HECOL 692: Professional Seminar II1 ... - University of Alberta

(1)

HECOL 692 Winter 2020

1

HECOL 692: Professional Seminar II

¹

Department of Human Ecology University of Alberta

Term: Winter 2020 Instructors: Anne Bissonnette, Megan Strickfaden, Time: Thursday, 12:00-1:50 pm Rachel McQueen, Matt Johnson Location: 305 Human Ecology Building Janet Fast, Deanna Williamson Dates: January 9, 23, February 6, 27,

March 12, 26

CALENDAR DESCRIPTION

This professional development seminar is one in a series that provides an introduction to graduate study in the Department of Human Ecology, and to career development and professional issues in human ecology.

Topics include: critical reading of the research literature; ethical issues in conducting research; preparing a submission for the research ethics review board; preparing and reviewing conference submissions; preparing a poster; and preparing a research proposal. Restricted to graduate students in the Department of Human Ecology. Fulfills part of FGSR’s mandatory ethics training requirement. Typically taken in the second semester of the graduate program.

COURSE GOALS, ORGANIZATION, and FORMAT The two goals for HECOL 692 are to:

1.

build collegial relationships among graduate students in Human Ecology; and

2.

provide opportunities for students to explore and discuss professional issues related to graduate study and career development.

The course goals and the specific objectives related to each topic will be met through assigned readings and assignments, material presented in seminars, class discussion, and student presentations. HECOL 692 consists of six 2-hour seminars.

COURSE REQUIREMENTS and CREDIT

● Credit in the course in not automatic. The expectation is that students prepare for, attend, and actively participate in all seminars. Faculty members in Human Ecology recognize that illness and other extreme circumstances sometimes prevent students from being able to attend an occasional seminar. As such, students can still get credit for HECOL 692 when they are unable to attend due to illness or other extreme circumstances as long as they attend at least four of the six 2-hour seminars, complete satisfactorily ALL ASSIGNMENTS, and are active participants in the seminars. In short, none of the HECOL 692 seminars should be treated as optional. If you are unable to attend a seminar because of illness or other extreme circumstances, it is your responsibility to contact the professor(s) facilitating the seminar, as well as the coordinator for HECOL 692, Deanna Williamson, so that your absence can be recorded as “excused.” If you do not attend seminars for reasons other than illness or other extreme circumstances, you will not get credit for HECOL 692 and will need to attend the missed seminar(s) the following year.

● In addition, to meet the department component of ethics training that the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research requires all graduate students at the University of Alberta to complete, participation in

1University of Alberta policy about course outlines can be found in 23.4(2) of the University Calendar.

(2)

2 the two ethics seminars in HECOL 692 is mandatory. Should students miss one or both of these seminars, they will be required to attend the seminar(s) the following year.

● Research and teaching assistantship (RA/TA) responsibilities are not legitimate reasons for not attending HECOL 692 seminars. It is important that you inform the supervisor of your RA/TA about the HECOL 692 seminar schedule.

● Students are expected to do any assigned readings in advance of the seminars.

● Should students not complete an assignment for a HECOL 692 seminar by the due date, it is their responsibility to contact the professor(s) facilitating the seminar to make arrangements for handing in the assignment as soon as possible. Neither the professor(s) facilitating the seminar or the

coordinator for HECOL 692 will follow-up with students. If your assignments are not completed by the end of the term, you will not receive credit for HECOL 692.

PLAGIARISM and CHEATING

The University of Alberta is committed to the highest standards of academic integrity and honesty. Students are expected to be familiar with these standards regarding academic honesty and to uphold the policies of the University in this respect. Students are particularly urged to familiarize themselves with the provisions of the Code of Student Behaviour (available online): https://cloudfront.ualberta.ca/-

/media/universitygovernance/documents/resources/policies-standards-and-codes-of-conduct/cosb-updated- july-1-2018.pdf and avoid any behaviour which could potentially result in suspicions of cheating, plagiarism, misrepresentation of facts and/or participation in an offence. Academic dishonesty is a serious offence and can result in suspension or expulsion from the University.

