Search Results

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Chapter 14 of Performing Music Research presents the key features of the final written research report. It considers how to get started, the use of appropriate structure and headings, the importance of identifying limitations and further research, and referencing sources. Acknowledging that music researchers need to communicate in many ways, the chapter also introduces four further means of disseminating research: informal and formal feedback to participants; conference proceedings, which form the basis for spoken, poster, and speed presentations at conferences; peer-reviewed published journal articles; and communication with those outside the academic world such as practitioners and policy-makers. It discusses the use of broadcast, print, and social media, emphasizing the need to engage different target audiences creatively.

This chapter introduces Dr. Schwartz and provides an outline for the book. The chapter allows readers to get to know the author and to gain wisdom about publishing, mentorship, and forging a line of research based on a career trajectory. The chapter provides take-away messages based on Dr. Schwartz’s professional experiences and sets up the structure for the remainder of the book.

This chapter introduces Dr. Schwartz and provides an outline for the book. The chapter allows readers to get to know the author and to gain wisdom about publishing, mentorship, and forging a line of research based on a career trajectory. The chapter provides take-away messages based on Dr. Schwartz’s professional experiences and sets up the structure for the remainder of the book.