|/|/|/|/|/|
//|//|//|//|//|
Re:【原创】一天一个统计绘图软件！（软件介绍）
第二十天：KyPlot版　本：2.0发行商：Koichi Yoshioka.
一句话介绍：　　VB编的软件，听上去不怎么样，其实功能很强大，有人将他与Origin相比，说其功与Origin媲美，也从侧面放映其功能应该不错，统计功能上的确要胜过Origin，数据转换功能也很强大，小波变换、傅立叶变换均有，统计检验结果输出和Excel模式几乎一致，结果非常全面，内藏的绘图功能其实很强大，只不过绘图的过程不太直观，需要一步步按照文字的提示来，不象一般软件直接按照图形示意就能很快找到要绘制的图形。KyPlot最有特点的是其图形的三维装饰上比任何一个软件都细致，细致到Axis的末端的立体形状都能设置不同的风格。顺便提一下，KyPlot来自邻国Japan，2.0以前是免费的，往后的版本要花钱才能买到哦，据说有4.0的免费试用版，但官方网站一直打不开，暂时还没有拿到4.0。网络相关介绍：　　kyplot，日-本人编的，文件大小6.5M，数据处理功能特别强，比如能做快速小波变换、短时Fourier变换等，做出的图比orgin要漂亮一些。　　kyplot是一个科学数据分析和作图软件，小日-本开发的，对于数据图的各元素，如坐标轴、图例、刻度等的控制比SigmaPlot和Grapher以及OriginPro要强很多，特别适合复杂数据图形的处理。以前在2.0版时是Freeware，到了3.0版开始卖钱了，最新版是4.0，要$595，够黑的。　　其网站上有DEMO版下载，可惜无法Save、Copy、Print，且有时间和次数限制。kyplot，可与origin相媲美的数据处理与作图软件　　Software Information A data analysis, graphing, and drawing program for scientists and engineers. Data analysis functions include numerical filtering, differentiation and integration, matrix operations, numerical solutions of nonlinear or differential equations, optimization for arbitrary formulas, time series analysis, wavelet analysis, and many statistics. Graph types available are: line, scatter, area, bar, stacked bar, pie, radar, polar, bubble, image, contour and table (2D) and surface, contour and column (3D). Graphs support X and/or Y error bars, axis breaks, and curve fittings (nonlinear least squares or maximum likelihood fitting for arbitrary functions, polynomial, B-spline fittings, and smoothing spline, local polynomial and wavelet regressions). It also has drawing tools for making schemes for presentation. 第20天 KyPlot
（缩略图，点击图片链接看原图）
您的位置： &&相关软件 /中文/ /中文/ /英文/ /中文/ /英文/ /中文/ /中文/ /英文/ /中文/ /中文/顶好评:50%踩坏评:50请简要描述您遇到的错误，我们将尽快予以修正。轮坛转帖HTML方式轮坛转帖UBB方式
22.8M/中文/5.9
520.8M/中文/4.3
500M/中文/3.3
132.4M/中文/1.4
498.0M/中文/1.9
119.5M/中文/8.2
149.9M/中文/5.4
&Golden Software Grapher 是一款具有专业水平的科学绘图软件，属于业内绘图软件中的王牌，适用于进行论文投稿或其他相关工作进行专业绘图，是必不可少的绘图软体，在推出以来销售超过70000套；GRAPHER是由GOLDEN SOFTWARE所发展，在工业制图也以及学术交流广受欢迎。是一款XY科学绘图软体的主流软件。Golden Software Grapher 软件特色：制作尤为精密，所绘制出的每条线可达32000点，最强悍的是一张图内可一绘制无数条线，并能使用线性座标对数座标、线型符号颜色进行相关的设置自定义，同时还拥有剪贴簿的强大功能，并具有Curve Fitting功能，文字可用上下标数学符号，资料输入可用Lotus、Excel、ASCII，可使用中文，可以绘制多种图类型，并新增三角图(Ternary Plot)、统计盒型图(Box Whisker Plot)、浮动柱状(Floating Bar Chart)、泡泡图(Bubble Plot)、玫瑰图(Rose Diagram)及步阶图(Step Plot)等，是绘图必不可少的软件。XY科学绘图的王牌，论文投稿不可或缺的软体，销售广达70000套；GRAPHER是由GOLDEN SOFTWARE所发展，目前共有80余国数十万名工业界及学术界的爱用者，一致推崇GRAPHER为XY科学绘图软体的主流，论文投稿的必备利器。系统特色：每条线可达32000点，一张图内可画无数条线，可用线性座标对数座标、线型符号颜色都可定义，支援剪贴簿功能，具有Curve Fitting功能，文字可用上下标数学符号，资料输入可用Lotus、Excel、ASCII，可使用中文，并新增三角图(Ternary Plot)、统计盒型图(Box & Whisker Plot)、浮动柱状(Floating Bar Chart)、泡泡图(Bubble Plot)、玫瑰图(Rose Diagram)及步阶图(Step Plot)等，让您在绘图时更加得心应手。
安卓官方手机版
IOS官方手机版
科学绘图软件(Golden Software Grapher) v8.7.844官方安装版
下载帮助西西破解版软件均来自互联网, 如有侵犯您的版权, 请与我们联系。Social Justice, Ecological Sustainability, Public Anthropology, Global Health
Bloggers :)
Ecology & Sustainability
Ethnography
Expeditions
Professional Associations
Public Anthropology
Social Justice
Police violence at a #BlackLivesMatter protest in New York City. Overshadowed by a different sort of violence, a vigilante-payback murderous sort of protest, in Dallas.
Heartbreak. Horror. Anger. Shock.&
Obviously, there will be lots of palaver about what needs to change. Gun culture for example. Prosecuting those who abuse the
power of their position, who fail to serve / protect. Training (re-training) (better training) (anti-racism-training) of police.