CLASS SCHEDULE, TOPIC OUTLINE, READINGS, and ASSIGNMENTS

● January 9: Communicating with non-academic audiences (Anne Bissonnette)

As members of an applied and multidisciplinary program like Human Ecology, we need to be able to communicate, collaborate, translate and mobilize our research knowledge with diverse stakeholders including community organizations and practitioners, businesses or industry partners, NGOs (non-

governmental organizations), policy makers, clients, museum audiences, and the media or lay public. SSHRC also recognizes that how you tell a story about your research is just as important as the research itself. SSHRC’s Storytellers Contest challenges post-secondary students to show lay audiences how social sciences and

humanities research impacts our world in three minutes or 300 words. Our task when communicating with any audience, but especially non-academic stakeholders, is to ensure our communication is audience-centred, tailoring our message and format in ways that are relevant to a specific target audience and with a particular purpose in mind.

The purpose of this seminar is to highlight the rationale behind and fundamentals of effective, audience- centred communication with non-academic audiences. Be prepared to apply the three required readings and the first two required assignments to the January 9 class discussion. The third required assignment is due one week after the class (Jan 16).

Assigned readings

Dwayne Van Eerd and Ron Saunders (2017). Integrated Knowledge Transfer and Exchange: An

organizational approach for stakeholder engagement and communications. Scholarly and Research Communication, 8 (1). Available at http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/274/534

Stephen Reid and Dawn Kowalski (1994 - 2012). Understanding Your Purpose. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University. Available at http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/pdfs/guide5.pdf

Stephen Reid, Kate Kiefer, and Dawn Kowalski (1994 - 2013). Adapting to Your Audience. Writing @CSU.

Colorado State University. Skip two sections on (1) Academic Audiences, and (2) Analyzing Academic Audiences. Available at http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/pdfs/guide19.pdf

(3)

3 Assignments

There are three requirements to passing this seminar. Students must complete satisfactorily all three assignments in order to receive credit for this seminar.

1. Introduction - Imagine that you are at a networking event. Prepare a short introduction (about 50 words) about your research interests that is brief, concise and engaging. Avoid disciplinary language by explaining concepts in simpler terms. You will need to plan and practice your introduction so it can be delivered in 30 seconds or less. Please note that I will interrupt your introduction if you exceed this time and you will have to re-do the exercise. As an example, “My name is Anne Bissonnette and I study how clothing drastically changed to affect and reflect one’s values and sense of self following the French Revolution. I am fascinated by 1790s fashion as it marks a turning point towards more democratic, body-conscious styles and the beginning of modernity in dress.” Due Jan 9 at 12:00 pm

2.

Class presentation - From the list posted on e-class choose one example of how research has been translated to a non-academic audience. Work in pairs and come to class prepared to spend 5 minutes together sharing the example with your classmates and answering these questions: (1) Who is the target audience and how do you know this? (2) What is the intended purpose in

communicating with them?, (3) What is (or are) the key message(s) conveyed? and (4) How well did the author/producer communicate with their intended audience? Due Jan 9 at 12:00 pm

3.

Knowledge translation product - Identify an academic article that interests you. Use this article to create a knowledge translation or knowledge mobilization product for a specific target audience with a specific purpose in mind. Examples of knowledge mobilization products include: blog post, opinion piece or newspaper article (minimum 300 words); research snapshot; policy briefing note;

infographic; video; mock television interview; pod cast; or research participant recruitment flyer. If you have other ideas, please check with me first. This assignment is an opportunity to practice audience-centred communication, applying the principles of purpose, audience, and plain language discussed in class and written about in the assigned readings. Begin your assignment by clearly stating: (1) your target audience (lay audience is not specific enough) (2) at least three

characteristics about this audience, and (3) your purpose in writing to this particular audience. This information is not included in the word count. Send the academic article and your completed assignment to the seminar instructor at [email protected]. Due Jan 16 at 9:00 am.

