Following are the list of paper work groups. These are the groups you will be in on Friday morning from 9-11amET when we workshop papers. In general, we tried to put similar topics together, and for the most part, this worked except for a couple of people that we had to distribute oddly to keep the groups small (so apologies in advance). The main headings are just broad categories, and it is true most papers could have easily fit into multiple groups.
Process for work in progress session
–set up a virtual space to meet (one of you can take the lead here)
–everyone reads and comments on all the papers
–comments are shared
–the dedicated time on Friday is meant to discuss the papers and the comments with equal time for all papers
What makes a good review
A good review is specific in its evaluation and suggestions for improving the manuscript’s argument. It helps the author(s) clarify, qualify, and synthesize the manuscript’s argument, if necessary, and better foreground and preview it, support and reinforce it, and explain its stakes and implications for (possible) readers of the journal. The framing elements of the manuscript’s opening and closing are key places to help the author(s) improve these moves. In some cases, the reviewer can help the author(s) recognize a somewhat hidden or alternative argument that should be more central to the manuscript.
A good review is also specific in its evaluation and recommendation for the study’s methodology and manuscript’s explanation of this. It helps the author(s) more specifically explain how and why they took a particular methodological approach, what its advantages and limitations might be for the study at hand and RHM scholarship more generally, how it extends (or could extend) existing approaches, and how it was pragmatically enacted/adapted. It helps the editors decide whether any limitations in the methodology require the author(s) to do more data collection and/or analysis before resubmitting or revising. In some cases, the review can help the author(s) identify and flesh out a methodological argument, either as part of the main argument or supplementary to it. Along the same lines, a good review can help the author(s) identify and flesh out any conceptual contributions of the manuscript.
On a related note, a good review focuses not just on the appropriateness of the manuscript’s topic and approach for the journal, but helps the author more usefully explain how the manuscript’s study and argument relates to and extends existing scholarly conversations, including some in RHM. Often this involves raising questions from the study for other scholars to consider, particularly toward the end of the manuscript. If the study is also situated in conversations that are beyond RHM (the field), the review helps the author(s) explain the possible significance of this for the journal’s readers. Because there are usually multiple ways of situating a study that make sense, a good review doesn’t impose a particular scholarly thread or list of sources but makes more open-ended suggestions that could strengthen the author(s) argument, perhaps even offering multiple alternatives; at the same time, a review can be more directive about including a vital overlooked source or two (including from this journal). A good review doesn’t overwhelm the author(s) with too many suggestions for a literature review, can When a manuscript has the potential to push the boundaries of RHM scholarship, a good review helps improve rather than squelches this, while also ensuring that others can recognize it as a rhetorical study. In other words, a good review doesn’t treat RHM as an already defined and bounded field, but is open to alternative and broader mappings of this field. We all need to be particularly aware of incorporating a diversity of scholarship.
A good review helps the author(s) better connect the parts of the study and manuscript. In many manuscripts, sources in a situating section could be more substantially drawn upon to explain parts of the analysis. In other cases, the author(s) could offer more evidence to support the main argument or its parts, further explain how the methodology generated the analysis or argument, or further explain how the study addressed the questions guiding the study.
Working Paper Groups
| COVID | Women’s History |
| Henaku & Agbozo | Klean Zwilling |
| Xie | de Tora |
| Kaplan | Conner |
| Swacha | |
| Method/ology | Visual |
| McKain, et al. | Black |
| McMulin | Wilson |
| Streit | Doan |
| Slagle | |
| Reproduction | Cancer Identity |
| Presly | West |
| deCaglio | Ryan |
| Adams | Kemp |
| Crawley | |
| Shit | Risks |
| Kessler | Graham |
| Ahmadi | Mollebaek |
| Hubrig & Anglesey | Fitzgerald |
| Motherhood | Online |
| Kolodziejski | Wang |
| Kuehl | Hinson &. Sword |
| Arnold | Miller |
| Narrative | Technology |
| Lucenko | Campeau |
| Debane | Kirkscey |
| Bailey | Woods |
| Addiction | Legitimate Comm |
| Harper | Pratt |
| Cowan | Hooker |
| Flick | Weedon |
| Clinkenbeard | |
| Race/Ethnicity | Sex |
| Pigozzi | Flores |
| Grayson | Mitchell |
| Robvais | Starkey |
| Embodied Lagniappe | Wellness |
| Cameron | Stewart |
| Hensley-Owens | Stambler |
| Crowe | Prins |
| McDougall | |
| Mental Heath | Disability |
| Emmons | Kampermann |
| Hallman-Martin | Lay |
| Lee, S. | Yabe |
| Augustine | Lee |
| Chronic | Sports |
| Singer | Tadros |
| Finer | Foschia |
| Jenning | Snelling |
| Enviro justice | History |
| Gonzalez | Krall |
| Riechers | James |
| George | Topping |