And maybe before the training, &recruitment, but:
How to entice better recruits? What sane person wants to work in a racist, sexist, phobic organization?
And while we in Canada may subtly congratulate ourselves for not having the (scale of) problems that they have in America, let’s not forget we too have discrimination and sexism
Our RCMP are but one recent&.
*A Screed is a song of protest, of vilification.&
Share this:Like this:Like Loading...
Like this:Like Loading...
Posted in ,
| Tagged: , , , , , ,
(Re-blog from PressProgress.ca)
A Toronto court heard final arguments Thursday in the trial of former CBC Radio host Jian Ghomeshi.
Ghomeshi is charged with four counts of sexual assault and one count of choking to overcome resistance related to allegations brought forward by three female complainants.
While the defendent’s guilt or innocence will be determined by a judge based on evidence presented in court, Ghomeshi’s defence strategy has been widely criticized, with suggestions the aggressive cross-examination of witnesses in the high-profile trial is revictimizing the complainants and discourages women from reporting sexual assaults in the future.
Now, some question if Canada’s criminal justice system is “structurally ill-suited” to deal with sexual assault cases?
Here’s what experts and observers have to say about five of the more dangerous myths the Ghomeshi trial has pushed into the public square:
1. “Consent can be implied, retroactively”
Throughout the trial, Ghomeshi’s lawyer, Marie Heinen, has sought to raise doubts about the relationship between the complainants and her client after the alleged assaults took place.
In all of this, Macleans’ Anne Kingston observes, “the defence appears to be trying to establish some sort of retroactive implied consent, which, of course, is moot: at the time of the alleged assault, the future hadn’t occurred.”
However, Canadian law is quite clear that this is ultimately irrelevant to the issue of ‘consent’.
“If you examine this [Ghomeshi] trial,” says University of Ottawa law professor Constance Backhouse, “basically because the victims gave consent to some things — before, during and after the alleged non-consensual behaviour — we’re all making assessments that they are not believable about the non-consensual part.”
And in the eyes of the law, none of this may matter: “the Supreme Court has said that a person cannot consent to an assault that causes bodily harm,” says University of Toronto law professor Brenda Cossman. “If a sexual activity causes bodily harm, a person cannot consent to it.”
Recent polling done by the Canadian Women’s Foundation found that while 96% of Canadians agree sexual activity between partners must be consensual, over two-thirds of Canadians (67%) do not understand the legal definition of ‘consent’.
2. “Survivors go directly to police after an assault”
Heinen also questioned why one complainant did not go directly to police after the alleged assault.
“I didn’t go to the police because I wanted to go home,” the woman answered. “I didn’t go to police because I didn’t want – this,” referring to testimony before the court.
That response is consistent with statistics on sexual assaults in Canada. In 2014, Statistics Canada reported only 5% of all sexual assaults in Canada are reported to police.
“Sexual assaults perpetrated by someone other than a spouse were least likely to come to the attention of police,” another report from Statistics Canada adds, with “nine in ten non-spousal sexual assaults were never reported to police.”
3. “Survivors never go back to their abuser”
Heinen introduced evidence suggesting one complainant’s contact with Ghomeshi after the alleged assault challenged the credibility of the allegation itself.
This isn’t necessarily surprising, experts say. Survivors of abuse typically “manage the violence” through a range of responses to a traumatic experience, including “denial” and “self-blame” before they actively seek help.
“Many leave and return several times before their final separation,” reads literature prepared by the BC government for victim service workers. Some reasons include emotional attachments to the abuser, emotional abuse, threats or fears of continued violence, social and cultural pressures, or financial dependence, to name only a few.
As Keetha Mercer of the Canadian Women’s Foundation told Chatelaine:
“There are many reasons why a survivor would contact her abuser. These may include wanting to get closure or addressing what happened. Many survivors struggle to break off contact with their abuser because the nature of abuse includes undermining their self-esteem and confidence. They may feel controlled by their abuser, which is a hard feeling to shake even after they have left.”
4. “Women lie about being sexually assaulted for fame and attention”
Ghomeshi’s lawyer suggested one complainant’s allegations were motivated by fame and attention, stating she was “reveling in the attention” and pointing out how her number of Twitter followers had “skyrocketed.”
Except the trial process is arduous, often re-victimizing survivors. And as Toronto lawyer David Butts points out, the current system is “basically trial by war,” so who would volunteer to put themselves through such a distressful process?
“That is probably the worst thing to do to complainants who are coming forward to talk about very intimate and distressing violations of their sexual integrity … Moving away from an adversarial model, I think, is going to be necessary because look at the Ghomeshi trial — who would voluntarily put themselves through that?”
Not only that, but only 42% of sexual assault trials end in a conviction. 47% see charges stayed or withdrawn.
5. The stereotype of the “perfect” victim&
Ghomeshi’s defence has also attracted criticism for its “extreme focus on inconsistencies” in the complainants accounts of events, “including information that may appear to some as irrelevant,” and using these to suggest complainants are stricken with “false memories.”
Macleans’ Anne Kingston says this strategy of asking “very personal questions” is “pretty extraneous but just poked holes in issues that should have nothing to do with the charges at hand.”
“It’s totally irrelevant to whether she wanted to be punched in the face,” says UBC law professor Isabel Grant, who says the focus on inconsistencies is irrelevant to the issue of consent, but instead plays into stereotypes about women’s sexuality.
Canadian novelist Kathryn Kuitenbrouwer observes that Heinen’s cross-examination implies “that the woman has to be this hygienic, innocent, perfect bystander in these cases” – constructing an impossibly unrealistic image of what a credible victim looks and sounds like, irrelevant of the facts of the case.
“She seems to articulate that they wanted it, that they produced the violence,” Kuitenbrower adds. “And then when it happened, they came back for more.
