How to write KD and BD (some tips) | very simple:
If any of this entry topic reminds U.Eko book's title, immediately double bed want to warn - this is not an attempt to somehow emulate Eko, or just create a valuable job. This is a blog entry to which motivated me quite pragmatic fact: running a few years students scientific works, double bed I've noticed that students often make similar mistakes. So think of this record as a minimum, you should know by writing or undergraduate course work. For this is a check-list to help you avoid mistakes.
Of course, it is very important that the theme you'd love. You will not be able to write a work about the Holocaust, if you have no interest in history. At the same time, your interest is not enough. Choosing a topic, think very pragmatic: the first is your study. double bed Therefore, you must first understand - what you want to study. If I want to explore the "crisis of the Latvian economy," I will not be able to do this because I can not define what is a crisis. Also Journalism editor you will never going to say - "write about politics"!
So, the answer to the question - what exactly you want to study. Generally, the communication problem (which you often work wonders leaders) is one of the communication links. So think twice if you want to explore the content (text? Picture? Program?) Or communicators (journalists? Producers? Production stage?). Maybe you want to explore the audience? It can not and should not explore it all. The more precisely double bed you definēsiet problem, the easier it will be for you to conduct a study!
Many students have mačisms. Also, I myself always want to write a masterpiece. For example, I thought that to study television production from January to March, there is no point in the end but I will not be able to generalize the findings to discuss television in general. Only later I realized - because I strictly norobežošu field of investigation (both theoretically and empirically), the more accurate will be my study, more reliable results. double bed And in the end, it does not disturb me to judge the broader processes.
Another tip. If you finally can not figure out the theme, Walk to the library. Pašķirstiet books or scientific journals. double bed You will see at which problems and a perspective written by others. But we do not live in a vacuum double bed science. And your scientific discovery, not a wheel, but most likely someone double bed else's discovery logical continuation. Also here mačisms not in place.
Once this is done, write an introduction! Properly, the introduction to the article at the end. I am now talking double bed about another introduction - an introduction as a guide for writing. Define - why are you writing this work, you want to find out. Mere 10 lines. Occasionally re-read the introduction. This will help you to stick to the road.
And the last piece of advice on the subject. The very same most importantly - nestresojiet! Good topic can figure out just when the mind is fresh and calm. I often good themes come when I do not think about them. Or refuse to believe it, when I'm well rested!
As has just been mentioned, our scientific discoveries do not live in a vacuum. double bed Of course, you will have heard, for example, directors who do not look the other colleagues in the film to be unaffected. This is not our case! We will not reveal anything, if not know that ahead of us in this particular area is done.
So my work we have to show that we actually know what position is currently a theoretical discussion! What is a good theoretical part is different from the bad? First, the bad part of the theoretical work seems totally unnecessary. If you write, for example, documentary films, but creating an entire theoretical part of the chapter on the choice of message, it looks weird.
Secondly, do not write the theoretical part of everything. If your work is on the television, focus on certain concepts that you will come in handy in the study. This will allow you to avoid another error. Specifically, students in the theoretical part deals with many issues, does not text. It's more like a synopsis. Your task - to create a discussion between the authors show how different (or maybe similar) different authors define things. double bed
First, my answer is very simple. Trust in the library! I can not vouch for all the libraries, but if you aiziesiet our Faculty library, you will be quite difficult to find authors that could not cite. This is because our books very often choose either the teachers who know their field or professional librarians.
There is one BET. Some books we ordered a teaching purposes rather than academic works! So from your list of references at once by deleting the outdoors: a) textbooks (in Russian language they called учебники) b) encyclopedias (Handbooks in English, Russian, sometimes справочники)
Why is this book does not fit our academic research? Because this book is a compilation ALREADY ready version of the question! You can use this book to enhance their knowledge. But this book is already ready version of the question: the primary sources (or authors, which attempts
If any of this entry topic reminds U.Eko book's title, immediately double bed want to warn - this is not an attempt to somehow emulate Eko, or just create a valuable job. This is a blog entry to which motivated me quite pragmatic fact: running a few years students scientific works, double bed I've noticed that students often make similar mistakes. So think of this record as a minimum, you should know by writing or undergraduate course work. For this is a check-list to help you avoid mistakes.
Of course, it is very important that the theme you'd love. You will not be able to write a work about the Holocaust, if you have no interest in history. At the same time, your interest is not enough. Choosing a topic, think very pragmatic: the first is your study. double bed Therefore, you must first understand - what you want to study. If I want to explore the "crisis of the Latvian economy," I will not be able to do this because I can not define what is a crisis. Also Journalism editor you will never going to say - "write about politics"!
So, the answer to the question - what exactly you want to study. Generally, the communication problem (which you often work wonders leaders) is one of the communication links. So think twice if you want to explore the content (text? Picture? Program?) Or communicators (journalists? Producers? Production stage?). Maybe you want to explore the audience? It can not and should not explore it all. The more precisely double bed you definēsiet problem, the easier it will be for you to conduct a study!
Many students have mačisms. Also, I myself always want to write a masterpiece. For example, I thought that to study television production from January to March, there is no point in the end but I will not be able to generalize the findings to discuss television in general. Only later I realized - because I strictly norobežošu field of investigation (both theoretically and empirically), the more accurate will be my study, more reliable results. double bed And in the end, it does not disturb me to judge the broader processes.
Another tip. If you finally can not figure out the theme, Walk to the library. Pašķirstiet books or scientific journals. double bed You will see at which problems and a perspective written by others. But we do not live in a vacuum double bed science. And your scientific discovery, not a wheel, but most likely someone double bed else's discovery logical continuation. Also here mačisms not in place.
Once this is done, write an introduction! Properly, the introduction to the article at the end. I am now talking double bed about another introduction - an introduction as a guide for writing. Define - why are you writing this work, you want to find out. Mere 10 lines. Occasionally re-read the introduction. This will help you to stick to the road.
And the last piece of advice on the subject. The very same most importantly - nestresojiet! Good topic can figure out just when the mind is fresh and calm. I often good themes come when I do not think about them. Or refuse to believe it, when I'm well rested!
As has just been mentioned, our scientific discoveries do not live in a vacuum. double bed Of course, you will have heard, for example, directors who do not look the other colleagues in the film to be unaffected. This is not our case! We will not reveal anything, if not know that ahead of us in this particular area is done.
So my work we have to show that we actually know what position is currently a theoretical discussion! What is a good theoretical part is different from the bad? First, the bad part of the theoretical work seems totally unnecessary. If you write, for example, documentary films, but creating an entire theoretical part of the chapter on the choice of message, it looks weird.
Secondly, do not write the theoretical part of everything. If your work is on the television, focus on certain concepts that you will come in handy in the study. This will allow you to avoid another error. Specifically, students in the theoretical part deals with many issues, does not text. It's more like a synopsis. Your task - to create a discussion between the authors show how different (or maybe similar) different authors define things. double bed
First, my answer is very simple. Trust in the library! I can not vouch for all the libraries, but if you aiziesiet our Faculty library, you will be quite difficult to find authors that could not cite. This is because our books very often choose either the teachers who know their field or professional librarians.
There is one BET. Some books we ordered a teaching purposes rather than academic works! So from your list of references at once by deleting the outdoors: a) textbooks (in Russian language they called учебники) b) encyclopedias (Handbooks in English, Russian, sometimes справочники)
Why is this book does not fit our academic research? Because this book is a compilation ALREADY ready version of the question! You can use this book to enhance their knowledge. But this book is already ready version of the question: the primary sources (or authors, which attempts
No comments:
Post a Comment