For the final essay, you will write a scholarly historical essay that explores a specific social, political, or cultural dynamic in the history of technology. This is not a descriptive history of a technological artifact or system, but an effort at making sense of a particular analytical problem connected to that technology (many of the articles we read this semester are good models). The study should stem from a careful analysis of one or more primary sources related to the chosen artifact and engage with arguments developed by two or more secondary (scholarly) sources. The length should be up to 1,500 words, not including the bibliography.

To put it succinctly, your essay should do the following: Carefully analyse one or more primary sources to develop an argument that engages with at least two other scholars’ argument. You should present the gist of your argument early in the essay in the form of an intriguing thesis that catches the reader’s attention. The rest of the essay explains and supports that thesis by interpreting the primary sources and arguing with the secondary sources.

You will find a grading rubric on page 2 and a step-by-step guide on how to write a good scholarly essay from pages 4 to 8.

Formatting

• Up to 1,500 words (not including bibliography).
• At least one primary and two secondary sources that were not assigned in class.
• Citations and bibliography should be either in APA or Chicago Style.
• Times New Roman 12, double-spaced.
• Submit .doc format.
• Cover page should feature:
  • Student name
  • Essay title
  • Word count (not including bibliography)
  • Written anti-plagiarism declaration (“By submitting this assignment, I confirm that it conforms to IE University’s Code of Ethical Conduct”).
• The bibliography should include complete citations (either APA or Chicago style and should include links to materials that were accessed online).
• Not adhering to the formatting guidelines will affect the final grade.

Grading Rubric

Purpose (25%)

• Exemplary (9-10): Exceptional introduction that motivates the essay with a focused and thought-provoking research question. Features an interesting, arguable, and original thesis that clearly speaks to the history of technology that grabs the reader’s interest.
• Good (7-8): Proficient introduction that motivates the essay with a relevant research question. Features an arguable thesis that speaks to the history of technology but that could benefit in insightfulness and/or originality.
• Average (5-6): Basic introduction that presents the topic but features a vague or irrelevant research question. Features a visible thesis that is nevertheless vague and/or descriptive or only somewhat related to the history of technology.
• Insufficient (0-4): Weak introduction that fails to present the topic and lacks a thesis (or features a thesis that does not speak to the history of technology).

Analysis (25%)

• Exemplary (9-10): Demonstrates sophisticated understanding of the research topic. Features nuanced and critical analysis of appropriate evidence, which is expressed through clear and in- depth interpretation of material that is deftly contextualized. Engages with relevant scholarly sources at an argumentative level to highlight the significance of the essay’s argument.
• Good (7-8): Demonstrates a solid grasp of the research topic. Features effective analysis with some moments of critical insight and others where the interpretation of appropriate evidence is underdeveloped or lacking context. Engages with relevant scholarly sources in a limited fashion, relying on them as sources of authority rather than as opportunities for critical engagement.
• Average (5-6): Demonstrates a basic grasp of the research topic. The analysis is superficial and/or is not grounded on the interpretation of appropriate evidence. Major issues with context. Engages with irrelevant scholarly sources.
• Insufficient (0-4): Demonstrates a lack of understanding of the research topic. Confuses opinion with analysis and lacks appropriate evidence. Does engage with scholarly sources.

Structure (20%)

• Exemplary (9-10): Employs a logical and progressive structure to support the argument (which is different from an overly rigid structure). Paragraphs build on one another with clear topic sentences and transitions. Signposts are used throughout the essay to help connect the discrete components to the main argument. The reader can follow the line of reasoning. Ends with a rewarding conclusion that expands on the significance of the argument.
• Good (7-8): Employs a generally logical but somewhat disorganized or underdeveloped structure. Some vague or awkward topic sentences and transitions. May lack in signposting. The reader can follow the line of reasoning for the most part. Ends with an effective conclusion that rehashes the significance of the argument.
• Average (5-6): Lacks a coherent structure or relies on an overly rigid structure like the five- paragraph essay or ChatGPT output. Lacks topic sentences and the transitions between paragraphs are generally awkward and/or abrupt. No signposting. The reader needs to work to make sense of how the argument is structured. Ends with a perfunctory or cliched conclusion.
• Insufficient (0-4): Lacks an organizational structure, which keeps the reader from comprehending the argument. No clear conclusion.

Sources (15%)

• Plagiarism will result in an automatic 0 for the entire assignment and in disciplinary action (this includes the use of ChatGPT or any other generative AI tools, which are not allowed in writing the essay).
  • Exemplary (9-10): Engages with the required number of sources. Scholarly sources are appropriate and reliable. Sources are properly referenced throughout the essay.
  • Good (7-8): Engages with the required number of sources. Scholarly sources are appropriate and reliable. Sources are references throughout the essay, but there are some issues with citations.
  • Average (5-6): Engages with one fewer source than required. Scholarly sources may lack in appropriateness or reliability. Sources are referenced, but there are recurring issues with citations.
  • Insufficient (0-4): Lacks the necessary engagement with sources. Absence of scholarly sources. Major issues with citations.