&Tags: #Sexual Assault #Violence Against Women #feminism #Jian Ghomeshi #gender equality #Criminal courts
-113.527109
Share this:Like this:Like Loading...
[Feb 9, 2016. Some thoughts on the Ghomeshi trial, as the third complainant’s testimony and examination is completed, and as we wait for Judge Horkins to rule on admissibility of a fourth witness]
We knew that the complainants alleging assault and other charges against Jian Ghomeshi would face severe, rigorous questioning intended to discredit their testimony, from highly credentialed and skilled lawyer Marie Henein. As a dear friend and one-time courts reporter has pointed out to me, society needs this to happen. We want a defense lawyer to be a person’s liberty is at stake. We don’t want to live in a society where a state lawyer does not have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that an accused should be convicted.
However there is questioning to discredit testimony and there is “whacking”. The latter is a nefarious tactic which occurs almost exclusively in sexual assault cases. It depends on aggressive, verbal accusations, double-negatives and sexist stereotypes. The goal is to confuse and intimidate a witness so that what they say isn’t what they mean or want to say. There are many who are questioning the ethics of this tactic, noting that it is something that, like torture, fails to provide actual truths. Whacking also depends on the legal system’s assumptions that linear, chronological testimonies can be elicited from participants in traumatic events and that such ‘clear’ testimonies are more credible. Therefore, if a witness’ verbal re-telling of a traumatic event can be deconstructed, it is likely false, or exaggerated. This expectation is based on false assumptions rather than research evidence about how traumatic memory actually works and how women often react during assault. It depends on negative stereotypes about women and victims of sexual assault in particular.
So, to recap, whacking is a courtroom tactic of intimidation particularly popular in defense of sexual assault, which is intended to discredit a witnesses’ and complainant’s testimony.
Ghomeshi’s lawyer, the brilliant and fearless Marie Henein, is renowned for her whacking skill. In the Ghomeshi case however, I think Henein’s intention is to do more than just discredit the testimony through intimidation. There seem to be three key legal points that the case hinges on (I’m not a lawyer, but this is what I understand from reading the criminal code, and various pundits and researchers): First, was the violence consensual, from the
second, is there a pattern, i.e.: ‘similar facts’ that can be permitted t third, were the ‘serious harm’ actions really severe enough to be the kind of harms our criminal code says we cannot actually give consent to? I think what lawyer Henien’s strategy is a five-part smoke and mirror trick designed to address these three points of law, and one point of judicial hubris:
1) She is trying to imply that Lucy Decoutere and the two other complainants gave on-going consent, that they welcomed and therefore participated in the hitting, choking, hair-pulling, etc. This is intended to distract the judge from the point that there is no evidence of prior consent in the first instances.
2) She is trying to prevent the judge (and public) from recognizing and believing the complicated psychology of how the brain reacts to and processes trauma, including how women post-assault may seek approval from the aggressor or try to remediate a sense of
their unacceptable ‘victimhood’ by choosing ‘participanthood’ post-hoc. This does not gainsay the fact that prior and/or on-going consent had to have been given, and that failure to deny consent is not the same as giving consent.
3) Significantly, Henien seems to be trying to elide the point that Canadian law doesn’t actually permit us to consent to serious harm.
4) She is also trying to circumvent the ‘celebrity as authority figure’ factor that Ghomeshi represented for the complainants: the fact that he was a highly regarded personality with influence in the media-arts-entertainment industry and the women were in early-career stages with aspirations in that business meant that Ghomeshi’s actions were extra compelling, in both his potential and effect as a perpetrator. He had the glamour (in the old Celtic sense of disguising evil with beauty). I wonder if Monica Lewinsky might not have something to say about the complicated emotions that happen when one thinks of one’s idol as a friend, or even romantic partner?
5) More speculatively however, and this is where the mirrors become truly smokey, I think Henien is playing a long head-game with Judge Horkins. I think she is trying to trade on the rather fuzzy boundaries as to what actually consists of consentable sexual violence, and to push the judge into fearing making a ruling that establishes a new precedent, but could be overturned on appeal. Judges hate having rulings overturned and Henein is trying to make the judge concerned about his own legacy.
In the latter (5), I suspect Henien could succeed, simply because Ghomeshi and his past ‘intimate partners’ do not seem to me to be credible as exemplars of a BDSM community. So if Judge Horkins makes the ruling that Ghomeshi is guiltyon the grounds that Lucy Decoutere could not give Ghomeshi permission to choke her as part of sexual ‘play’, I would expect that ruling could be contested, simply because there are very likely members of the BDSM community who could make the legal argument that choking can be orgasm via temporary asphyxiation, for example.
In the former (1 – 4), While Henien seems to be going for a determination of on-going consent to ‘rough sex’, I suspect that she could fail, simply on points of law – no judge can fail to note lack of evidence of initial consent, implied or otherwise, permissible or otherwise, and because there is similar fact evidence that Henien has not successfully contested
As I write this, Henein has begun trying to discredit the ‘similar fact’ complainant 3 and 2 have been shown to have shared their stories, as women, and victims often tend to do as a part of processing a trauma. But in the eyes of the law, that story-comparing leaves Henein scope for the argument that the 3 women colluded in their testimony, thus devaluing the strength of ‘similar facts’ evidence.
At this point, as I see it, it comes down to two things: Is Judge Horkins susceptible to Henein’s smoke and mirrors? and does Crown Attorney Gallagher have some Windex up his sleeve?
Some links very much worth reading:
re: Traumatic Memory & Sexual Assault
Re: Giving testimony as a sexual assault complainant:
re: Marie Henein
re: Whacking
re: Canadian Criminal Code, and Consent to Harm
Share this:Like this:Like Loading...
Like this:Like Loading...
