FINALLY
My full paper is in its really rough draft form, and I couldn't be any happier. After so many months of work and research, I've finally put together something that at this stage at least looks like a real research paper! Anyways, as I've hinted a lot of time already, my paper isn't even close to done, so this blog post is just a heads up for what I'm feeling really iffy and worried about.
The first thing that I'm worried about is the length of my entire paper. It's a bit like 1000 words over the limit and I need to cut as much as possible from it, with it still making sense. I know I have a tendency to be redundant and use a lot of complex language complex language, so pointing out anything that can be cut or that can be simplified will be very useful.
Another worry that I have in terms of my paper is the definitions that I provide. Because my paper is highly technical, I want to make sure than any person can read and understand it. Therefore, if I have any unclear definitions (I most probably will), or don't explain something well enough, please bring it up in my comments. Most of definitions are in the literature review, but I also deal with statistics in my results section that I somewhat avoid full explaining. Insight into whether I need to change this or expand on it would be really helpful.
In additions to my overwhelming definitions, I'm also worried about the data in my results section coming off as too much. I have a lot of tables in the section, and although they have explanations right beneath them, I'm wondering if I should discard some of the tables altogether. I would greatly appreciate if anyone has any insight into the specific tables I should keep, get rid of, or re-explain.
Finally, and I think this is another big concern of mine, are the transitions within my paper, particularly the results and discussion section. Transitions are incredibly important, especially in a technical paper like mine, and I want to ensure that everything I say flows smoothly from one topic to another. Therefore, commenting on any missing or bad transitions I have would be, again, incredibly helpful. I have a lot of complex concepts, and if I don't explain how they connect to one another well, I might as well not have written the paper in the first place.
Anyways, that's all I've got right now. (427)
Weirdly not tired,
Akash
My full paper is in its really rough draft form, and I couldn't be any happier. After so many months of work and research, I've finally put together something that at this stage at least looks like a real research paper! Anyways, as I've hinted a lot of time already, my paper isn't even close to done, so this blog post is just a heads up for what I'm feeling really iffy and worried about.
The first thing that I'm worried about is the length of my entire paper. It's a bit like 1000 words over the limit and I need to cut as much as possible from it, with it still making sense. I know I have a tendency to be redundant and use a lot of complex language complex language, so pointing out anything that can be cut or that can be simplified will be very useful.
Another worry that I have in terms of my paper is the definitions that I provide. Because my paper is highly technical, I want to make sure than any person can read and understand it. Therefore, if I have any unclear definitions (I most probably will), or don't explain something well enough, please bring it up in my comments. Most of definitions are in the literature review, but I also deal with statistics in my results section that I somewhat avoid full explaining. Insight into whether I need to change this or expand on it would be really helpful.
In additions to my overwhelming definitions, I'm also worried about the data in my results section coming off as too much. I have a lot of tables in the section, and although they have explanations right beneath them, I'm wondering if I should discard some of the tables altogether. I would greatly appreciate if anyone has any insight into the specific tables I should keep, get rid of, or re-explain.
Finally, and I think this is another big concern of mine, are the transitions within my paper, particularly the results and discussion section. Transitions are incredibly important, especially in a technical paper like mine, and I want to ensure that everything I say flows smoothly from one topic to another. Therefore, commenting on any missing or bad transitions I have would be, again, incredibly helpful. I have a lot of complex concepts, and if I don't explain how they connect to one another well, I might as well not have written the paper in the first place.
Anyways, that's all I've got right now. (427)
Weirdly not tired,
Akash
Akash -- I think you've given your classmates a lot of really good things to focus on, and I agree that those have been the biggest struggles that you've faced throughout the entirety of the project. Therefore, having people who haven't at all seen your paper identify where those weaknesses are will hopefully at least clarify where you're having issues.
ReplyDeleteFinally, your convoluted language is definitely contributing to the word count being out of control.