Mechanics (15%)

• Issues with grammar and spelling are bound to affect the other elements.
  • Exemplary (9-10): Clear and engaging writing that is free of grammar and/or spelling mistakes. Follows the correct formatting and word count.
  • Good (7-8): Effective writing with minor grammar and/or spelling mistakes that are not a major distraction. Some issues with the formatting and/or word count.
  • Average (5-6): Uninspiring writing with grammar and/or spelling mistakes that are a major distraction. Major issues with formatting and/or word count.
  • Insufficient (0-4): Confusing writing with grammar and/or spelling mistakes that obscure the meaning. Completely ignores formatting and/or word count.

Writing a Good Scholarly Essay

1. Identify a technological artifact or system. The first thing you want to do is figure out what kind of technology you want to write about. Is it the skateboard? Is it the chalkboard? Is it the soundboard? Given our course’s expansive definition of technology, you have a lot of options, so what you probably want to do is chose something that you are very interested in. It is always easier to write about things we are fascinated by, and it is always more pleasurable to read essays that were written with passion.

2. Come up with analytical questions. Picking a technological artifact is not enough. You need to start thinking about the elements that are going to help frame your essay’s argument. The most critical step in this process is to develop an intriguing analytical question that will yield an interesting answer. When you think about your artifact, what kinds of question interest you? Here are a few tips in developing a functional analytical question:
   • Focus on “how” and “why” questions. “Yes or no” questions yield simplistic answers, “how” and “why” yield complex answers. You want to develop a question that encourages you to explain a phenomenon. Also, “how” and “why” questions can be answered in many ways, which means that other scholars can argue with your conclusions. And scholarly argument is always good!
   • Avoid being too broad. “How” and “why” is not enough, though. A question like “why did the skateboard become popular in the 1970s” seems, on the surface, a good one. But is it? Well, I would posit that such a question is actually a trap, for it is too broad. There are just too many factors to account for to develop a compelling explanation. It is the kind of question that would likely require a book-length answer. If you were to try to answer this question in a 1,500-word essay, then what is likely to happen is that you will write a descriptive report on the skateboard, rather than an in-depth argumentative analysis.
   • How to achieve specificity? Here you might think you face an unsurmountable challenge. You might ask: “How do I develop a question that manages to be both specific and intriguing? I thought only big questions mattered!” Well, if you were to ask that then I would reply that you are suffering from a mild case of “Ted-Talkitis.” Today, there are a series of factors that pressure people to develop so-called “big ideas” (in fact, our university is not immune to that). Yes, big ideas can be fascinating. But they can also be bland and generic, especially when they are not grounded in rigorous analysis. Do not feel the pressure to come up with an overly broad analytical question! In fact, specificity is your friend. Specificity usually makes things more intriguing. Think about how when we gossip with our friends. The overarching story might be interesting, but what really fascinates us are the juicy details, right? And that is because if “the devil is in the details,” so is the meaning. Here are a couple of tips to achieve intriguing specificity:

1. Use a framing device. Think about categories of analysis that can help frame the question. The humanities and social sciences have at least 3 major ones: class, race, and gender (these are just the basic ones, and I am happy to discuss others). So, the initial question of “why did the skateboard become popular in the 1970s?” might be reframed along the lines of “why did the skateboard become popular with white middle-class teenage boys in the 1970s?”
2. Narrow the chronological and geographical range. We’ve already started doing this, since we are focusing in the 1970s. But maybe we could refine the question even further, and ask “why did the skateboard become popular with white middle- class teenage boys in southern California in the 1970s?” Now you have clearer geographical boundaries.

As you can see, making your question more precise also makes your life easier, for it narrows the scope of what you need to research!

3. Identify primary sources to analyse. This step should take place in conjunction with the preceding one. As you are refining your analytical question, you want to simultaneously start researching for primary sources that you can interpret to answer the question. Why do you want to be doing this simultaneously? Well, for a couple of reasons. First, you might just find that there are no primary sources out there that will be useful in answering your question, which means you will have to work on modifying the latter. Relatedly, as you research primary sources you will likely think of new issues that you can then incorporate into your original question, rendering it even more complex.
   • “What’s this thing? A primary source?” A primary source is any artifact, document, diary, manuscript, recording, image, data, etc., that you analyse and interpret. When it comes to historical essays, a primary source is a source that was created at the time under study. So, for the purposes of our skateboard essay, let’s say you come across a memoir titled Memories of a Skateboarder: Growing up in SoCal in the 1970s. That would be a primary source for your essay.