Posted in , , ,
&There are so many types of “refugees” and many ways to describe them. We have used terms like Displaced Persons (“DPs”), Victims of War, Illegal Immigrants, Asylum Seekers, ?migrés; each label is polysemic, encoding semantic and political trajectories backwards and forwards in time. Compare the representation of Elsa, the heroine of Casablanca, as she bends legal and moral rules in order to escape Morocco under Nazi control, with representation of contemporary Khurds or Syrians as they flee the war front which has taken over their doorsteps. Or compare the representation of heroic Rick, who condones Elsa’s and Victor’s attempts to escape and conives with the shady Signor Ferrari, with contemporary human traffickers.&
However labelled and represented, refugees are the subject of much professional expertise, policy, surveillance and document-anxiety. The United Nations has an entire bureaucratic directorate, a High Commission -the UNHCR- devoted to the fact that refugees exist. People who are called refugees (or DPs or illegal immigrants, etc.) are characterized by their nation of origin, by their sex, gender, religion, age, education, medical needs, income-potential, sometimes we characterize refugees by their experience with violence and/ sometimes we recognize a refugee by how long they have been in limbo, that physical and psychological state of deterritorrialization also known as a ‘refugee camp’; a place which itself might actually be a town in everything but official municipal policy and potential for its residents to plan a future for themselves. &
No matter how it is described, being a refugee sucks. As poet
says, no one flees home unless “home is the mouth of a shark”.&
In Canada these days, &we are saying “” and congratulating ourselves on having Canada back. We say “refugees welcome” in sympathy with the middle-class seeming people currently fleeing the Syrian conflict, but also in &opposition to what we see and hear from the bombastic rhetoric of &American presidential candidate- and we feel very good about ourselves.&
But our much-lauded new government, while aiming to put a dent in the current disaster of asylum-seekers’ deaths and bring some 20,000 refugees to Canada, and in simultaneously seeking to defray racist fear-mongering about ‘extremist Muslims’, is prioritizing ‘safe refugees’ – those vetted by the UNHCR. So those receiving Canadian welcomes are privately sponsored, or coming from long-term, well-provided camps in Lebanon & Turkey. We are delayed in meeting our national target partly because those acceptable to Canada are themselves sometimes reluctant to relocate so far from their home terrains. They are not the people we see being rescued from boats in the Mediterranean, pressed against yet another border fence in Hungary, or rushing trucks heading into the Chunnel. &&
I bet some of the 3000+ people sinking and freezing in the French winter-mud of the Dunkirk suburb/fenced refugee camp of
(AKA ‘The Jungle’) or squatting in a refugee hell on
would be happy to accept a Canadian welcome.&
We could meet our goal of 20,000 and more if we actually welcomed #refugees.&
*Photo credit @Msf_Sea
Follow suggestion: Mohammed Ghannam @MohGhn, (Jan 10, 2016).&
-113.527113
Share this:Like this:Like Loading...
26 I was pregnant, happy, optimistic for my child, who was being born into a world that had just breached the
It seemed like peace was breaking out all over. And then, Dec 6. Montreal.
It was a terrible shock. Not just that a single shooter would attack students at a university. But that he would specifically order classes to separate into groups of male and female, and then shoot, murder, slaughter, the women only. And then repeat in other classes.
Suddenly, the entire nation, was confronted with a terrible truth: as people listened to the reports, some realized they’d expected -and accepted- the idea that the shooter might separate the victims by sex, so that he could shoot the men. That he targeted the woman was a surprise, an affront.
The tragedy of L’Ecole Polytechnic gave Canadians a double shock: We realized our attitudes to violence had been blunted by patriarchal assumptions that included the horrid acceptance that males were legitimate targets for violence. Equally, our understanding of violence against women had been dismally, willfully, complicitly, naive. The value of feminism as a necessity, even as it was being described as the murderer’s motivation, was confirmed.& The optimism of Berlin was washed in the horrors, the guilty insights, of Montreal. 22 days later, I gave birth to a daughter.&
Now, 26 years on, we have raised the approbation of Violence Against Women to iconic, professionalized status. It is possible to use the acronym of VAW and be widely understood as one condemns patriarchy, the ubiquitous and resilient inequities between sexes, and argues for services, policies, legislation, education to mitigate VAW. Good steps have been taken. But not enough.
The acceptance of violence itself has not moved on much from the guilty horror of 1986, and mothers’ children continue to be slaughtered. Today, as every Dec 6, I condemn the craven decisions that permit th I mourn for those mothers who suffer the catastrophe of violence against their child, and offer a grateful whew to the luck goddess that I am not in their cohort.
[Image credit: The European Danse Macabre, Alberto Martini, 1915, via @LibroAntiguo ]&
Share this:Like this:Like Loading...
Posted in , , ,
Posted in ,
| Tagged: ,
In , 50 Science Europe members agreed on 4 new common principles expected for publisher members when providing payments/subsidies for Open Access venues. The first principle states that journals must be listed in DOAJ, Web of Science, Scopus or PubMed.
The new principles adopted by
aim at setting minimum standards for Open Access publishing services provided by scholarly publishers. These general – and at the same time very practical – principles will help ensure scholarly and technical quality and cost effectiveness of Open Access-related services in all fields, from sciences to social sciences and the humanities. As scholarly publishing makes its transition to an Open Access system, and as service providers change their business models, the outcome of the transition will depend on the added value and quality of the services provided.
Of course, this is fantastic news for DOAJ. It underlines our…
170 more wordsShare this:Like this:Like Loading...
Like this:Like Loading...
Posted in ,
We have had overwhelming support from a wide range of academics for our paper on
(200+ as of June 22nd). However, some have also posed interesting follow-up questions on the blog and by email which are worth addressing in more depth. These are more
on the whole and relate to the relationship between the flaws in the current system and the flaws in the proposed system. In my view the latter still greatly outweigh the former but it is useful to reflect on them both.
Current REF assessment processes are unaccoun aren’t metrics a more transparent, public and objective way of assessing research?
