Paper #3.2: Reflection Component

Part I: The Paper (100 points):

Over the semester, I’ve tried to give each of you space to grow as an STS scholar. You started by writing about your early interests or misgivings. Then you learned about STS method and analyzed a topic of choice, and you had a chance to talk to an expert in your field and think about whether or not these methods apply in action, not only in theory.

Now, to close out the semester, I’d like you to reflect once more on how you feel about yourself as an STS scholar, this time with a bit more guidance.

First, you need to pick one class meeting from the second half of the course—whichever topic you think will help you to reflect most deeply on what it means to you to be an STS scientist or humanities scholar. As a reminder, here are your topics choices and their correlating texts:

March 23: Studying Laboratories
Texts: Sismondo, Chapter 10; Latour, “Laboratories” in Science in Action

March 30: Standardization and Objectivity
Texts: Sismondo, Chapter 12

April 6: Controversy and Rhetoric
Texts: Sismondo, Chapters 11 & 13; Robin, “Science Fiction: Sokal’s Hoax” in Scandals and Scoundrels

April 13: Science is Unnatural?
Texts: Sismondo, Chapter 14

April 20: Experts and/vs. the Public
Texts: Sismondo, Chapter 15 & 16; Hilgartner, “Introduction” of Science on Stage

April 27: Science and Politics
Texts: Sismondo, Chapter 17

Then, keeping your major and your academic and career goals in mind, I’d like you to write an analysis of the topic and its texts, discussing the following assignment components:

First, answer the question What?

• What is the argument or finding at the heart of the topic you chose? And how do the texts help to explain that?

Second, answer the question So What? In other words, what is the importance or significance of this topic to your development as an STS scholar?

• What does this topic teach you about yourself and others?
• How will knowledge of this topic and its central arguments affect you as an STS-minded student?
• What is one particular detail supporting this topic that you find especially useful? Why?
• What values and opinions has this topic helped you to generate?
• How will this topic help contribute to your continued growth as an analytical person?

Finally, answer the question Now what? In other words, how will your future be impacted by this STS way of thinking?

[Note: In the previous section you responded to this question in regards to one specific STS topic. Here, I am looking for broader conclusions that come from your reflection on the semester as a whole.]

• How important to you is it that you stay involved in STS ways of thinking? How do you plan to go about that?
• How will STS affect the way you approach your career, goals, studies, etc?
• Do you have any lingering doubts or questions about STS methods and policies? What are they, how are you thinking about them, and how will you continue to sort them out? Use this question to guide your concluding remarks.

The finished version of this paper needs to be 4-5 pages in length with standard 1” margins and 12 point formal font, and it will be due on the day of the final.

However, there is also a rough draft component to this assignment that is due prior to that point.

Part II: Rough Draft and Peer Review Workshop

In class on April 27th, we will be conducting a peer-review writing workshop. This will serve two purposes:

First, your peer-review partners will comment on the grammar/syntax/organization of your paper. All the mechanical stuff.

Second, your peer-review partners will push you as an STS scholar, looking at your rhetoric and gauging your understanding of the topic you chose, the strength of your argument and claims, and the overall tone of your paper. Remember, peer-reviewed publishing and rhetorical work plays a big part in STS analysis—here is your chance to engage in that process.

Your grade for this component will be based on two things:

First, you need to submit your rough draft component to me via email by 6 pm on Sunday, April 26. The rough draft must contain the following components:

• Finalized topic selection
• Thesis statement introducing your what, so what, and now what—this will be a multi-part thesis statement, most likely
• One complete section of the paper—whichever one you choose
• Detailed outlines for the remaining sections, highlighting what you intend to say so that your peer-reviewers can follow the argument you are making

This portion of the assignment is worth 25 points.

Then, in class on April 27th, I will pass out worksheets for you to use to engage in the peer review process. A complete worksheet filled with meaningful comments for your review-partner will earn you the other 25 points.

Taken together, the rough draft and review worksheet are worth 50 points on the final grade.

If you do not submit a rough draft to me, then you will not be able to participate in this activity, and you will surrender all 50 points. It is also within my discretion to decide that your rough draft is not complete enough for useful participation, in which case you will also not be able to participate.  Take this seriously.  If you are concerned about whether or not your rough draft is ready for workshop, send it to me the day before it is due (Saturday, April 25th) and ask me to look it over before final submission the following Sunday evening.  There will be no extensions–you must plan accordingly.

*   *   *

Assignment Rubrics:

Part I: Reflection (100 points)

Section, “What?” (20 points)

Topic well articulated: ______/10
Texts well integrated: ______/10

Section, “So What?” (50 points)

This section will be graded with an eye toward critical insight and analysis. As long as you thoughtfully respond to the questions listed above, you will receive full points. I will deduct 10 points per missing question, so make sure that you respond to all of them in some way.

Question 1: ______/10
Question 2: ______/10
Question 3: ______/10
Question 4: ______/10
Question 5: ______/10

Section, “Now What?” (30 points)

Graded similarly to the above section.

Question 1: _____/10
Question 2: _____/10
Question 3: _____/10

Grammar and Formatting (discretionary):
If your paper does not meet the page length requirement, follow the formatting rules, or use proper grammar and syntax, I will deduct points as I see fit, given the flagrancy of error. If you are concerned by your ability to produce a grammatically correct assignment, please take your paper by the writing center. If you provide written proof that you scheduled and received professional aid from the writing center, I will waive deductions for grammar.

Part II: Rough Draft and Peer Review (50 points)

Rough Draft: (25 points):

Finalized topic selection and thesis statement: ____/5
One complete section of the paper—whichever one you choose: _____/10
Detailed outlines for the remaining sections: ______/10

Peer Review Worksheet: (25 points):

As long as all sections of the worksheet are filled in with meaningful feedback, you will earn all 25 points here. If the rough draft you are given is incomplete in some way, you will not be penalized for questions you cannot answer.