The Galileo Project: Major Paper Requirements

I. Substantive Content: Obviously you need to tie your work to one or more of the themes of the class, but the organization and process of choosing what to include will vary with your topic. We will primarily determine the scope of your papers in individual conferences. However, unless you have specific discussions with me about using a different structure, I will expect all of you to include:

A. Introduction: A short introductory section identifying your topic, describing the scope of your work and the major point(s) you will make, and providing a brief roadmap to the structure of the paper. If you are going to draw parallels between your topic and the Galileo story, you should sketch those out for the reader.

B. Descriptive/Comparative Section: The body of the paper will describe the area you researched or the sources you are comparing. You should write for a reader who is generally familiar with the basic Galileo story but doesn’t know much about your specific topic. You may assume that the reader knows the thrust of the four books we read, but if you want to make specific points about one of the authors’ positions, you should provide direct quotes or, if you summarize or paraphrase, provide a citation to the relevant pages in the book.

C. Analysis Section: You should include a substantial section (probably at least 20-25% of the paper) after the Descriptive/Comparative section that provides your own analysis of what you have presented to us and how it relates to the themes of the course. This might include:

1. Galileo Story:

  • Why did the authors or presenters choose to spin the story as they did?
  • Did they succeed in meeting their own purposes?
  • What do the versions you discuss tell us about the significance of the Galileo story?
  • What do the versions you discuss tell us about the process of retelling stories?

2. Galileo Dilemma

  • How are the circumstances you describe similar or different from the Galileo story?
  • What does your topic tell us about the process of establishing truth?
  • What does your topic tell us about the relationship between truth and power?
  • Based on your work, what recommendations would you make about how society should handle situations like those you’ve described?

II. Formatting & Submission Requirements

A. Requirements Applicable to Both the Draft and the Final Version

  • Submit your work-product as a Word document (not a PDF) in an attachment in an e-mail to me. I determine timeliness based on the date and time you send the e-mail.
  • Put the title of the paper and your name in a heading on the top of the first page.
  • Include page numbers.
  • For the main text, use double-spaced 12-point Times New Roman font. Footnotes/endnotes and indent quotes should be in single-spaced 11-point Times New Roman font. For readability, you should put some space between each footnote or endnote (check with me if you don’t know how to do this).
  • Include citations for every non-obvious factual point you make and to any specific reference to language in a work you are discussing. Citations to the four assigned books can just be in the form “Biagioli at 17” or “Brecht at 11-14.” Law students: other citations should be substantially in bluebook form. Undergrads, for other citations, see the handouts I’ll give you.

B. Requirements that are Different for the Draft than for the Final Version

  • Due Date
  • Draft:As indicated on course page.
  • Final:
  • Undergrads: Friday May 4
  • Law Students: Friday May 11 (I will let you know in late May if I think an additional substantial rewrite of the paper would likely change your grade in the course. If so, you can choose to take an incomplete and keep rewriting for more.
  • Footnotes/Endnotes:
  • Draft: Do references as footnotes to make it easier for other students to read.
  • Final: Do references as endnotes so I can accurately assess length. Let me know if you don’t know how to do this.
  • Minimum Length
  • Draft: 20 pages, including the footnotes.
  • Final: 25 pages, excluding the endnotes.
  • Level of Completeness:
  • Draft: Please try to proofread even your drafts. The draft book reviews contained lots of grammatical errors, missing or incorrect words, incomplete sentences, etc. That said, in your drafts:
  • OK to use incomplete/improper citation form (“Biagioli at ???”), so long as you indicate all the places you intend to usecitations.
  • OK to have little conversations with the reader using notes in brackets:
  • “[Is this clear enough?]”
  • “[Maybe move this paragraph to next section.]
  • “[Needs direct quote from Sobel]”
  • Final:Pristine.3. Presentation (30 minutes total)

III. Presentation (45 minutes total) & Feedback:

A. Initial Presentation: You will have 18-20 minutes. You should describe your project and your most significant conclusions. You don’t have to include everything that is in the written version nor make points in the same sequence that you do in writing. Try to use your time to engage the class and make us interested in the work you are reviewing. Make the structure of the presentation and your major points very clear to the listeners.

b. Question & Answer Period: After the initial presentation, you’ll take questions, first from the three designated questioners (initially three questions each, one at a time in rotation), then from the rest of the class. I thought the questions for the book reviews were generally pretty strong, so use a similar approach unless I tell you otherwise.

c. Post-Presentation Meeting: I will set up meetings in advance with each of you within a day or two of your presentation to provide guidance for the rewriting process.