The current REF involves, as the poser of the question pointed out, small groups of people deliberating behind closed doors and destroying all evidence of their deliberations. The point about the non-transparency and unaccountability…
2,002 more wordsShare this:Like this:Like Loading...
Reading academic literature is a skill that all college and university students must acquire, but as professors, we don’t always think about how that happens.
Equally, making usable notes
is an important routine that all students should develop, as soon as possible, but again, this is rarely taught.
This is ironic, because we expect our students
to read many, many, many things! Having good notes, and learning how to process those readings efficiently, will make a student’s career so much easier and more successful. To this end, and based on my own experiences as a student, I’ve developed a five-step exercise which is intended to help students read, take notes on, remember and qualitatively assess, scholarly literature –especially that based on research.
I’ve used it for several years, with very good feedback. Yesterday I updated my teaching tool. Today I’m posting it here for feedback.
The problem:
While students will likely have read numerous books, magazines, newspapers, blogs, graphic novels, zines, essays or (at least) twitter feeds by the time they enter university or college, academic reading has different purposes, expectations and responsibilities, It requires a different approach. In addition, being an undergraduate often means having a huge reading load to accomplish in a short period of time. Having so much to read, and so much content to absorb, can be daunting. it can be hard to know what to focus on.
There are two common mistakes. One is to read the book, chapter, or article as if it were a novel, focussing on the plot, ‘characters’ and
ending. This is especially true when reading ethnographies or case studies. Secondly, when trying to take notes, without some framework for filtering and organizing the information they are reading, it is easy for a student to fall into the trap of re-writing (practically) the entire article into their study notes.
That is such a waste of energy and time!
The Solution:
What I’ve found is that if students are taught to standardize how to read and make notes on research literature, in the long run they can
build an annotated, standardized bibliography of everything they have read, and ultimately save time and remember what the literature says.
The steps outlined below are designed to help students standardize their approach to reading scholarly literature, organize their note-taking, and to help them clearly identify the argument that each scholar is presenting. The five steps are intended to help students avoid making the two common errors. I hope they work for your students too!
Reading Critically
The first thing students need to realize about reading academic literature is that the content is authored by a researcher (or team of researchers) who has collected and analysed some sort of data, and is presenting her/his analysis as a contribution to generalized knowledge and/or theory-building. I tell my students over and over: Researchers are making an argument: “I did Y, and I found X, which is important because XYZ“.
Researchers rarely say that something is proven unequivocally. As such, the information in scholarly lite contingent on the quality of the data collected, the appropriateness of the methodology, and accuracy of the analysis. It is contingent on the potential for new information or theoretical insights to alter the interpretations.
A student’s
goal as a reader is to assess the quality of that argument, and decide how it fits with other research that they have read. This works better, with an organized, strategic approach to reading and taking notes.
The Exercise
Read the article until you get to the point where the author tells you what s/he will be arguing. Sometimes we refer to this as the thesis Statement. Writing styles and conventions vary across disciplines, so this thesis or argument or what the paper (or book or chapter, etc) is about may appear in the first paragraph, or even as far in as the second or third page.
Look for statements like “This paper will argue”, or “I will suggest that” or “this paper reports on a study into…”.
When you get to this point, stop, and write down the thesis statement.
Flip to the end of the paper (chapter, book, etc). Find the concluding statement. This may sometimes be referred to as ‘Results’ or ‘Findings’ (especially in more quantitatively focussed research). It may be a section, or an entire chapter called ‘Conclusion’. Read the conclusion and make notes as to what the author is saying s/he has found.
Step Three:
Go back to the beginning and read lightly, looking for the methodology. How was the data collected? Is this a randomized double-blind trial? Is this based on interviews? Self-reported in a survey? Participant observation?
Document the methodology in your notes.
Step Four:
Now you can read the entire article, chapter, book. As you read, look for data that the that the author(s) present as evidence to justify their conclusion.
Take notes as to this evidence – what is presented that specifically supports the conclusion(s)? If you are reading a long article or book, it will help you to record the specific page numbers for where the evidence is recorded. Be aware that in anthropology, what counts as ‘evidence’ is likely to be anecdotal and or observational – it may be a story or a type of ceremony recorded by the researcher, or statements made to the researcher by interlocutors.
Step Five:
When you are finished Step Four, think about the evidence presented, and the arguments made on the basis of that evidence. Do you agree with the researcher’s interpretation of the data? Would you interpret the material differently, to come to different conclusions? What about the quality of the data / evidence presented? Does it seem reliable? Is it possible that the researcher could have misinterpreted or misrepresented what they’ve used as data? Is there evidence of bias?
As you become more skilled in the literature, you will be able to consider: Has the author accurately applied the evidence to theory, or has the researcher misrepresented or misinterpreted what other theorists have written?
Record your interpretations and opinions, your alternative interpretations and/or reservations about the article. (If you are reading a book, repeat this step for each chapter, and then for the book as a whole).
There are numerous annotated bibliography software options. An Excel spreadsheet can be designed to allow for a searchable database.
is popular, with good reason – it offers features far beyond the annotated bibliography.
But I find that typing into a computer is a distraction when reading a book (even an e-book).
To that end, I developed a template that students can use to structure their notes. The info recorded here can always be added to a digitized database later.
Date & Citation:
Thesis Statement:
Conclusion:
Methodology:
Evidence | Data:
Assessment | Critique:
(Repeat Step 5 for each chapter of a book)
More Resources:
Mount Mercy University. Reading a Research Article
Share this:Like this:Like Loading...
In December 2012, I was invited to Oslo to give a presentation on pedagogy. This is what I said:
I’ve taught anthropology in u a lot. Many have been multicultural, and multigenerational. I’ve also been privileged to teach anthropology in some unusual classroom settings, for example, on cruise ships, in academic studies abroad (; ), and in the traditional territory of the
First Nation.