Additional resources and examples for your information:

Phipps, D., Jensen, K.E., Johnny, M., & Myers, G. (2012). Clear language summaries are tools for research outreach and knowledge mobilization. Available at

https://yorkspace.library.yorku.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10315/28518/Barwick%20Phipps%20Com ms%20KT%20SRC%202014.pdf?sequence=1

Dodson, E.A., Geary, N.A., & Brownson, R.C. (2015). State legislators’ sources and use of information:

Bridging the gap between research and policy. Health Education Research, 30 (6), 840-848.

https://academic.oup.com/her/article/30/6/840/2355417 Doyle, S. (2013). How to write a briefing note. Available at

http://web.uvic.ca/~sdoyle/E302/Notes/WritingBriefingNotes.html

National Cancer Institute, Making Data Talk: A Workbook. Produced by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, 2011. Available at

http://www.cancer.gov/publications/health-communication/making-data-talk.pdf

● January 23: Disseminating research findings at professional conferences (Rachel McQueen &

Deanna Williamson)

Professional conferences and meetings play an important role in the graduate student experience. They provide a venue for students to learn about current research in their specific area and more broadly in their field. They are a mechanism to help students learn about current substantive, theoretical, methodological and policy/practice issues in their field of study. In addition, they provide opportunities for networking with

graduate students and academics from other institutions, and possibly with policy makers, practitioners, or

(4)

4 leaders from industry (depending on the nature of the conference). Conferences may be local, regional, national, or international. They may have a narrow focus (i.e., focus on a specific topic or issue) or cover a whole discipline of study. They may cater to primarily academics or primarily practitioners or may be intended for broader, more diverse audiences.

Attendance at professional conferences also provides students with an opportunity to hone their presentation skills by presenting their research through posters and oral presentations. This is a good way to begin to gain visibility in your field and to begin to develop a curriculum vitae. Increasingly, to be competitive for

scholarships and awards, it is expected that students will have conference presentations and publications on their record.

The purpose of this seminar is for students to identify appropriate conferences for presenting their scholarly work and to familiarize themselves with the processes for submitting presentation proposals. Based on work they have completed as part of a course, for a research assistantship, or on “made-up” topic and/or data, students will prepare a draft submission to present at a conference.

Daniels, G. (2013). How to get your abstract accepted and how to present it. ISBT Science Series, 9 (1), 51- 55. Retrieved from

http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&d b=a9h&AN=97162938&site=eds-live&scope=site

Tomita, K. (2017). Visual Design Tips to Develop an Inviting Poster for Poster Presentations. TechTrends, 61 (4), 313-315. Retrieved from

http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&

db=ehh&AN=123733000&site=eds-live&scope=site

Gundogan, B., Koshy, K., Kurar, L., Whitehurst, K. (2016). How to make an academic poster. Annals of Medicine and Surgery, 11 (C), 69-71. Retrieved from

https://www.clinicalkey.com/#!/content/journal/1-s2.0-S2049080116301303

Supplementary sources of information

Becker, L. (2014). Presenting your Research: Conferences, Symposiums, Poster Presentations and Beyond.

Sage. Retrieved from http://methods.sagepub.com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/book/presenting- your-research

Miller, J.E. (2007, February). Preparing and presenting effective research posters. Health Research and Educational Trust, 42 (1), 311-328. Retrieved from

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1955747/pdf/hesr0042-0311.pdf

Rowe, N. (2017). Academic & Scientific Poster Presentation- A Modern Comprehensive Guide. Springer.

Retrieved from https://link-springer-com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/book/10.1007%2F978-3- 319-61280-5

Carter, M. (2012). Designing Science Presentations- A visual guide to figures, papers, slides, posters, and more. Elsevier Science and Technology. Retrieved from

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ualberta/detail.action?docID=1068440

Assignment

A. Conferences in your field

(1) Identify at least THREE professional conferences in your field of study. Identify how broad or narrow the conference is and who its target audience is. Is the conference local, regional,

national, or international? Try to identify at least one conference in your field that is local/regional, one that is national, and one that is international. Is the conference associated with a professional society? Do you belong to that society?

(5)

5 (2) What is considered to be the top (most prestigious conference in your specific field)? Consult with

your supervisor or others if you are not sure.

(3) For each of your THREE conferences, find out when the conference takes place (how

frequently—annually, biennially—and in what month)? What is the deadline for submissions to present at the conference? Where and when is the next conference held?

(4) What formats for presentations does the conference support (i.e., posters, oral presentations, symposia, round tables, resource exchanges, etc.)?

(5) Are submissions peer-reviewed? If possible, can you find out what percentage of submissions are accepted.

