Final Project

Overview

One of our objectives in DIG 215 is the following:

Analyze literary, cinematic, ludic, social, or theoretical perspectives of death, horror, technology, and disaster in the 21st century with original insights, evidence-based reasoning, effective use of sources, and awareness of multiple perspectives and cultural contexts

Meeting this objective is necessary to qualify for the “A” bundle, according to our grading specifications. You can meet this objective by earning a Satisfactory on the final analytical essay.

Criteria

For your final project to count as Satisfactory, it must meet the following criteria:

  1. You must analyze a relevant example (or cluster of examples) of some literary, cinematic, ludic, social, or theoretical phenomenon related to death and technology in the 21st century. The object(s) of your analysis are your primary sources.
  2. The analysis must foreground your original insights.
  3. The analysis must situate its argument against a broader social, cultural, or technical backdrop.
  4. The analysis must exist in conversation with at least five secondary sources. Secondary sources include scholarly articles and books, blog posts, journalistic accounts, interviews, magazine articles, and so on.
  5. The analysis must integrate at least three of the secondary sources in a substantive way. “Substantive” doesn’t mean merely quoting at length or cherry-picking a key phrase. “Substantive” means actively engaging with the source by (1) summarizing its overall argument; (2) showing how that argument ignores important issues, doesn’t go far enough, or could be applied to new contexts; and (3) applying concepts from the secondary source to your analysis of the primary source.
  6. The analysis is between 1,750 and 2,250 words. That’s roughly 7-8 pages double-spaced. This does not include an additional Works Cited page.
  7. The analysis follows scholarly standards for citation, using either MLA, APA, or Chicago style.
  8. The analysis contains no more than 3 grammatical, spelling, or other “mechanical” errors.
  9. The analysis contains no more than 2 minor factual inaccuracies and no major factual inaccuracies.
  10. The analysis is shared with masample@davidson.edu as a Google Doc by Wednesday, May 10.

Because this is the end of the semester, you cannot use a token to revise your work if it falls short of the criteria. But, I am happy to review drafts. The cut-off day for me to review drafts is Wednesday, May 3.