In the campus classroom and off-site, my teaching philosophy is influenced by
in Undergraduate Education:
Encourage student-faculty contact
Encourage cooperation among students
Encourage active learning
Give prompt feedback
Emphasize time on task
Communicate high expectations
Respect diverse talents and ways of learning
While working as a , I was able to partake of a training programme called “”
that focused on adult education and change management. Two of the key lessons were that
people learn best when they are having fun, and
they accept new ideas when those ideas have relevance for them.
I think you’ll agree with me that one of the chief goals of anthropology as a discipline is to encourage the valor or to put it another way, to counter stereotypes and stigmas about the ‘cultural other’; countering stereotypes is, obviously, introduction of a ‘new idea’ .
Traditionally, anthropologists have done our stereotype-countering with entertaining lectures and monographs, whereby the anthropologist’s experience stood as proxy for the student’s experience: the anthropologist went, learned, returned and represented the ‘other’ to an audience of learners. We still do that in our university teaching today. We use stories and writings to represent the cultural other to our students – whether they be in a university classroom or the deck of a cruise ship.
— Sometimes this works to counter stereotypes. Often, it does not —
Therefore, I turn to teaching games to help make lessons more memorable, and fun. Good teaching / learning games are like a ritual: they offer multiple, polysemic, lessons. Teaching games offer the chance to draw analogies from one instance or experience, to another (like any good metaphor). They also provide a kinaesthetic experience to augment the usual oral and aural ways that students are taught. My favourite is the Partnership Toss Game.
How to play Partnership Toss
A group of peop the circle should be at least 1.5 more is fine, but not beyond 3 meters. One person tosses a small object (i.e.: a bean-bag) to another person, anywhere across the circle. That person tosses the object to a different person and so on, until everyone has received a toss of the bag and it eventually makes its way back to the original thrower. Then the group has to repeat the exact pattern of tosses – remembering who tossed to whom, in what order, over and over again. When the group has the pattern complete and begins to do it rapidly and automatically, the teacher/facilitator int now the group has to repeat the pattern with two bags. then introduce a third bag. If things go well, and the pattern is maintained and rapid, the final step is to pull a thrower (any) out of the circle and see what happens. Usually, there is lots of laughter.
What does this game teach? Among other things, players spontaneously conclude that:
Groups of people can learn and perform complex tasks,
The outcome of the task depends on individual members doing something quite simple and limited
Communication helps keep complex tasks and patterns flowing
When routines become established, we don’t have to think, we can just act automatically
That we can have fun when doing our part, take pleasure from a routine task done in partnership
But there can be a limit to what the individuals in a group can do when asked to take on more of the same task
Even the best-practised routine can fail if over-loaded, or if one member/segment of the system breaks down or is removed.
Overall, we can use this game to draw several analogies, for example, on the theme of “Partnership Makes Complexity Easier” –such as in a Polynesian or Melanesian or T stereotypes about ‘simple’ village life do not represent the complexity of the system.
Penn State University has devised some diversity teaching games
that I like to use, depending on the class level / background experience:
Five Moments
Give each participant a piece of paper. Have them write down the five moments in their lives that were most important for shaping who they are today. Go around and have each person share two or three events in their life. Facilitate a discussion on how the major events in life are universal and are not a respecter of people’s differences.
Stereotype Wall
Place posters on the wall that have titles of different groups (such as ethnic groups, genders, sexual orientations and socioeconomic classes). Have people walk around the room and write something that they have heard about these people or a way in which this group of people is stereotyped. Facilitate a discussion on where these stereotypes came from and if they have veracity.
Chain of Diversity
Pass out six slips of paper to every person. Have each person write down a similarity and a difference that they have concerning other people in the room on each slip of paper (for a total of six similarities and six differences). Have members share two of their strips. Then, using glue or a stapler, link all of the strips together in a chain that shows that, no matter how divided people may be by their differences, their similarities will always bring them together.
As you may be able to guess by now, I am a fan of experiential learning, creative classrooms and of the transformative power of the ethnographic experience. In my opinion, nothing teaches anthropology as well as learning by doing. I tried to do this myself with my ethnographic field school in Tonga.
Ethnography itself is undergoing a remarkable efflorescence, both outside anthropology and within. This is coupled with an increased interest in ethnographic training. Around 2005 – 2007, the US-based National Science Foundation [NSF] awarded several grants for training in ethnographic methods. The one I am reporting about here, is a particular ethnographic field school which is, to the best of my knowledge, unique.
Exactly how does this field school differ from most ethnographic field schools? Emphasis on participant observation, taught (in part) by observing participants:
, was collaboratively designed with the residents of the village where the field school was to take place.
In the early stages of the project development, I travelled to Ha’ano, a village where I have had ongoing and deep relationships for over a dozen years. In village meetings, small group and individual meetings with village elders, and with members of the women’s development committees, we strategized about questions related to pedagogy and content: We asked ourselves, how and what to teach students who might become ethnographers in the future? I had my own ideas about criteria, but I wanted the hosts of the school, and the people usually relegated to the role of ‘observed’ and ‘interviewed’ to say what, and how, they wanted the students to learn.
We agreed that the underlying principles of the school should be as follows:
The ethnographic field school would provide an experientially rich entré to doing ethnography in the ‘classic’ sense.
The students should enjoy the experience.
The village and island residents should enjoy and benefit from the Field School.
The students would acquire respect for Tongan culture, society and people.
The students would appreciate the covenant of reciprocity and respect that underlies the long-term ethnographic encounter.
Building on these principles, we agreed that key elements of the Fieldschool would be:
Cultural orientation and lessons in social etiquette prior to staying in the village.
Classes on ethnographic ethics, mapping, kinship, participant observation, interviewing, visual and written field notes, Tongan culture, history, economy, politics, ecology, fishing, farming, textile-making, child-rearing, ceremony and language.
