WRITING
FOR THE SCIENCE IN SOCIETY PROGRAM
General Advice | History |
Philosophy | Sociology |
Women's Studies
The Science
in Society major strives to integrate many disciplines in its quest to
examine the way knowledge is produced and understood in various cultures
and sub-cultures. It is a relatively new field of inquiry, and delves into
areas of both the analysis and the practice of science. However, don't
let the title of the major fool you-- science, though a major theme in
the SiSP courses, does not permeate into the actual methods of the major.
There are no labs, no "objective" testing of hypothesis through experiments,
and very little "science speak" that one has to sort through.
SiSP addressing
such traditionally scientific practices by examining them through the
lens' of many different fields. These include, but are not limited to, history,
sociology, philosophy, and women's studies.
For this reason,
writing a SiSP paper can be somewhat intimidating. Issues often are very
broad, and it is difficult to maintain a focus. Also, the readings tend
to be dense and philosophical or analytical. There are, however, a few
general guidelines to help with writing a SiSP paper.
- Before writing
your paper, first look over the general guide lines for the major your
class is in. If your SiSP class falls under more than one major, as most
SiSP classes do, figure out what sort of focus your paper will have. Will
it, for example, address issues of gender in science? If it does, you should
be certain to integrate feminist theory into your analysis.
- After determining the broad focus, next look
through the readings for the class with your particular topic in mind.
Make sure to understand the general story of the readings, and the basic
way this relates to your topic. You should discover any flaws or omissions
in the author's arguments. This process is much like the basic process
used in writing philosophy papers.
- SiSP writings
should intertwine this 'story' mentioned above with analysis and interpretation.
This is true with most academic papers, especially with Sociology. Sue
Fisher, a SiSP and Sociology professor, likens this process to "braiding"
strands of theory and content, each intertwining with one another, with
each maintaining its distinct identity.
- There are
several questions you can address in a SiSP paper to distinguish it from
a 'regular' paper in the discipline. These include:
- Who is 'producing' this knowledge? What do
they have to gain from their final analysis/hypothesis?
- How do social influences cloud objectivity
in workings of science? How does the author's own social agenda influence his/her work? (concept of reflextivity)
- Is the language used to express concepts of
the readings itself subjective?
- Who is marginalized by the dominant discourse of the particular
"science" you are studying? (race, class, gender, sexuality)?
- What are the policy implications to your
conclusions? What should society be cautious of in the future?
The above are
all concerns of a basic SiSP paper. In the conclusion of a paper, you can
express your own personal reactions to the material. As mentioned before,
the study of science is a relatively new field. This is exciting for you
as a writer, because the conclusions and implications for the future that you
reach may not have already been written (and read by your professor) a thousand
times before.
The
above general guidelines will hopefully help you get started on your next SiSP
paper. Below are some tips on writing papers in a few subjects that you may be
asked to write in for SiSP. For additional information, refer to the
subject-specific guidelines on this website, including, but not limited to:
History
Philosophy
Sociology
Women's Studies Back to Top
History:
- What knowledge
have you assumed your reader to know? (i.e. can you assume that the reader
knows the important dates of the time period you're covering; are there
certain terms or events which you use/refer to which may be specific to
your topic and not clear to all readers?)
- Have you
thought about what "filters" the authors of your sources may have been
looking through when they did their research? Think about your author as
a person who fits into certain categories (schools of thought, eras, ethnicity,
class) and consider how his/her background could have affected how they
viewed their data, and even what data they decided to look for.
- Have you
made good use of dates to keep the reader in tune with where you are in
the paper? For example, when you refer to an event, at least give the year
in which it happened. If you aren't referring to specific events, but just
to changes in public opinion or something equally intangible, make sure
to give some sort of time-line within the structure of your paper.
- Have you
followed your thesis through as far as possible? Have you recognized theories
which contradict yours and explained why you didn't consider them valid?
Make sure your thesis hasn't over-simplified the problem or the reasons
for an event and that you haven't made any generalizations!!! (i.e. it's
unusual that there is a major shift in public opinion on an issue because
of one figure's views or even just one group's efforts. And are you sure
that you totally understood the question and that your thesis is directly
related to the question assigned?
- Have you
made certain that your use of the following words is correct, given the
time period and country you're writing about: liberal, conservative, "the
right ... .. leftist thought"?
- Have you
used your evidence to support your thesis, or have you tried to rely on
others' words to prove your point for you? The quotes and references you
choose should be carefully selected so that they prop up your argument
without making it appear as though your idea is so tentative that you feel
you must bombard the reader with proof that you're right.
Back to Top
Philosophy:
- If a student
is discussing a certain philosopher, it is very important for him or her
to separate his/her own voice form that of the philosopher being discussed.
If you cannot be sure whether an assertion in students' essays come from
the students themselves or from the philosopher they are discussing, ask
them to make that clear in the essay.
- If a student
is criticizing the ideas of a certain philosopher, ask whether or not there
are answers to his/her questions and objections already in the text. The
writers of philosophical texts have often already noticed what might be
considered holes in their arguments and provided answers to possible objections.
This is one reason why philosophical texts must be read with utmost care.
- Students
often let quotations from philosophical texts speak for themselves. If
you find that students writing a philosophy paper have included quotations
but have not explained them in their own words or explained how they fit
into what they are trying to say in the essay, ask them to explain the
quotation in their own words and explain how it fits into the essay. Then
ask them to include something like what they just said in the essay.
- If students
write an essay comparing the ideas of two different philosophers on a certain
subject, ask them to include explanations of how each philosopher defines
key terms. Are their definitions sufficiently different to make it so that
they might be talking about entirely separate ideas? Exactitude in the
definitions of key terms is essential in philosophy.
- Ideally,
a philosophy paper is supposed to have a clear thesis statement in the
last sentence of the first paragraph, and the first sentence of each succeeding
paragraph should refer back to this thesis.
Back to Top
Sociology:
- Do you accept
the analyses of the authors you cite in your paper? Can you support any
criticism you may have of their ideas?
- Are there
any social theorists you can cite to support your argument? Are there any
specific examples from you own life that may be relevant to your argument?
- Do you think
you have effectively engaged and challenged the material? Have you examined
it from multiple vantage points?
- Have
you explored your own subjectivity in this paper? What arguments
or ideas might have you neglected due to your own bias?
- Are your
ideas well laid out and supported? Are the themes of your paper clear and
coherent, forming a strong and persuasive argument?
Back to Top
Women's
Studies:
- How are
categories such as "sex," "gender," "woman," "feminist" being used in the
paper? Has the author sufficiently indicated how she/he is using them,
or what they are being taken to stand for? (She/he should be very careful
of taking such terms for granted, assuming their meaning is "known").
- Has the
author identified the various methodologies and schools of feminist theory
which she/he is applying? (i.e. cultural/radical/liberal/Marxist/psychoanalytic
feminism- there are plenty more).
- Is gender
the only category examined, or does the author also take into account the
importance of race, class, sexuality, ethnicity, etc. as factors in the
analysis?
- Is the distribution
of power interrogated (or at least kept in mind) as an important factor
in problems of gender? (i.e. how material, social, political power breaks
down along lines of gender, race, class, sexuality, etc.)
- Does the
author provide a context for the material under analysis: i.e. by identifying
the source, time-frame, and historical significance of a text; elucidating
a human subject's (or group of subjects) background and position vis-a-vis
the social structure? Does the author maintain an awareness of a cultural
framework--not only that in which the subject of analysis is embedded,
but that in which the author her/himself is writing?
Back to Top |
