Part 2: Advancing Your Synthesis: Writing the Intermediate Draft of Your Literature Review

User Generated

vvfcryy

Writing

Description

By completing your Part 1 Outline, you’ve done much of the preparatory work in analyzing, synthesizing, and organizing your intermediate draft. You have already analyzed the literature on your selected topic, synthesized how each source contributes to the current state of knowledge on your selected topic, and organized the current thinking that surrounds your research topic by key issues and sub-issues that address the intersections/connections and repetitions of the sources’ concerns regarding your research topic.

Now you are ready, in Part 2, to advance your literature review by writing your intermediate Project 3 draft.

Skills & Strategies

This Part 2 Assignment will help you to

  • demonstrate responsiveness within an established disciplinary context to new information, experiences, and ideas through a process of re-evaluating the ideas and/or approaches
  • identify and develop organizational strategies that contribute to the effective delivery of information and argument
  • analyze rhetorical effectiveness of a variety of print and non-print sources
  • evaluate relevant sources according to their contexts, rhetorical situation, usefulness, and credibility for specific research tasks
  • summarize research sources through effective annotation, note-taking, quotation, citation, and paraphrase
  • synthesize disparate or conflicting thoughts when evaluating questions/problems to form cohesive and collaborative solutions

Description (and Step by Step)

Part 2 is a 1,000 – 1,200-word literature review draft that advances the current state of knowledge on your selected topic in an organized pattern.

While the Part 1 Outline helped you to identify the sources’ contribution of knowledge on your research topic, frame your thesis statement, and define the key issues/sub-issues that will facilitate your organizing your literature review, the writing of the intermediate draft will extend your literature review as you more fully demonstrate the current state of knowledge surrounding your selected topic.

At least six sources are required for this Intermediate Draft. Your six sources should include a combination of public and scholarly sources.

The following steps will help you to further develop your Part 2 Intermediate Draft:

  1. Consider your purpose in writing the literature review: to demonstrate your understanding of the current state of thinking on your research topic by synthesizing various viewpoints and logically organizing information.
  2. In Part 2, you will aim for a clear and cohesive essay that integrates those key issues and literature details that reveal the current state of knowledge on your research topic.
  3. Begin with a creative title that reflects the current state of knowledge of your research topic.
  4. In the introduction, explain the overarching focus of your literature review and establish why your research topic being reviewed is important. Conclude your introduction with your thesis statement, the sentence or two that reveals the current state of knowledge.
  5. Divide the body of your literature review into the key issues and sub-issues you identified in your analysis of the current literature. As a reminder, these key issues and sub-issues represent the major themes, points, topics, important trends, intersections, and findings about which researchers agree or disagree. The key issues/sub-issues will represent an organized section of the literature review and will be used as a path for further discussion in the body of your literature review.
  6. Introduce each key issue/sub-issue with a topic sentence that describes the synthesis. Details that follow the topic sentence should describe the literature and include source identification and evidence in the form of examples, brief quotes, and paraphrases.
  7. Be sure to use clear transitions as you introduce sub-issues and sources.
  8. Provide source citations according to the required guidelines.
  9. Write a conclusion to your literature review that highlights the presented evidence and that demonstrates any possibilities for future research/action.
  10. Proofread your literature review.