Classes in anthropology to be taught by academic professor, classes on Tongan ethnography to be taught by Tongans.
Tongan culture experts identified as potential interviewees or invited to teach in their areas of expertise to be paid or offered honoraria.
Students hom on they participate in household chores as if a son or daughter of the household.
The Field School would reimburse the village, each homestay family, and provide tranlation assistance to students.
All ethnographic information recorded by students during the fieldschool to remain unpublished.
Based on those meetings, I drafted a field school proposal, and submitted it to the Study Abroad Program at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa. When the proposal was accepted, and with financial support from the Centre for Pacific Islands Studies, I hired a particularly skilled and well-respected Tongan woman as Field School Assistant, to help make arrangements, coordinate travel, translate documents, and act as curriculum development partner.
Thus, from the outset, the fieldschool was participatory, culturally-sensitive in design and action-research oriented.
While the students learned to be participant observers, the villagers learned to be observant participants in the training of ethnographers. In essence, people most used to being the subjects of research were recruited as active educators of a future crop of anthropologists:
In addition to acting as home-stay hosts, village residents were active teaching partners, providing
guest lectures in the classroom,
hands-on lessons in the gardens, reef, fishing boats and weaving houses, and
ethnographic interviews on subjects negotiated between student, villager and instructor.
Perhaps most significantly, the villagers acted as evaluators of the students’ performance, contributing to the students’ final grades.
The most radical differences between my Ethnographic Fieldschool: Tonga and other forms of field school training lay in the privileging of local needs, and repositioning of knowledge, pedagogy, curriculum content, and authority to teach to those who are normally constructed as interlocutors rather than instructors.
The fieldschool offered fun, information, but also the praxis of subverting usual forms of power coded into the researched-researcher relation. I am very proud of this model.
Unfortunately, not all students can participate in a multiweek long ethnographic field school. However, even a short visit — like the one I did recently for KulturStudier in Pondicherry India — can be very important.
Last month, at my request, the
team organized a field visit to a village (We tried to organize three day- two went awry through no fault of the team, but the third, was accomplished very well). Special mention must be made here for Senthil Raja, Kavitha Ramkumar and Marie Nyhuus, who did a lot of the ground work, including running all around Pondicherry, drawing on personal connections, and giving lots of hours on top
to Laurie Schmidt also, for endorsing the concept.
The main goals were to
1. Give the students a chance to experience actively the village they’d been viewing passively through bus windows.
2. Give the students a real life example that they could use to reflect upon when reading or discussing written materials to do with governance, gender, village life, education and/or the presence of religion in everyday life.
3. Test the opportunity to institute a regular village visit into the Religion and Power program.
In the last week of the anthropology lectures, the anthropology students walked from the study centre at to Pooranankuppam, Pondicherry – ?????????? – in Tamil Nadu, India.
We met with the Vice-president of the village panchayat (an elected official at the local government level).
He escorted us through the village, on foot, introducing us to some other members of the village leadership, and showing us some of the significant sites within the village – including the public gathering / performance space, the government school, the market, the government food-distribution store, and the central temple. We had great fun seeing inside the elementary school, and performed an impromptu song for the stude we exchanged gifts, and had a question & answer session with two members of the panchayat.
After 2.5 hours, we went back to Kailash for lunch.
While not exactly an ethnographic field school, it was an important learning opportunity.
How for example, does it fit within Chickering’s and Gamson’s
7 principles?
A field trip is a for It makes discussions of village leadership more relevant because students have a context, they can remember, not imagine, the village leaders they met.
Students were able to ask questions –of the local experts- and receive an prompt feedback. They didn’t have to remember to look it up later.
The visit was structured in time, and space, so students knew to pay attention now, to stay on task.
In terms of respecting diverse talents and ways of learning, experiential, learners had the opportunity to touch and smell, as well as see & it was kinaesthetic as well as oral & aural.
That particular walking visit didn’t go beyond the student-faculty contact that already existed, but it did put that contact in a different context. Insofar as the visit modelled ethnographic interviewing for students, it added value to the student-faculty contact.
It didn’t go beyond student cooperation that already existed (but it could do, if properly structured).
Expectations were communicated in terms of socially ap students were asked to prepare questions in advance. Whether these are ‘high’ or just ‘normal’ expectations is open to discussion.
How does it fit the 2 pearls criteria?
In post-program evaluations, 53% of the students rated the visit as “very good”
33% said it was good.
No one said it was poor or very poor.
Anecdotally, immediately after the visit, students reported a better understanding of what a panchayat is, how it works, and a better impression of the way local governance works in Pondicherry.
So: a small start, but an overall success.
This being said, no matter what type of classroom, and no matter how wonderful the experiences offered, a course needs to have some clear objectives / goals, and a clear idea of what the student will learn/gain. Ideally, those learning outcomes are integrated with the final evaluation, and the readings & assignments support the learning objectives and the final evaluation. When that is done, then the chances for success, measured by student performance and satisfaction, and by the satisfaction of the pedagogy team, are high.
There is a tool that I use when trying to create a well-integrated course design:
Questions for Formulating Significant Learning Goals
I ask myself: “A year (or more) after this course is over, I want and hope that students will _________…..” (achieve, apply, know, remember)
Foundational Knowledge
o What key information (e.g., facts, terms, formulae, concepts, principles, relationships, etc.) is/are important for students to understand and remember in the future?
o What key ideas (or perspectives) are important for students to understand in this course?
Application Goals
o What kinds of thinking are important for students to learn?
~Critical thinking, in which students analyze and evaluate
~Creative thinking, in which students imagine and create
~Practical thinking, in which students solve problems and make decisions
o What important skills do students need to gain?
o Do students need to learn how to manage complex projects?
Integration Goals
o What connections (similarities and interactions) should students recognize and make…:
~Among ideas within this course?
~Between the information, ideas, and perspectives in this course and those in other courses or areas?