(6) What is required for a submission? Some conferences require as little as a 250 word abstract and others may require a full paper.

(7) Be prepared to share the above information during the seminar.

B. Preparing a conference submission

(1) Identify a conference that you would like to attend and at which you would like to present.

Download or read the instructions for submission. Prepare a complete submission for a poster or oral presentation (including all information requested about speakers, audiovisual needs, etc.) and send it by email to Deanna and Rachel by January 22 (the day before the seminar).

Bring a printed version of it with you at the seminar. The submission can be “real”—that is based on scholarly work in which you are involved (e.g., data from an actual study) OR it can be a fictitious project.

(2a) If your conference submission is for a poster, find out what the size and format is for displaying posters at your conference. Bring this information to the seminar. Would there be any

challenges in presenting your research on a poster that adheres to the size and format specified by your conference? Be prepared to discuss your thoughts at the seminar.

OR

(2b) If your conference submission is for an oral presentation, find out how much time will be assigned to you for presenting and for answering questions. What is the likely size of your audience? Bring this information to the seminar. Would there be any challenges in presenting your research orally? What audiovisual equipment will be available to you? How will you use it?

Be prepared to discuss your thoughts at the seminar.

(3) Review your submission based on what you learn during the seminar and submit a revised version by January 30, 4pm (through the assignment tool on eClass). Depending on your subject, Deanna or Rachel will review it and give you feedback.

C. Sources of funding for graduate students to attend conferences

(1) Prepare a budget to attend the conference for which you have completed a submission. Include travel, accommodation, meals, and conference registration fees.

(2) Consider how you would fund yourself to attend this conference. Identify potential sources of funding and the amounts that you could apply for (i.e., at the Department or University level, or from a provincial or national funding body, or from the conference body). Be prepared to share this information at the seminar.

●

February 6: Writing for academic audiences & intellectual property issues (Janet Fast)

Disseminating findings from research is not only an expectation for all academics, it is an ethical obligation. It is necessary to publish in order to contribute to the knowledge base in your discipline, to get credit for your work, to progress in your career, to “stake out your turf” in knowledge creation, etc. As we are standing on the shoulders of others who have preceded us, we must also give credit where credit is due and learn how to protect our own work through knowledge of intellectual property laws. Writing it is a personal challenge and can be personally satisfying. It can also be demanding, frightening and frustrating. All academics are expected to write peer reviewed publications (academic journal articles, books and book chapters, etc.) (although in some disciplines other forms of dissemination are the norm—eg. performance, exhibits, etc.).

(6)

6 The purpose of this session is to introduce students to the elements of an academic article and intellectual property laws and to give them experience with reviewing these elements in a manuscript that has been submitted for publication.

Graham, A. (2004). A guide to reading and analyzing academic articles: Coming to grips with scholarly writing conventions.

http://www.yukoncollege.yk.ca/~agraham/guides/guidec.shtml Why write for academic journals? UK: McGraw-Hill

http://mcgraw-hill.co.uk/openup/chapters/0335213928.pdf

J. Klingner, D. Scanlon, and M. Pressley (2005). How to Publish in Scholarly Journals. Educational Researcher, 14-19.

http://edr.sagepub.com/content/34/8/14.full.pdf+html

World Intellectual Property Organization. What is Intellectual Property? Retrieved from http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/.

* Read the page and the sublink entitled “Understanding Copyright and Related Rights. Retrieved from

“Introduction” to (and including) “Ownership, Exercise and Transfer of Copyright.”

Guiding questions

1. What is the tradition for scholarly output in your field within Human Ecology? What form does “dissemination” of knowledge or scholarship take?

2. What is your experience with that mode of dissemination?

3. What purpose(s) does dissemination of knowledge/scholarship serve?

4. Regardless of the tradition with respect to form of scholarly output in your field, why do/would you write?

5. What is the process for having an article published in a peer reviewed journal?

6. How do you choose what to write in a peer reviewed journal article?

7. What are the necessary elements of a peer reviewed journal article?

8. What are the quality standards for those elements? That is, how do you know a “good” article when you see one? Do the standards differ by discipline?