4. Research secondary sources to engage with. Again, another step that you should take in conjunction with the preceding ones. Identifying secondary sources will help you sort out what kinds of debates scholars have about the topic you have investigating, and, in your essay, you want to engage with those debates (this is what helps make your essay relevant and intriguing). Furthermore, secondary sources can help you identify promising primary sources. After all, other scholars are also working with this kind of material.
   • “Um, okay… So what’s a secondary source?” I want to be precise here. When I speak of secondary sources, I mean reviewed scholarly sources. These are peer-reviewed articles and books produced by other scholars. You will be able to find these sources in academic journals and books published by university presses, and you have a wonderful library and even more wonderful librarians at your disposal to help with this research. To keep up with our skateboarding example, let’s say you find a scholarly article published in the Journal of Sports History titled “From the Ocean to the Asphalt: Surfboards, Skateboards, and Technological Transfer.” The source presents an argument about how the Southern California milieu fostered a counterculture of leisure and tinkerers that was central to the invention of the skateboard. Notice, however, that the article doesn’t really address masculinity and youth. That’s not a bad thing—it means that you have an opening to say something new. But you want to make sure you develop your argument in a way that engages with this article’s argument. And you probably also want to keep looking for articles that might have something to say about gender (more on this below).

5. Read, read, read. I will be blunt. You are going to have to read—more than what you expect. Research is time consuming. Identifying promising primary and secondary sources takes time. Most of what you read will not even make it into the essay. But do not be

frustrated by that, it is part of the process, a necessary one to find your footing. (To use an awkward analogy, people don’t usually end up marrying everyone they date, right?). Oh, and a piece of advice. Take careful notes as you read, and make sure that you clearly label those notes. That will help you keep track of where you are drawing the ideas from and help prevent any issues with plagiarism.

• Trade secrets: footnotes, endnotes, and bibliographies. As you read secondary sources, you might be tempted to ignore the footnotes, endnotes, and bibliographies. Don’t! Instead, read through those titles and see whether there are any that seem especially pertinent to the essay you are writing. See who the scholar you are reading is engaging with—it may turn out that these other people are more relevant to your topic. Think of any academic article you read as partaking in a larger conversation. Your job as a scholar is to sort out the outlines of that conversation and position yourself within it as a compelling voice. Use footnotes, endnotes, and bibliographies to help trace that scholarly conversation.

6. Question, question, question. As you are researching and reading, you want to make sure you also interrogate both the primary and secondary sources. Now, the way you do that is not the same, so let me offer some clarity on how they differ.
   • Interrogating primary sources: When you interrogate a primary source, you do not argue with it. Instead, you seek to understand it and tease out meaning from it. In other words, you want to extract from the source meaning that is not immediately visible at the surface level. Don’t just write a report on Memories of a Skateboarder. Instead, you want to explain how masculinity is expressed in the memoir, the images that are associated with skateboarding, the use of metaphors, analogies, and other literary devices.
   • Interrogating secondary sources: When you interrogate a secondary, you do argue with it! Once you grasp an author’s argument, ask yourself what about it you find troublesome or questionable? What do you find valuable but that could be expanded upon? Notice how an argument doesn’t necessarily mean disagreeing with author. There are, in fact, many ways to engage with a scholarly source. You can critique and refine, you can expand, you can disagree, you can arrive at a different conclusion from a different angle, etc.
   • How primary and secondary sources interact: To put matters rather crudely, you want to draw from the secondary sources to help you interpret the primary sources. But don’t leave it at that. You also want to make sure you use the interpretations you derive from the primary sources to then argue with the secondary sources. See how it then becomes this richly textured conversation!?
   • The BEAM model: The distinction between primary and secondary source is rather simplistic. What you also want to think about in terms of sources is what you are doing with them. Here, a thing called the BEAM model can be helpful. It is an acronym that helps you remember the different ways you can use sources.

Background: Using a source to provide general information about the topic. In other words, this is just using a source to derive raw facts and context that make the story you are trying to tell intelligible. You can usually use both primary and secondary sources as background sources. In our case both Memories of a Skateboarder and “From the Ocean to the Asphalt” should offer useful background information.

Exhibit: Using a source as evidence that you then analyse. For instance, in our case the memoir works as an exhibit source. Remember, though, you are not just mining the memoir for facts, but interpreting it for meaning. Exhibit sources are pretty much always primary sources.

Argument: Using a source to engage its argument. In our case, the source is “From the Ocean to the Asphalt.” Argument sources are pretty much always secondary sources. It doesn’t really make sense to argue with a primary source—it would be like a scientist arguing with a virus.

