Faculty Guidelines for Supervising a Study in Depth

General purpose of the Study in Depth

The Study in Depth is the final, culminating experience for students in the Liberal Studies undergraduate degree program. The dominant philosophy in this program is that various disciplines and areas of study are linked and can shed light on each other by being studied in an integrated manner. This theme has been reflected in the students’ earlier work in independent study and in the seminars. The study in depth, then, is an opportunity for students to learn how to engage in a substantial, interdisciplinary research project of their own, one that reflects the same kind of learning they have encountered in their earlier studies in this program.

Sequence of Events

Although each student and research project is somewhat different, students will generally work their way through the study in depth in the following sequence:

1. Formulation of a topic – Students usually are thinking about a topic while in the Inter-Area Independent Study. They will often discuss this with the BALS Undergraduate Coordinator and a faculty member. This faculty member is sometimes, but not always, the final advisor for the Study in Depth.

2. Submission of a Study in Depth Proposal – The student must submit a formal proposal that identifies the research project they have in mind. Based on the information in this proposal, the staff will assign a faculty member to supervise this study.

3. Refinement of the Proposal – Once a faculty member has been assigned, they work with the student as necessary to expand and/or refine the proposal. This in essence constitutes the beginning of the research project, or at least that portion that is being done under official supervision.

4. Conducting the study – At this stage, the student actually does the research and begins writing the study in depth. During this phase, the faculty advisor will need to make sure the student is doing sufficient background research, drawing appropriate conclusions, writing the study in depth in a proper fashion, etc.

5. Final approval of the study in depth – The faculty member is the one who gives final approval that the study in depth meets all the criteria for a College of Liberal Studies study in depth (see below). The faculty member should e-mail the final copy to Frank Rodriquez – frankr@ou.edu with the following on the cover page of the Study in Depth: 1) The appropriate grade, 2) faculty member signature, and 3) date.

Your Role as Study in Depth Advisor

In general, the role of the faculty advisor is to (a) guide the student through the process of learning how to engage in this kind of interdisciplinary research and how to write it properly, and (b) to ensure that the final document meets the College’s criteria as stated below.

Criteria for Evaluating the Study in Depth

For each study in depth to be a high quality product, it should meet the following criteria. The students have been given information about these criteria in their guidelines for the study in depth. The faculty advisor should help students achieve these goals, but must also ensure that they have been met.

(a) Interdisciplinary Thinking – the study in depth should make specific reference to the thinking and research in two or more disciplines related to this topic. For this to occur, the student needs to identify as early as possible which set of disciplines or areas of study address important aspects of this particular study.

(b) Sources of Information Used – The study in depth should be based on:

– an extensive list of sources (i.e., 10-30 different sources of information)

–a variety of types of sources (e.g., books, journals, interviews, case studies)

– high quality sources (e.g., primary as well as secondary, both recent and classic publications, academic sources as well as semi-popular sources)

(c) Analysis and Synthesis – The text of the study in depth should:

–clearly identify the question(s) the student intends to answer in the study

–clearly describe the method of inquiry used

–do more than summarize information found elsewhere

–use evidence and reasoning effectively

–clearly state, at the end of the study, the conclusions reached about the topic (i.e., the answer(s) to the question(s) posed at the beginning)

(d) Quality of Writing – The study in depth should be characterized by:

–prose that is clear, coherent, and which develops the theme

–a clear, differentiated structure (e.g., appropriately separated paragraphs and sections)

–correct English usage

–a consistent use of an appropriate style for footnotes and bibliographic citations

(e) Overall – In general the student should strive to write a study in depth that:

–is interesting to read

–shows the implications of what was learned

–develops the topic in an orderly way

–integrates the different parts of the study

(f) General Format of the final study in depth – Once written, the study in depth should be “packaged” in an appropriate way. This simply means that each study in depth should have:

–a title page

–sections headings in the text that identify the main topic (and possibly the sub-topics) of the study in depth

–a table of contents that reflects at least the main headings of the text.

To help you as the faculty advisor see what these criteria mean in a more realistic way, please review pages 6-9 at the following website

Checklist

In the belief that a simple checklist might help the faculty member be sure that the student is doing all the necessary things at the appropriate time, we have developed the following list for the faculty member’s use. The various steps had been sorted into those that should be accomplished (a) near the beginning of the project

(b) those in the middle when the analysis and writing are being done, and (c) those near the end when the project is being completed.

Beginning

  1. Topic: Is it big enough to be interesting and limited enough to be feasible?
  2. Question: Is the question to be answered clearly formulated and stated?
  3. Method of inquiry: Are the methods and procedures for studying this topic clearly formulated?
  4. Interdisciplinary: Has the person identified two or more disciplines or areas of study that can be brought to bear on this topic?
  5. Sources of information: Is the person finding an adequate number of sources?
  6. Is the person using a variety of types of courses?
  7. Are the sources high quality?

Middle

  1. Analysis and synthesis:
  2. Is the person doing more than summarizing information found elsewhere?
  3. Is the person using evidence and reasoning effectively?
  4. Is the person clearly stating whatever conclusions they are reading, i.e., answer(s) to the question(s) posed at the beginning of the study?
  5. Quality of writing:
  6. Is the writing clear and coherent? Does it develop the theme?
  7. Does the text have a clear, differentiated structure, i.e. does it have appropriately separated paragraphs and sections?
  8. Is the text free of English usage errors?

End

  1. Follow-up review:

Interdisciplinary: Are two or more disciplines or areas of study clearly identified as making a contribution to this study?

Is the final set of sources of information adequate in number, variety, and quality?

Are the analysis and synthesis effectively done?

Quality of writing: Has the person made consistent use of an appropriate style of footnotes and bibliographic citations?

  1. Overall:

Is the study interesting to read?

Does it show the implications of what was learned?

Does it develop the topic in an orderly way?

Does it integrate the different parts of the study?

  1. Final format of the paper:

Does the study have a title page?

Does the text have section headings that identify the main topics ( and possibly the sub-topics) the text?

Does the study have a table of contents?

Are the pages numbered?

CLS/LB/SID