Helpful Hints

  1. Focus on analysis, rather than a summary/description of what research has been done.
  2. Divide body sections into key issues/sub-issues, rather than on the individual work of the researchers.
  3. Review the topic sentences of each paragraph to be sure that they link back to your thesis and demonstrate a logical progression of ideas and evidence from beginning to end.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Sample 1 Student Sample Professor Example ENC 1101 May 15, 2018 The Fight for Transgender and Gender Variant Bathroom Rights Two simple signs, “Women” and “Men,” hang on the doors of almost every public restroom in the United States. While they may seem simple to some, easily delineating if you go left or right to use the facilities, these little signifiers can bar many from a space free from harassment, discrimination, and even violence. These signs do not account for individuals who are not of cisgender orientation, or people whose gender identity directly correlates to their birth sex. Many transgender or gender variant individuals feel excluded from these highly segregated spaces, as their sex and their gender are not always in strict definitional agreement as denoted by the bathroom signs. The question arises whether these individuals should be required to use the restroom in accordance with their birth sex or if they should be permitted to use the restroom in accordance with their gender identity. This question has sparked heated debates across the country and fueled many legal battles over the past decade. The critical conversation, including scholars, researchers, and medical professionals, is trending towards protecting transgender and gender variant individuals’ rights to use the bathroom of their choosing without discrimination, harassment, or violence by continuing to fight for a national legal precedent. The problematic rhetoric most frequently used by those in opposition to anti-discrimination or inclusion laws is based on the protection of ciswomen and children from the predatory male. Authors Kristen Schilt and Laurel Westbrook explain, “The opponents are making an argument against any bodies perceived as male having a legal right to enter a woman-only space because Sample 2 they imagine such bodies to present a sexual danger to women and children” (27). Researcher Jill D. Weinberg agrees with Schilt and Westbrook in that these fallacious concerns and general fear mongering spread two problematic concepts: those transgender individuals are violent or perverse individuals, and that cisgender women and children’s safety is prioritized much higher than trans or gender variant individuals. There is, in fact, a striking dearth of violent or predatory incidents perpetrated by trans or gender variant individuals in bathrooms, or even by cismen or ciswomen using trans rights to enter restrooms with predatory intent. It is actually the trans and gender variant community who is most at risk. For example, Emanuella Grinberg and Dani Stewart, writing for CNN, report on a survey conducted by the University of California, Los Angeles’ Williams Institute in 2013 that found that 70% of transgender and gender non-conforming American respondents reported “being denied access, verbally harassed, or physically assaulted in public restrooms.” Judith Halberstam, seminal scholar in gender and sexuality studies, characterizes such harassment through a personal story. She explains that when she entered a women’s bathroom as a male-presenting individual, it resulted in ciswomen mocking her and teasing her, openly questioning her sex. These women called security on Judith, not because they felt afraid or at risk, but because they wanted to publicly “out” Judith as a non-gender-conforming deviant (20). Halberstam avoided issue because her higher voice passed as a feminine marker of sex, though she describes the case of a gender variant individual named Remedios who was not able to offer feminine presenting markers and was subsequently thrown violently from an establishment for using a bathroom that correlated to her sex but not her gender presentation (24). These stories complicate a law that only allows trans or gender variant individuals to use the other restroom when their genitals correspond to their gender presentation. Weinberg’s discussion of the “gate-keeping function” of Sample 3 proof of sex validates why stories like Remedios’ are so important, as such laws do not account for those who are in the process of transitioning, cannot afford the procedure, have transitioned but do not choose the genital procedure, or remain between genders as a gender identity (150). It also does not account for the violation of mandating that an individual must disclose proof of genitalia for legal protection, or the violence often experienced by those entering the male restroom that are “caught.” This leaves an entire community at risk. This risk ignites a fear that pervades transgender and gender variant communities of all ages, which creates other points of risk for a vulnerable population. Catherine Jean Archibald, in an article for the Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, discusses that trans and gender variant students are facing this fear of ridicule, harassment, discrimination, and violence