9. How do you maximize your chance of success in having an article accepted for publication?

10. How do you choose a journal to in which to publish?

11. What do you do when you get the reviews back?

●

February 27: Disseminating research findings in peer-reviewed journals (Matt Johnson)

Once your research article has been (painstakingly) constructed, the next step is to submit it for publication consideration. The purpose of this seminar is to provide a glimpse into the publication process by following an article from initial submission along the bumpy road to publication. A series of documents are posted to eclass chronicling each step toward publication. Students need to carefully review each document and come to class with thoughtful impressions/questions/comments on the publication process. Here is a brief

explanation for the series of documents:

1. This was the original draft initially submitted to The Journal of Family Psychology.

2. First decision (reject) with comments from reviewers and the editor.

At this point, I resubmitted the original draft, unaltered, to the Journal of Marriage and Family.

3. Second decision (revise and resubmit) with comments from reviewers and the editor.

4. Document a is my response to the reviewer comments and document b is the revised manuscript.

5. Third decision (conditional acceptance) with remaining editor and reviewer comments.

6. Response letter to the critiques raised in the conditional acceptance.

7. Published article.

(7)

7 Our discussion will involve these areas (and additional topics raised by students):

● Evolution of the manuscript (what did and didn’t change)

● Thoughts about the reviewer critiques

● Reactions to the response letters

● Overall impressions of the publication process

● March 12 & 26: Ethical issues in research and practice (Megan Strickfaden)

The Department of Human Ecology, and the University of Alberta, recognizes the importance of ethical practice in education, research, and professional activities. Consequently, graduate students are expected to uphold the highest ethical standards in all aspects of their work. To achieve these high standards, graduate students must be familiar with, and follow, various codes and guidelines for ethical practice in relation to their particular area of research and study.

The Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research has stipulated that a graduate degree should include a mandatory component of training in academic integrity and ethics. Part of this training can be acquired through FGSR’s web-based ethics course: Graduate Ethics Training (GET), which can be found at https://www.ualberta.ca/graduate-studies/current-students/academic-requirements/ethics This course focuses on the academic environment and ethical issues such as conflict of interest, conflict resolution, intellectual property, scholarly integrity, and the relationship between graduate students and their supervisors.

The HECOL 692 seminars that deal with ethics are a supplement to the web-based GET course. In the seminar sessions of HECOL 692 dedicated to ethics, we focus on a range of ethical issues and guidelines that need to be considered when conducting research on people and with material objects (the focus of these seminars is primarily on conducting research with human participants).

Note: Participation in the two ethics seminars in HECOL 692 is mandatory. Should you miss one or both of these seminars, you will be required to attend the seminar(s) the following year.

●

March 12:

Examples of applications for ethics approval that will be posted on e-class.

●

March 12 & 26:

Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (2014). Retrieved from http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/pdf/eng/Revised%20Draft%202nd%20Ed%20PDFs/Revised%20Draft%2 02nd%20Edition%20TCPS_EN.pdf

●

March 26:

History of research ethics.

Guiding questions

1. What is the fundamental purpose of Ethical Guidelines for Research?

2. If you had to identify or single out one ethical principle as being most important, which would it be? Why?

3. What is informed consent? What are different ways that one can obtain Informed Consent?

4. Under what conditions is it acceptable for an Ethics Review Board to waive the requirement of Informed Consent in a research project?

5. What is the difference between anonymity and confidentiality? What are the limits of confidentiality in conducting research?

6. What are the typical ways that researchers protect confidentiality in research projects? What strategies or techniques do researchers use to protect confidentiality? In quantitative research studies? In qualitative research studies?

7. What do you see as the key issues in the guidelines around inclusivity in research?

8. What are some special considerations or challenges in conducting research with children or other individuals who legally cannot provide informed consent?

(8)

8 9. What are the most common ethical issues that you will likely have to grapple with in the kind of research

that you will do?

Outline of class activities

●

March 12:

-UofA Research Ethics procedures: Step-by-step discussion of HERO -Review and discussion of the application

●

March 26:

-Introduction: Ethics in diverse research contexts -History of research ethics

-Video & Discussion: ‘Obedience’ (1962) -Review of Tri-council policy

-Ethical issues in conducting research involving human participants:

-Research involving vulnerable populations -Concluding comments