Akash!!! I am happy to be back on your blog again! It looks like you have made a lot of progress since I last was on here. Let me offer you some advice on your paper.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to your lit review, I agree with you in that you should focus on your definitions. As I made sure to point out in your paper, I am a finance noob and sometimes got lost in all the money and math jargon. Yet, I do think that you did a good job synthesizing and putting sources in conversation.
Your methods and results were also pretty good but I was a bit confused on the format you chose. If that is what your discipline normally does then good stuff -- the concern I had tho was that there were a lot of sentences by themselves that I thought could be in other paragraphs. Your examples, however, were spot on where you included them and I think you should look to add more around your paper to make sure the reader stays right with you the whole way.
I found that your discussion section had similar strengths and weaknesses as your lit review -- especially regarding your definitions. I know this might be particularly frustrating since you are trying to cut down on words but a few footnotes here there or some examples similar to what you gave before would be very beneficial.
Hey Akash, I haven't really read much of your paper since the last time we sat and reviewed our Methods, so I'm glad to be reading through your first rough draft!
ReplyDeleteI know you were worried about non-finance related people having a hard time understanding what you were saying, so I tried to read this paper as if I had no clue what was going on, so I commented a few places where I think you could definitely use some clearing up.
I know this may be really annoying, especially since you are trying to lose a bunch of words, but there are a lot of places in your lit review where you bring something up that makes clear and logical sense to those who have some finance background. Unfortunately, you also don't use sources to cite these claims, and, though they make perfect sense to you and might not require sources in your head, they need to be backed by sources to build your credibility to the reader.
As for losing words, there were a lot of places where you started to get repetitive, and I marked those out so that you can fix it. Also, a lot of your sentences were phrased in ways that made them unnecessarily long. There were also a lot of parts where you would say Professor X, from Y University even though you had already stated that earlier in your paper. The biggest section where I think you can save words is on page 15 under Effects of Positive Investor Sentiment. The second and third paragraph are both used to convey a really simple and clear point that I'm sure you can get across in 2-3 sentences.
Other than that, I really liked your transitions as well as just how clear you were. I remember earlier in the year where some parts were almost impossible to understand if you didn't already know the terms, and some of those spots still exist as Sergio pointed out, but you fixed a lot of them and I found your paper to be much easier to read this time around! Keep up the great work!
Hey Akash!!! How's life? So after reading your paper thoroughly, I just want to say that I think it's a wonderful first draft. Yes, like you said, you have work to do, but I think it's great that your starting point is strong. When Mrs. Haag and I had our meeting this week, we went line by line to cut out unnecessary words, so I did the same thing for your paper. Hopefully, I have given good suggestions to cut out a decent number of words from the paper!
ReplyDeleteLiterature Review: I think that you have all the content, and it is structured effective. Overall, I understood exactly what you were getting at. However, there are some instances, where you assumed the readers' knowledge, and I highlighted areas where you need to be more clear about what you are saying. Also, you tended to brush over some foundational concepts and terms, which I have commented on. Another main issue with the lit review was that you tend to use overly complicated language that can be rewritten in simpler, more digestible words. So I have given suggestions to change that. Lastly, in your question, you didn't address Snapchat at all, so I was wondering if this was intentional, given that your literature review focused heavily on Snapchat.
Methods + Results: In your methods section, I suggest that instead of focusing on the math side of the statistics or the methods, focus more on the purpose of what the math is accomplishing. That way, if a reader is unable to follow that math, at least they know what your end game is. Further, I think the statistics section was hard to follow because there wasn't a clear structure. So I have given suggestions on how to rectify this. Finally, in your results, for the most part, I think the tables helped understand what you were saying. My only problem was with Table 8, where you didn't completely explain what you were comparing.
Discussion: I think that the biggest issue was that you didn't specify a clear framework for this section. So as a result, I didn't see many strong transitions from section to section. I have left a comment on how I think the best way to fix this is. Finally, you didn't mention Snapchat or put your findings in conversation with Snapchat in this section. As a result, the significance and implications fall short.
Overall however, I was able to follow what you were saying for most of your paper. I think that the discussion and statistical analysis part of the methods need the most work, but this is a great start! Great job!