every day in school, which can lead to significant health concerns. She explains how these students manage this risk by not drinking or eating at all during the school day, holding their elimination needs, or foregoing afterschool activities to avoid the necessity of using the school’s facilities (16). She points out that this can risk a student’s ability to concentrate and learn, but also can risk health problems such as faintness, kidney infections and gender dysmorphia (16). Gender dysmorphia, a condition “characterized by a clinically significant distress over the discord between the gender assigned at birth and the gender the individual identities with,” is considerably exacerbated by such fear of discrimination and can even lead to increased risk of suicide (Archibald 15-16). These risks have resulted in “medical and psychiatric recommendations for the protection and inclusion” of trans and gender variant individuals (Archibald 16). The severe consequences that come from failing to implement such protections are what lead Halberstam to maintain that “it is crucial to recognize that the bathroom problem is much more than a glitch in the machinery of gender segregation and is better described in terms of the violent enforcement of our current Sample 4 gender system” (Halberstam 25). The problem, then, is violent in many ways, from forced exposure to assault to self-harm. The distress and fear experienced by those most affected by this problem, the trans and gender variant communities, could be resolved by a national legal precedent protecting such individuals from discrimination, including bathroom use. The debate surrounding bathroom segregation has become a legal one. While antidiscrimination policies like Title IX exist, they do not specifically encompass gender-based bathroom use discrimination. Weinberg equates the forced segregation of the sexes in bathrooms to the racial segregation of bathrooms through the Jim Crow era, and specifically posits that this segregation “privileges certain groups of legally protected minorities (race and disability) over sex, gender, and gender identity” (149). What’s more, Weinberg points out that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act does not include “provisions regarding bathroom accommodations for transgender employees,” and so “permits employers to impose restrictions on bathroom usage and to discriminate against transgender employees without the risk of liability,” which can include employment termination (148). A number of states have argued that the shortcomings of current anti-discrimination laws and policies need to be addressed through the creation of new legal protections for trans and gender variant bathroom use, such as in California and Colorado in 2013. It seemed this effort was making significant progress towards trans rights protection when, in 2015, the Department of Education issued an opinion letter, “stating that when a school has sex-segregated facilities based such as bathrooms and locker rooms, students should have access to the sex-segregated facilities based on their gender identity” (Archibald 4). This was supported in mid-2016 by the “Dear Colleague Letter on Transgender Students,” which stated that " in order to be in compliance with Title IX and its implementing regulations, schools receiving federal funding should treat transgender students in all respects as the gender that they Sample 5 identify with” (Archibald 6). While these were major steps towards transgender and gender variant rights, they were only interpretive guidelines for the language in Title IX and not specifically legal. Based on the ability to interpret the language of Title IX, the Trump Administration was able to rescind the Obama Administration era’s recommendations of interpretation, as in February 2017, the Departments of Education and Justice issued a “Dear Colleague Letter” which overturned the guidance extending sex discrimination protections under Title IX to discrimination of gender identity. A Department of Education spokesperson, Liz Hill, confirmed to National Public Radio that “‘Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, not gender identity” (Kamenetz & Turner). Correspondents Cory Turner and Anya Kamenetz account that Hill conceded while “complaints about harassing, bullying or punishing transgender or gender nonconforming students would fall under Title IX,” restroom procedures would not be considered protected under this anti-discrimination act. Grinberg and Stewart report that as of March 2018, only a mere 19 states have implemented anti-discrimination policies protecting transgender and gender variant individuals’ right to use facilities that correspond with their gender identity. According to the National Center for Transgender Equality, the “wave of antitrans state bills introduced across the country” were largely unsuccessful, and while there remain only a few states that protect the trans and gender variant community, the fight continues to increase those numbers in the years to come. While the debate regarding whether bathroom segregation should be maintained along lines of sex or gender continues, the fight is not over for transgender and gender variant bathroom rights. The overwhelming support from scholars, researchers, and medical