3) The Rough Draft (due no later than 11/15; earlier submissions are encouraged): This should be full, coherent, typewritten, draft of your paper, complete with references.
Recommended Outline: your paper should be divided into subheadings. It should have clear, logical flow. Your subheadings should include (but are not limited to):
1) An Introduction of a paragraph or two. This should contain, usually at the end of the first paragraph, a thesis statement of the form, “This paper argues that . . . . “
2) A literature review that summarizes the key themes, concerns, and debates in the literature on your topic. In your literature reviews, organize them according to themes, theories, and/or methods, not article-by-article or book-by-book. For example: "Many scholars claim video games are dangerously addicting (Smith, 2003; Goldberg, 2005; Smertz, 1999). Others disagree (Smootz, 2000) or claim there are positive effects as well (Smeetz, 2001)." DO NOT write "Smith (2003) says video games are addicting. . . . Goldberg (2005) also says video games are addicting . . ." and so forth.
A good literature review requires distinguishing between your reaction to what scholars write and what it actually argues. This is one of the most important skills you need to get to do real scholarship. It makes your work both easier and more credible. Accurately summarizing an argument is an essential task not only for producing academic work, but for being a responsible, informed intellectual. It’s sorta like being a good listener who doesn’t constantly distort, judge, react to, or put words in the mouth of your friends in conversation. Saying what you like about the books and articles on your topic, or how they will relate to your research paper, is not what a literature review is for. Being able to find some things that are wrong, contradictory, or offensive about a text is NOT the same thing as being able to summarize the argument.
The annotations should contain information useful to anyone studying in the area (e.g., fellow students writing research papers). It should not summarize the article or book or list its contents; it should briefly explain 1) the author's main point or argument; 2) the author's method or approach; and 3) the place of the piece in the literature as a whole (e.g., does the author agree with other scholars?). The bibliography as a whole should provide a solid overview of the existing state of the discussion in the area you are studying.
3) Perhaps two or three subheadings for the body of your paper that help delineate the major parts of your argument.
4) A conclusion.
Please remember the following: Make sure your topic is not too broad; make sure it has an argument or a point; and stick to SERIOUS SCHOLARLY, PEER REVIEWED RESEARCH, i.e., stay away from mass market books, anecdotal essays, Time Magazine articles, random web sites, and the like.
Your sources must be fully documented using the American Sociological Association style. If you're not absolutely sure about how to do this, see me right away (Some of the basics can be found at http://www.uvm.edu/sociology/ASAcitat.pdf). Remember that you need to provide references for ALL material you find in other sources even when you use your own words (NOT just for those things you quote directly). Remember that improper documentation is considered a form of plagiarism, which can get you in serious trouble, e.g., flunking or thrown out of school. Your paper's bibliographies should not include annotations, just the bibliographic material in ASA style.