Expected learning outcomes
The course will teach the candidates how to produce presentations and papers for communicating scientific ideas and results, both to the public and to other scholars. The course will focus on the popular science and literature review formats
The course contributes towards the following learning outcomes:
- Knowledge of the most advanced research in the candidate's specialisation area.
- How to effectively communicate their research, using the style and format appropriate for their chosen are of specialization.
- Ability to support and participate in Industrial and Academic research projects at a high international level.
- Ability to understand and challenge the existing knowledge and practise in their chosen field of specialization.
- Ability to manage interdisciplinary projects with diverse groups of individuals to bring results in the chosen area of specialization to fruition.
- Can produce high quality literature reviews – i.e. a well structured overview of a complex field. This review will offer scientists from other disciplines an easily accessible overview of key results, challenges, assumptions, method use etc. in his own area of specialization.
- Overview of communication formats
- The literature review format
- Communicating science to the public
Teaching Methods (additional text)
- Self study reading of books/articles
Course is offered at the discretion of the course responsible. There will be organized seminars where different communication formats will be presented and discussed. Candidates and their supervisors will be required to propose scientific cases and subjects suitable for the communication formats covered by the course.
Form(s) of Assessment
Form(s) of Assessment (additional text)
Evaluation of seminar presentation and papers/reports. All the below course deliverables must be passed:
- The popular science article (2 pages) is evaluated relative to the quality criteria specified in the course literature.
- The scholarly review article (10 pages/) is evaluated relative to Best Practises for constructing review articles as described in the course literature.
- Each candidate is required to give 2 presentations in seminars (popular science style: 15 min/5 slides; Scholarly review presentation 30 min/10 slides)
Internal examiner – Supervisor and course responsible in cooperation.
The whole course must be repeated.
The course will be based on reports, papers such as the following:
[Fink 2005] A. Fink, Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publication, 2005
[Cresswell 2011] John W. Creswell, Tonette S. Rocco and Tim Hatcher. The Handbook of Scholarly Writing and Publishing (The Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series) . John Wiley & Sons (5 April 2011)
[Okoli 2010] C. Okoli and K. Schabram , A Guide to Conducting a Systematic Literature Review of Information Systems Research, Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 10(26), 2010, http://sprouts.aisnet.org/10-26, http://sprouts.aisnet.org/867/1/OkoliSchabram2010SproutsLitReviewGuide.pdf
[EBSE 2007] Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering, Version 2.3, EBSE (Evidence-Based Software Engineering) Technical Report, EBSE-2007-01, 9 July, 2007, http://www.elsevier.com/framework_products/promis_misc/525444systematicreviewsguide.pdf
[Kitchenham 2009] B. Kitchenham, O. P. Bre, D. Budgen, M. Turner, J. Bailey, and S. Linkman, Systematic literature reviews in software engineering – A systematic literature review, Information and Software Technology 51 (2009), 7–15
[Gregory 2000] Jane Gregory. Science In Public: Communication, Culture, and Credibility. Basic Books; Reprint edition.
[Huff 1988] Anne Sigismund Huff. Writing for Scholarly Publication. Sage Publications. 1988.
[Zobel 2004] Justin Zobel. Writing for Computer Science: The Art of effective Communication. Springer; 2nd ed. 2004 edition.
[Strunk 1999] William Strunk Jr. and E. B. White. The Elements of Style. Longman; 4 edition (23 July 1999).
[Giovanni 2006 ] Giovanni Carrada. Communicating science – A Scientists Survival kit. European Commission – Europa. Available from http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/pdf/communicating-science_en.pdf Visited March 16, 2013.
[Blum 1997] Deborah Blum, Mary Knudson. A Field Guide for Science Writers, Oxford University Press, 1997.
[Baruch 2006] Yehuda Baruch (Editor), Sherry Sullivan (Editor), Hazlon Schepmyer (Editor). Winning Reviews: A Guide for Evaluating Scholarly Writing. Palgrave Macmillan. 2006.
The course is stipulated to require 150 hours of student work. This estimate is broken down as follows:
- Select and read literature relevant for the course (20 hours)
- Prepare 2 seminar contributions each including (total 2 contribs * 10 hours/contrib = 20 hrs)
- Attend seminars, including giving 15+30 min talks + answering questions (5 hours).
- Produce a review article (10 pages), including the 15 most significant works on the subject chosen, formatted according the guidelines specified by a UHR approved scholarly journal (90 hours). Note that the review of 15 papers in most cases would not suffice for a publication quality review article.
- Produce a popular science version (2 pages) of the review article (15 hours).