professionals alike for integrated bathroom use is a strong force, but until there is an undeniable refutation of the concerns voiced by those in favor of sex-based segregation, large-scale legal Sample 6 change remains unlikely. Future research into this topic should consider bolstering the empirical data already in circulation, which proves no correlation between trans and gender variant bathroom rights and a rise in predation on ciswomen and children. In addition, future research may consider ways of shifting the current sex-segregated bathroom system to an integrated system, perhaps modeling future changes on France’s gender-integrated system. When people see that the fears surrounding a potential change are unfounded, that there are real world consequences of failure to make a change, and that changes are reasonably possible, we can work towards a future where no one is discriminated against, harassed, or assaulted based on something as simple as whether they go left or right to enter a bathroom. Analysis: B. To improve, your thesis should reflect the actual content of your paper. If you do this, then your topic sentences can remain the same. Evidence: A. To improve, use a combination of quotes, paraphrases, and summaries. Use less quotes that simply define your issue. Organization: B. As mentioned above, if you improve the thesis, then there's no issue with your topic sentences. To improve the organization, include more synthesis of the main points from your sources in each body paragraph. Format & Style: A. To improve: 1. Font shift in header 2. Check tabs at beginning of paragraphs 3. Check proper in-text citation format 4. Check concrete pronoun use throughout Endnote: To improve, you'll need to work on the rubric areas of analysis and organization. Right now, there's a discrepancy between your thesis and your paper--I've given you ideas for editing your thesis, since it's probably easier to do that than change the entire paper. You'll also need to revise your topic sentences, as I've outlined throughout. Letter Grade: B+ Sample 7 Works Cited Ali, Diana. “The Status of Trans Rights in 2018.” NASPA, 1 Mar. 2018. www.naspa.org/rpi/posts/the-status-of-trans-rights-in-2018. Accessed 11 May 2018. Archibald, Catherine Jean. “Transgender Bathroom Rights.” Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, vol. 24, no. 1, 2016, pp. 1-31. scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1311&context=djglp. Accessed 13 May 2018. Grinberg, Emanuella and Dani Stewart. “3 Myths That Shape the Transgender Bathroom Debate.” CNN, 7 Mar. 2017. www.cnn.com/2017/03/07/health/transgender-bathroomlaw-facts-myths/index.html. Accessed 14 May 2018. Halberstam, Judith. Female Masculinity. Duke University Press Books, 1998. Schilt, Kristen and Laurel Westbrook. “Bathroom Battlegrounds and Penis Panics.” Contexts, vol. 14, no. 3, 2015, pp. 26-31. SAGE, doi:10.1177/1536504215596943. Accessed 10 May 2018. Turner, Cory and Anya Kamenetz. “The Education Department Says It Won't Act On Transgender Student Bathroom Access.” National Public Radio, 12 Feb. 2018. www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/02/12/585181704/the-education-department-says-it-wontact-on-transgender-student-bathroom-access. Accessed 14 May 2018. Weinberg, Jill D. "Transgender Bathroom Usage: A Privileging of Biology and Physical Difference in the Law." Buffalo Journal of Gender, Law & Social Policy, vol. 18, 2010, pp. 147-175. heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/bufwlj18&div=8&id=&page=. Accessed 14 May 2018. ENC1101 7 November 2018 Underrepresentation of women: Examining the reality and the rhetoric Many years of preaching the need for equity and diversity in the society have resulted in organizations trumpeting gender equity as part of organizational value. However, despite multiple studies that demonstrate the fact that women and men have the same capacity more research into gender equity reveals the underrepresentation of women in leadership positions. Major key issues I. Women continue to hold fewer leadership positions in organizations in today’s society. A. Obstacles to women leadership 1. Many organizations are not ready to hire women for top executive positions despite accepting the say ladies first (Scott and Brown 308). 2. Women have more family responsibilities which means they do not have time to focus on top executive duties. 3. Women do not have the same corporate connection as men leaving women at disadvantaged position (Stolzoff, Simone). B. Lack of democracy 1. Women are not included in decision making especially in executive positions which means women’s interests are ignored in policy making. II. Despite the fact that women have the same professional capacity they receive less pay compared to their male counterparts in the same position. A. Family reasons 1. Women have more family duties so they spend less time in office hence the justification for low pay (Stolzoff, Simone). B. Academic performance 1. In general, most high-end professionals such as engineering are dominated by men, and this comes from their better academic achievement, and that is why it is so hard for a male-dominated panel to be controlled by a woman (Stolzoff, Simone). III. The construction of the leadership metaphor supports the myth of male style of leadership rather than a transformative style that typically identifies women. A. Deconstructing the male metaphor 1. The leadership role has been traditionally prescribed to men, and this has become a metaphor difficult to change. 