~Among material in this course and the students’ own personal, social, and/or work life?
Human Dimensions Goals
o What could or should students learn about themselves?
o What could or should students learn about understanding others and/or interacting with them?
Caring Goals
o What changes/values do you hope students will adopt?
~Feelings?
~Interests?
“Learning-How-to-Learn” Goals
o What would you like for students to learn about:
~how to be good students in a course like this?
~how to learn about this particular subject?
~how to become a self-directed learner of this subject, i.e., having a learning agenda re: what they need/want to learn, and a plan for learning it?
So why, you are asking yourself, did I call this lecture Sand in My Syllabus?
It gets into your eyes, your ears, your hair, un
Sand makes you aware of things you normally take for granted. Sand may be something common to the ‘way off campus locations I’ve taught (and one of the on-campuses too), but it is also a great metaphor for the ‘way off campus pedagogical experience, indeed, for the ethnographic experience.
Because in the same way that anthropology puts grit in our comfy stereotypes and cultural assumptions, once you start thinking about the requirements for teaching in non-u such as to retirees on cruise ships, or to university students on away-from-home courses, the value of experience-near, and experience-rich learning opportunities abrades your usual ways of thinking about teaching.
It puts sand in your syllabus.
I’m excited about the opportunities for ‘way off campus / ‘experience-near’ teaching because I think it does the job of breaking down stereotypes, of de-romanticizing the ‘other’ and making them the ‘neighbour, the partner, the friend’ better than does the university lecture hall. So I’m excited about ‘experience-near’ teaching because it makes my university lecture hall teaching better, too.
Let me wrap-up with some observations on what having sand in my syllabus has taught me about the past and future of teaching anthropology, and how best to align with the classic theme of deconstructing stereotypes, of making the exotic familiar and the familiar exotic:
In the Past, we had:
Reports sent to the armchair anthropologist (who wrote them into books and lectures)
Anthropologists went to the region, interviewed people from the porch (and wrote it into books and lectures)
Anthropologists went lived in the village (and wrote it into books and lectures)
Anthropologist spokes for the people / research subjects
Result: Learning based on anthro-Prof mediating between subject & (think Frazer, Malinowski, Mead, Firth….)
In the Future, we will have more of:
Subject Students travel too
Subjects can speak for themselves
Anthropologist / Professor’s role becomes that of learning coach and student mentor
Professor enables experience-rich learning opportunities
Professor’s role emphasises context provision
Result: Learning based on guided, experience -near interactions
Note that in this model, the professor is responsible as context provider and enabler of experientially rich learning opportunities. ‘Context’ includes the academic \ scientific literature, factual information, and perspectives on the public & specialized discourses on the subject matter. It includes the structure of the learning experience, and the integrated learning design.
The anthropologist professor is not replaceable, not redundant. But the style of teaching anthropology that we have had since WWII… well, that is replaceable.
It is my humble opinion that, while university-based education is irreplaceable, and the role of the professor\researcher is absolutely necessary, the learner interest in, and opportunities for, teaching ‘way off-campus are only going to increase. That is a good thing for the anthropological project of valourizing of diversity, of countering social, ethnic and gendered stereotypes, of dismantling the echelons of injustice, of exposing the selfishness of inequity, of confronting stigma, of thinking comparatively, of making the ‘exotic familiar and the familiar exotic’. In fact, anthropology is the discipline/praxis/perspective that is intrinsically well-situated for putting sand into everybody’s syllabus, and doing it ‘way off-campus.
Thank you to , especially Dr. Thorgeir Kolshus and Dr. Rune Tjelland for inviting me to think about the subject of academic pedagogy in non-normal settings.
(last accessed Dec 2, 2012)
(last accessed Dec 2, 2012)
(last accessed Dec 2, 2012)
Share this:Like this:Like Loading...
Like this:Like Loading...
Posted in , , ,
| Tagged: , ,
Like this:Like Loading...
| Tagged: , , ,
rabble.ca, the Canadian site devoted to progressive and
social justice issues in Canada is developing an
intended to be a venue for sharing of information.
Its in beta form yet, but is already quite useful, with How-To-Guides, Software Tools, Workshop Outlines and sections for media and research.
I really like this! The concept reminds me of a book that was hugely influential in my middle-youth (when I was a 20-something): Abbie Hoffman’s Steal This Book. Published in 1971,
became a best-seller. It was a how-to for American dissidents who wanted to resist their government.
It was full of
then-radical tips such as how to send a letter for free (put your address on the “To” portion, and the intended address in the “Return” leave the stamp off. The Postal Service would identify insufficient postage and return the letter to sender, AKA the place you wanted it to go to in the first place).
It also had some more problematic info, like how to make a pipe-bomb. Nowadays, we have Google and YouTube for that kind of advice. Likewise, political and corporate policies and procedures, not to mention laws and public attitudes towards dissent and activism, have changed. Steal This Book is now a nostalgic nod to a time when youth activism was prominent on the political landscape, mostly because it is a technological relic.
Which makes the new Activist’s Toolkit so relevant and helpful.
Its a wiki, meaning participants can change and add content over time.
Plus, it is Canadian.
The advice is relevant for our political system.
What do they have in common? The idea that a democracy works best when its citizenry are engaged, know how the system works, and can work in solidarity to make sure that our governments work on our behalf.
Share this:Like this:Like Loading...
Like this:Like Loading...
Posted in , , ,
| Tagged: , , , , , , , ,
Share this:Like this:Like Loading...
Posted in , , , , ,
| Tagged: , , ,
Like this:Like Loading...
Posted in , , , , , ,
| Tagged: , , , ,
Like this:Like Loading...
Posted in , ,
| Tagged: , , , ,
Like this:Like Loading...
Posted in , , ,
| Tagged: , , , , ,
Send to Email Address
Your Email Address
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.