Term Papers
	The prospectus should be 3-5 pages, typed, double-spaced, stapled. The prospectus should identify the substantive topic you will be writing about for your term paper and should also begin to outline the theoretical framework with and through which you will examine that topic. What, then, will the final paper analyze? how widespread is the phenomenon you will address (what does the research say)? what has been written about your topic? by whom? what do they say? (Note: at this relatively early stage in the semester, it may be too soon to do more than "outline" your theoretical perspective. I will give you fairly extensive feedback on the prospectus, making suggestions, etc.
	Given the relative shortness of the assigned paper (10-15 pp., including references and notes), I would encourage you to keep your theoretical framework and your topic as closely focused as possible. Use the theory, or a part of the theory, and make explicit connections between the theory and your subject matter. You must have a sociological focus to the paper. It doesn't have to incredibly complex or nuanced, but you must examine an art-related topic, and you must examine that topic from a sociological perspective.
	There is a natural tendency, especially in an interdisciplinary course such as this, to try to cover all of the possible related ideas. Avoid this. The best papers are invariably those that develop a detailed analysis of a few major themes, rather than a superficial analysis of a lot of themes.
	Please note: I expect you to incorporate and deal with the comments and suggestions that I will make on your prospectus. My comments are designed to help you write a better, and a sociological, paper. Every year when I teach this course, at least a couple of students ignore the prospectus comments. This is a bad idea -- not because I expect you to write the paper I tell you to write, but because my remarks point to flaws -- major or minor -- in the paper you have proposed. At this point in your college career, you can fairly be expected to write a logical, coherent, and persuasive argument, in whatever course you are taking. My comments on the prospectus are aimed towards helping you to do that.
	Organization of the Paper, Style, References: Conventional sociological journal articles can give you a model to work from for preparing your own papers; think about the way they are organized, the way the authors structure and present their arguments, and use that to guide you. At a more specific level: (A) Your papers should start with 1-3 pages that identify the topic and then explain the specific theoretical approach you will use. EG: "This paper will comprise an analysis of [e.g.,] Dada as an example of what Kadushin calls a movement circle; I will explore the ways that the Dada movement both fits Kadushin's views and the ways that it did not. According to Kadushin, ..." etc. Then lay out the specific concepts you will use. Then, be sure to use them. There's an old saying about how to organize social science papers: (1) tell 'em what you're going to tell 'em, (2) tell 'em, (3) tell 'em what you told 'em. Simplistic, but helpful. (B) Style: final papers should be edited. Although the sociology in the paper is most important, grammar, punctuation, and spelling all count. Good ideas cannot come across in a sloppily organized and poorly written paper. (C) References: In the text of the paper itself, all direct quotes from other sources must be put in quotation marks and cited, either in a footnote or endnote or in parentheses next to the quoted passage, with the name, date, and page number where the original quote appeared (EG: Crane 1987, p. 57). Paraphrases must also be cited (EG: see, Crane 1987, pp. 32-36). The paper must include a references section, which lists ONLY the materials you actually REFER to IN the paper. Do NOT give me a bibliography -- a list of books and articles that might be related to your topic. All articles, books, etc., actually referred to in the paper must be cited at the end of the paper. Use the following model, for the appropriate citation of references: Article: Lopes, Paul. 1992. "Innovation and Diversity in the Popular Music Industry, 1969 to 1990." American Sociological Review 57: 56-71 Book: Wolfe, Tom. 1976. The Painted Word. New York: Bantam Books.   Article or chapter IN a book: Schiller, Herbert. 1989. "The Corporate Capture of the Sites of Public Expression." Pp. --- in Culture, Inc. New York: Oxford.

If you are more comfortable with a different citation style, use that. The point is that credit must be given when and where it is due. Everything else is plagiarism.

	Presentations: (Note: Depending on enrollment and class type, presentations will not always be part of the required work for the course, but I'm including the information here because they sometimes are required. See the course requirements page to determine if they are required for the specific class in which you are enrolled.)
	Your presentations should be a short summary of your term papers. "Short" means exactly that: you will each have 15-20 minutes AT MOST to present your papers. I will time each of you and will let you know when you have 1-2 minutes left to summarize your talk. I will also cut you off, whether you are finished or not. I am not doing this to be hard on you. Rather, I'm doing it for two reasons. First, it's necessary if everyone is to get a chance to present. Second, this agenda is actually very common; graduate seminars and professional meetings operate within basically the same time frames. So, this is a chance to develop skills for the future: in or out of academia, the ability to present your ideas clearly and concisely is highly valued and valuable.
	So, what does all of this mean for you?   practice and time your presentations: a few dry runs will help. If you find yourself running over the allotted time, rethink your presentation. Ask yourself what can be cut out; what is the most interesting aspect of your research? state your theoretical framework, and describe how you did your research (and on what topic) as briefly as possible leave yourself as much time as possible to present your findings again, focus on the most important and interesting points. If you overpack your presentation, you will probably be forced to scramble when you are actually doing it. (Time goes more quickly than you expect when you are doing a public presentation of some kind.) pick two or three KEY points and try to develop those in some detail: the simpler you keep it, the less likely you are to get rattled; the simpler your presentation is in its design and focus, the greater your chances of avoiding the problem of winging it, having to shuffle papers to find your key ideas, etc. If you have handouts or visuals (or audio), so much the better. These help to illustrate your argument, and they give the audience a "map" to follow. They also shift the focus away from you to some extent.
	This raises another issue. The simple truth is that many of you will be a little nervous (natural extroverts have a better time with this). Some helpful points to remember.   You're not alone: Many people who get up in front of audiences for a living (Carly Simon, e.g.) never fully get over being nervous. For those of us who get nervous, the point is not to try to eliminate it but to use it. Nervousness, at the risk of sounding New Age-y, is energy, after all. Probably more helpful to bear in mind is that your audience is on your side. It may sound trite, but it's true: they want you to do well; they are both sympathetic and empathetic. Preparation is the best antidote to nervousness. Practice! The more familiar and comfortable you are with the material, the more you will be able to relax.