2. According to Biddle, “if a woman wants to succeed in the upper echelon she must transform and exhibit male characteristics” (Biddle, Matthew). B. Leadership vocabulary 1. Titles that refer to leadership use male pronouns without apologies and this further the male metaphor (Biddle, Matthew). C. The binary gender norms 1. According to Biddle, “Men are still likely to be perceived as leaders because when we concentrate on women leadership, we are revealing the weakness of women which concludes they are not worthy of the leadership position” (Biddle, Matthew). IV. Glass ceiling prevents women from understanding their potential, and this prevents them from reaching out to leadership positions. A. Women consider themselves as incapable of the leadership positions 1. According to Stolzof women with the same academic qualification as men still prefer fields that offer lower income (Stolzoff, Simone). B. Women are risk aversive as compared to men. 1. Women have different attitudes toward the concept of risk and are taught to avoid risk at all cost. C. More family responsibilities for women 1. Family responsibilities fall on women heavily, and with top-level executive positions they require more commitment which women feel is a job position beyond their reach. V. Theories contributing to gender perspective continue to delude the society that women are incapable of leading. A. Leader categorization theory Leadership stereotype does not change even when the gender factor is introduced, and this explains why leadership categorization theory supports the idea that women are of lower status. a. Attribution Gender bias comes from the encoding of leadership behavior that comes from what has been initially ascribed by society. b. Social identity Once a particular gender group has been identified with a specific behavior, it becomes their identity, and the case with women is they are considered weak subjects that are not fit to lead (Scott and Douglas 320). c. Social expectation Gender operates under the concept of status characteristics which is influenced by social status ascribed to the gender expectations where women are considered having lower status compared to men (Scott and Douglas 320). Works Cited Biddle, Matthew. “Men Are Still More Likely than Women to Be Perceived as Leaders, Study Finds.” Phys.org - News and Articles on Science and Technology, Phys.org, 7 Aug. 2018, phys.org/news/2018-08-men-women-leaders.html. Accessed 17 Sept 2018. Stolzoff, Simone. “The Other Gender Pay Gap: Women Hold Only 20% of Employee Equity.” Quartz, Quartz, 18 Sept. 2018, qz.com/work/1393193/the-other-gender-pay-gap-womenonly-hold-20-of-employee-equity/. Accessed 17 Sept 2018. Scott, Kristyn A., and Douglas J. Brown. “Female First, Leader Second? Gender Bias in the Encoding of Leadership Behavior.” Discovering Leadership, 2009, pp. 308–322., doi: 10.1007/978-1-137-24203-7_22. Accessed 17 Sept 2018.
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Surname 1
Name:
Professor:
Course:
Date:
Underrepresentation of women: Examining the reality and the rhetoric
Many years of preaching the need for equity and diversity in the society have resulted in
organizations trumpeting gender equity as part of the organizational value. However, despite
multiple studies that demonstrate the fact that women and men have the same capacity more
research into gender equity reveals the underrepresentation of women in leadership positions.
This means that although society tends to advocate for equity, there still exists a patriarchal
mindset among individuals. This has, therefore, significantly contributed to the gender gap.
Obstacles to Women Leadership
In Tabak’s research study that examines the glass ceiling in Istanbul-based manufacturing
organizations, the researcher collected data from 80 different organizations in the city. Tabak
discovered that the average number of working women was significantly lower than the average
number of male workers and also the number of women working on top levels was deficient
(p.93).
Research studies bring to light the reasons behind the glass ceiling. Elacqua, Beehr, and Hansen
found out that organizational cultures tend to be stereotypical and therefore favoring men (285).
Elacqua, Beehr, and Hansen's, research study, organizational factors not only include culture but
also practices, for example, managers are perceived to be more assertive and dominant to come

Surname 2
up with rational decisions when there are a dilemma and these practices disadvantage women
(p.285). A significant number of organizations are not willing to hire women to occupy the
managerial positions (Scott and Brown 308). The implication here is primarily related to the
societal construction of gender roles. This means that while men have to take charge women are
involved in taking care. Therefore, individuals will see the position of women as related to
nurturing. On the other hand, since...


Anonymous
Great! 10/10 would recommend using Studypool to help you study.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags