[Grad2020] [Turnbull Zemi] REMINDER: Zemi tomorrow, 13:00-15:00

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

皆さん

すでに話したが、明日のゼミは発
表の練習になります。以前と違って、ランダムではなくM2からはじまり、来
週M1にいきます。（順番はランダムになります。）

ルールは以前と同じく、今まで発表していない先行研究を発表する。討論者は

王 → 陸 <rikuanki at gmail.com>
張 → 黄 <13071178524 at 163.com>
蒋 → Abdulrasool <fabdulrasool.85 at gmail.com>  # Please choose English!
鈴木 → 巌 <yanxijie19951027 at hotmail.com>

Hi everybody,

As mentioned before, tomorrow's Zemi will be presentation practice.
The setting is different from before; this week the M2 students will
present, then next week the M1 students.  (In each group the order
will be random.)  The discussants are

王 → 陸 <rikuanki at gmail.com>
張 → 黄 <13071178524 at 163.com>
蒋 → Abdulrasool <fabdulrasool.85 at gmail.com>  # Please choose English!
鈴木 → 巌 <yanxijie19951027 at hotmail.com>

In choosing your paper, choose the *best* (most interesting, or most
important results) paper, not the one most useful to you.  (You may
base your choice only on the abstracts of the papers, although I hope
you will have at least quickly read through all of the papers.)

The presentations will follow these rules.  The time allowed is the
same as the various formal presentations in the Master programs: 12
minutes.  Discussion will be as long as it takes, including both the
assigned discussant (about 4 minutes) and any other comments,
questions, etc.

NOTE: Because the discussant needs some of the material of your
presentation in advance, you MUST send them a copy of *the chosen
paper* immediately.  CC: me as well at turnbull at sk.tsukuba.ac.jp.

The following points must be covered.  (These are almost the same as
the previous set of presentations.)  You should use slides (a total of
6, see the explanation below).  For each slide (except the title slide,
which should have the usual format, explained below) you need only a
title and a *few* (*3-5 is best*) bullet points.

The first four points below should be presented *orally*, without
reference to slides.  You should have a title slide with the usual
information on it (author, title, publication information for the
paper chosen, plus yourself as presenter and the presentation or
preparation date).  This slide will be displayed while you present
points 1-4.

1.  Introduce yourself (name, student ID, program, year) as usual.
2.  Introduce the author(s) of the paper, their affiliations (where
    they work or study), and their ranks (as faculty, research staff,
    or students).
3.  Title of the research, date (year and if available month is
    sufficient), and source (journal, book, or the nature of the
    website: personal blog, departmental working papers, third-party
    archive such as RePEC, Research Gate, or ArXiv).  Full URL or
    publication data should be presented on-screen, but orally you
    should explain in these general terms.
4.  State what is (to you) the *most important* of the main results in
    the paper.  Just *one*, please.  Explain why it is important *to
    you*.

Each of the following should have one slide each.

5.  Describe the methods used to perform the research: the theory
    framework, and the data and statistical tools (if empirical).
6.  Describe the important results achieved in the paper, and explain
    why they are novel (that is, how they are better than previous
    results).
7.  Summarize any applications to policy or scientific methodology
    that the authors present.
8.  Explain why you think this is a better paper than the others in
    the set of ten.
9.  Describe how your own research is related to, and improves on,
    this paper.

Each presentation has an *assigned discussant*.  Of course all
students should listen carefully to every presentation and make
comments or ask questions about it.  I am watching and counting!  But
you don't need to comment on every presentation, as long as the
comments you make indicate *active* listening and participation.

The assigned discussant *must* comment.  The discussion should take
about 4 minutes.  You don't need slides.  The following points must be
covered:

1.  Before seeing the presentation, read the *abstract* (at least!) of
    the paper.  (If there is no abstract, read the introductory
    section.)  State what *you* think is the most important or
    interesting result.  ("It's all boring" is not acceptable!  Pick
    one.)
2.  Also based on the abstract, describe the methods used to perform
    the research: the theory framework, and the data and statistical
    tools (if empirical).  If the abstract is insufficient, say so.
3.  Compare your choice of "most important" with the presenter's.  Did
    you choose the same result?  If yes, did you have the same reason?
    Explain.  If no, did you find the presenter's reason for their
    choice persuasive?  Explain.
4.  Did you find the presenter's description of the methods useful?
    If there is additional information a reader would want to know
    about the paper's methods, say so.
5.  Any other comments you have about the presentation.

Steve


-- 
Associate Professor              Division of Policy and Planning Science
http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp/     Faculty of Systems and Information
Email: turnbull at sk.tsukuba.ac.jp                   University of Tsukuba
Tel: 029-853-5175                 Tennodai 1-1-1, Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN