and Le Dernier Napoléon, which is both a typical newspaper portrait-narrative and an early version of the opening. It then examines Romans et contes philosophiques and Les Cent Contes drolatiques.Less
This chapter begins with an analysis of La Peau de chagrin, which is a summation of Balzac's work to date. It grows out of journal articles: Les Litanies romantiques, where it is first mentioned as ‘mon célèbre conte fantastique’ in December 1830, and Le Dernier Napoléon, which is both a typical newspaper portrait-narrative and an early version of the opening. It then examines Romans et contes philosophiques and Les Cent Contes drolatiques.
Lisa A. Prosser, Peter J. Neumann, Gillian D. Sanders, and Joanna E. Siegel
- Published in print:
- 2016
- Published Online:
- November 2016
- ISBN:
- 9780190492939
- eISBN:
- 9780190492960
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190492939.003.0013
- Subject:
- Public Health and Epidemiology, Public Health
The goal of the reporting chapter is to provide guidance on reporting cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) with an emphasis on clarity and transparency. The chapter provides recommendations for each ...
More
The goal of the reporting chapter is to provide guidance on reporting cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) with an emphasis on clarity and transparency. The chapter provides recommendations for each area of a CEA: design, methods and analysis, results, and discussion. It also presents several new areas, such as the need for more clarity in identifying the perspective of the analysis; a structured abstract format; and updated guidance on disclosure of conflicts of interest. Finally, we highlight the importance of reporting intermediate endpoints and disaggregated results, and of providing a detailed presentation of the Impact Inventory to best support the use of CEA in decision making.Less
The goal of the reporting chapter is to provide guidance on reporting cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) with an emphasis on clarity and transparency. The chapter provides recommendations for each area of a CEA: design, methods and analysis, results, and discussion. It also presents several new areas, such as the need for more clarity in identifying the perspective of the analysis; a structured abstract format; and updated guidance on disclosure of conflicts of interest. Finally, we highlight the importance of reporting intermediate endpoints and disaggregated results, and of providing a detailed presentation of the Impact Inventory to best support the use of CEA in decision making.
Karen R. Lawrence
- Published in print:
- 2010
- Published Online:
- September 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780813034775
- eISBN:
- 9780813038612
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- University Press of Florida
- DOI:
- 10.5744/florida/9780813034775.001.0001
- Subject:
- Literature, 20th-century Literature and Modernism
The development of Joycean studies into a respected and very large subdiscipline of modernist studies can be traced to the work of several important scholars. Among those who did the most to document ...
More
The development of Joycean studies into a respected and very large subdiscipline of modernist studies can be traced to the work of several important scholars. Among those who did the most to document James Joyce's work, the author of this book can easily be considered one of that elite cadre. A retrospective of decades of work on Joyce, this collection includes published journal articles, book chapters, and selections from her best known work (all updated and revised), along with one new chapter. In addition the book features engaging close readings of such works by Joyce as Dubliners and Ulysses.Less
The development of Joycean studies into a respected and very large subdiscipline of modernist studies can be traced to the work of several important scholars. Among those who did the most to document James Joyce's work, the author of this book can easily be considered one of that elite cadre. A retrospective of decades of work on Joyce, this collection includes published journal articles, book chapters, and selections from her best known work (all updated and revised), along with one new chapter. In addition the book features engaging close readings of such works by Joyce as Dubliners and Ulysses.
Marin S Robinson, Fredricka L Stoller, Molly Constanza-Robinson, and James K Jones
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- November 2020
- ISBN:
- 9780195367423
- eISBN:
- 9780197562437
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/oso/9780195367423.003.0011
- Subject:
- Chemistry, Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
This chapter focuses on the Discussion section, the last part of the standard IMRD structure for a journal article. The Discussion section, as mentioned in ...
More
This chapter focuses on the Discussion section, the last part of the standard IMRD structure for a journal article. The Discussion section, as mentioned in chapter 4, can stand alone or can be part of a combined Results and Discussion (R&D) section. In either case, it serves the same major purpose: to interpret the results of the study. In this chapter, we analyze excerpts from various Discussion sections, including those that accompany results presented in chapter 4 (excerpts 4B–4G). Upon completion of this chapter, you should be able to do the following: ■ Organize a Discussion section following the major moves ■ Interpret your results (but avoid overinterpretation) ■ Describe the greater importance of your findings ■ Follow appropriate writing conventions As you work through this chapter, you will write a Discussion section for your own paper. The Writing on Your Own tasks throughout the chapter will guide you step by step as you do the following: 5A Read the literature 5B Prepare to write 5C Draft your Discussion section 5D Practice peer review 5E Fine-tune your Discussion section In the Discussion section of a journal article, authors interpret their data, address why and how questions (e.g., Why was the reaction faster? How did the mechanism proceed?), and, ultimately, extend their findings to a larger context (e.g., What value will these findings have to the scientific community?). Ideally, the Discussion section explains the story revealed by the data, postulates reasons for the observed behaviors, and furthers our fundamental understanding of the underlying science. Although interpretation is the primary goal of the Discussion section, authors must be careful not to overinterpret their data, misinterpret their results, overstate their assumptions, or stray too far from scientific evidence. The excerpts selected for this chapter illustrate ways to avoid these pitfalls. Similarly, the excerpts illustrate that the language of the Discussion section is typified by restraint and understatement. Such words as fact, truth, and prove are rarely used in a Discussion section. Hedging words, such as theory and evidence, are much more common, as are such verbs as appear, indicate, seem, and suggest.
Less
This chapter focuses on the Discussion section, the last part of the standard IMRD structure for a journal article. The Discussion section, as mentioned in chapter 4, can stand alone or can be part of a combined Results and Discussion (R&D) section. In either case, it serves the same major purpose: to interpret the results of the study. In this chapter, we analyze excerpts from various Discussion sections, including those that accompany results presented in chapter 4 (excerpts 4B–4G). Upon completion of this chapter, you should be able to do the following: ■ Organize a Discussion section following the major moves ■ Interpret your results (but avoid overinterpretation) ■ Describe the greater importance of your findings ■ Follow appropriate writing conventions As you work through this chapter, you will write a Discussion section for your own paper. The Writing on Your Own tasks throughout the chapter will guide you step by step as you do the following: 5A Read the literature 5B Prepare to write 5C Draft your Discussion section 5D Practice peer review 5E Fine-tune your Discussion section In the Discussion section of a journal article, authors interpret their data, address why and how questions (e.g., Why was the reaction faster? How did the mechanism proceed?), and, ultimately, extend their findings to a larger context (e.g., What value will these findings have to the scientific community?). Ideally, the Discussion section explains the story revealed by the data, postulates reasons for the observed behaviors, and furthers our fundamental understanding of the underlying science. Although interpretation is the primary goal of the Discussion section, authors must be careful not to overinterpret their data, misinterpret their results, overstate their assumptions, or stray too far from scientific evidence. The excerpts selected for this chapter illustrate ways to avoid these pitfalls. Similarly, the excerpts illustrate that the language of the Discussion section is typified by restraint and understatement. Such words as fact, truth, and prove are rarely used in a Discussion section. Hedging words, such as theory and evidence, are much more common, as are such verbs as appear, indicate, seem, and suggest.