Method: Using a source’s way of analysing an issue to apply to your own issue. Method sources usually provide you with valuable concepts or methodological approaches to make sense of the question you are trying to answer. They are, therefore, very valuable. We haven’t really come across one in our skateboard paper, but maybe as you did you research you came across Judith Butler’s book Gender Trouble, which has interesting things to say about the concept of gender as an analytical category that you can then use to help frame your own analysis in the skateboard paper. This would help you triangulate your interpretation of Memories of a Skateboarder (the primary source) and how your own interpretation relates to “From the Ocean to the Asphalt” (the secondary source).

7. Write, write, write. Throughout this entire process you should be writing. Why? BECAUSE WRITING IS THINKING. But through writing, you can test out whether your ideas make sense. More than that, through writing you can stumble into new ideas. Writing is an interesting exercise. If you were to think about it analogically to sports, writing combines both drilling and free play. Drilling because the more you write the better you get at it. Free play because as you write you discover new ideas and techniques that you can then add to your repertoire. This is one of the limitations of using ChatGPT—it more often than not keeps you from thinking through your material therefore precluding the opportunity for brilliant insights (its output always tends to the lowest common denominator—bland description). Here are some types of writing you can try out as you work on your essay.
   • Free write: As you study a primary source, start freewriting. Don’t plan things out, just start writing and see where it goes. Describe the source in detail, focusing on different parts of it. Think about how it might relate to a larger context. Think about what it might express below the surface level. Just write in a stream of consciousness way and see where it goes.
   • Identify, contextualize, significance: We already talked about this for the midterm. This is a useful strategy if you feel stuck since it gives you some structure. It helps you map out the primary source at hand.
   • Paraphrase/summarize and argue: With a secondary source, something that can be useful is to summarize the author’s general argument (or paraphrase a specific argumentative claim) and then follow up with a “However, I would argue that…” This does two things. First, the summarizing/paraphrasing prompts you to really understand the other author’s argument. Second, the “However, I would argue that…” sets you up to engage in a conversation. Even if you don’t have some kind of disagreement, try to imagine one. See where that goes.
   • Key terms word cloud: As you read your sources, start jotting down key terms. Feel free to write down anything below them (an explanation, a question, a specific quote). Then, once you have a bunch of them, take a step back and look at them all. Can you find tensions and/or connections?

8. What’s your thesis? At this point you should have a tentative thesis in mind. What is the answer to your analytical question? Remember, our question at this point is “why did the skateboard become popular with white middle-class teenage boys in southern California in the 1970s, and how did skateboarding shape images of youth masculinity?” The thesis should offer a clear, precise, and complex answer to this question. Ideally, it should be an answer that makes the reader go, “Oh, that’s intriguing! I would’ve never thought of that!” But it can’t be absurd (don’t worry, though, if you have done the necessary work in engaging with primary and secondary sources then your thesis should be grounded). Finally, remember that your thesis changes as you write, because you discover new things as you write!

9. Outline. Before you start writing your first full draft, you might want to outline your argument. This will give you some structure as you face that blank white page on your word processor. But don’t feel like you need to stick to that outline as you start writing! Most of the time the final product will look quite different from what you initially planned out.

10. Draft. Sorry, but this is critical. You need to draft your essay. Why? Because you need to see if your argument is solid and if it is structured in a coherent manner. The only way you can do that is if you have a solid draft you can look at. Think of the draft like a dress rehearsal. You wouldn’t perform a play or a concert in front of a live audience before rehearsing, right? Same thing with writing.

11. Revise and rewrite. Once you’ve written a draft you need to read it. In fact, I would also recommend you get a colleague or family member to read it and give you some feedback. Every writer needs a reader, and others can usually pick up on stuff that you missed. If you do want some revising and rewriting strategies, I am happy to talk over some with you. We will also be discussing some in the class dedicated to working on the essays. The last major thing you want to revise, though, is the thesis statement. Make sure it corresponds to the analysis you developed in the essay.

12. Revise again. Before submitting your essay, you want to make sure everything looks good. Catch those typos and get the formatting right! Did you reference everything? Are the pages numbered? Do the sentences read smoothly? A couple of tips for this final step:
    • Print the essay and make edits on paper. I don’t care what the university says about saving paper. The way we read on paper is different than the way we read on screens, and paper has its pedagogical purpose. We are more attentive to detail on paper and tend to scan on screen So, if you really want to catch detail, work on paper.
    • Read your essay out loud. Seriously. You might feel a little silly, but every good writer does this. Why? Because it helps them catch awkward sentences and missing words. Anything that seems out of place will become immediately obvious once you hear it. Our ears are more sensitive to this than our eyes.

13. Submit!