ASSIGNMENT 5 Instructions

Assigned:  October 2, 2006.
Due:  In class Wednesday October 18, 2006.

        The fifth assignment has two parts. Part one:
For part one of the fifth assignment, you will address the use of methodologies in your proposed thesis research and incorporate this into your draft proposal:

Your next research proposal draft should address the following issues:
(a) Revise the purpose and context section based on feedback from previous drafts;
(b) Continue to refine the research question and hypothesis, where necessary;
(c) Continue to strengthen the literature review by demonstrating a thorough understanding of key research that shapes your research proposal;
(d) Develop a methodology section that begins to outline HOW you will test your working hypothesis.
The submitted fifth draft should be a minimum of six (6) pages in length, with one-inch margins all around, normal 12CPI font, page numbers, have a detailed bibliography supporting the research ideas, be spell-checked and proof-read carefully, and be properly subheaded.

Part Two:
For part two of the fifth assignment, read the following article:

This article addresses contemporary research in global climate change:
ARTICLE: Kingston, D.G., Lawler, D.M., and McGregor, G.R. (2006) "Linkages between atmospheric circulation, climate and streamflow in the northern North Atlantic: research prospects," Progress in Human Geography, Vol. 30(2), pp. 143-174.

ASSIGNMENT: After reading the article, prepare a 3-page analysis and critique (typed, one-inch margins all around, double-spaced, 12 CPI font Times Roman, numbered pages, with the article cited correctly in a bibliography at the end of the paper - doesn't need to be on a separate page) of the article's content, theory, and presentation. Address the following issues:
        (a) What was the main theoretical and empirical thrust of the article? On what existing concept or theory did the authors base their analysis?
        (b) How did the authors use the literature review process to support their arguments?
        (c) What was the key "so what" rationale that drives this article? Did the authors make a convincing "scientific" analysis to support their interpretation?
        (d) What did YOU think of the article, its presentation, and findings? Were any biases or persuasive elements evident in the article?
        (e) What do YOU think the article suggests about the challenges ahead for geoscientists?

For help on this assignment, call (270) 745 4555, or e-mail david.keeling@wku.edu.

   Return to the main page

Last updated on September 26, 2006

Department of Geography and Geology, Western Kentucky University
All contents copyright(c), 2006 Western Kentucky University
Comments to David Keeling