Memo Assignment

1. Memo Assignment • Write a memo (not an e-mail message) to your boss, the senator’s Chief of Staff, outlining the scope of your investigation into the disaster. Be sure to request permission to begin researching. • You must convince your boss that you have already begun the research and know the history and background of the disaster, as well as where to get information that will answer the list of questions she gave you. • See the CE 333T Web site for more specifications. • See Prentice Hall Reference Guide for memo format (pp. 505-511).

2. In Lab this Week . . . • Each person brings a draft of his/her memo. • You will give and get a written and a verbal review of your draft. • This activity involves constructive criticism: It’s a win-win situation.

3. Project Descriptions • For those who do not receive a clear go-ahead, think about two things: • WHY is the senator who is your audience interested in this particular failure? What is the relevance of this international or long-ago problem to this senator today? • What is the technical failure? There may ALSO be regulatory, managerial or governmental failures, but you will have to write a “Technical Description” section in your final report.

4. Possible Research Methods Observe Solicit expert opinion Collect and synthesize information from published and unpublished sources Conduct tests Make calculations Create preliminary designs

5. Research: Discovering and Developing Information • Published Resources • Printed articles, books, catalogs, etc. • Electronic databases • WWW • Unpublished Resources • Oral and written (but unpublished) records • interviews, correspondence (email) • Empirical Studies • surveys, observations, experiments, tests

6. Evaluating all Sources of Information • Does the information answer important questions for your research? • Is the information current? Can you determine the date of publication? • Are presented facts and figures from reliable sources? • Can you detect any biases in the way that information is presented? • Can you determine the author’s credentials and qualifications? • Is the publisher/sponsor credible? (for WWW sources, check the domain).

7. Evaluating Internet Sources 7.Is the site updated regularly? -- check dates 8. Is the site well designed? 9. Is the writing grammatical and clear? 10. Does the source make any biases absolutely clear? Does it make its purpose clear? -- check “About” page

8. Research Ethics: In-Class Exercise • Assume you are writing a paper on global warming for an Environmental Engineering Conference. On a scale of 1 (most credible) to 5, rate the following sources in terms of credibility with youraudience. • http://www.greenpeace.org/ • (Greenpeace’s URL) • http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/ • (The EPA’s page on global warming)

9. Evaluating Internet Resources Caveats • Where does page originate? Is a single individual as reliable as university, major company, or government agency? • Beware of ~NAME in directory path of URL. Page may be in personal directory. • Check the domain. If source is a company, is the page advertising?

10. Evaluating Internet Resources • A reliable site should make clear how it is organized and maintained. At least one page should include development info. When was site last updated? • Check out this resource: http://www.library.ubc.ca/home/evaluating/

11. What about Wikipedia? • A collaboratively produced collection of articles. Name is a conflation of “wiki” and “encyclopedia.” • In response to recent criticism, has heightened peer review process. • Is a Wikipedia article a credible source of information for your investigation?

12. Strategies for Researching • Be as specific as possible in your search. • Learn how to combine keywords. • Choose the best search engine. • Google loads faster than other engines. • See this article on search engines. • Consult a librarian. • Set a timetable for research. • People are also sources of info., but they have to be reliable and credible

13. Documenting Sources and Avoiding Plagiarism • Don’t plagiarize unintentionally -- copying more than 5 words in a row from another source without attribution is plagiarism in engineering writing. • Consider these writing strategies: • Quotation, paraphrase, summary • If in doubt about whether to cite source, cite it! • Improper citation is way better than no citation. • UT’s Scholastic Dishonesty policy

14. Search Strategies • Subject search • uses keywords • Snowball search • moves back in time – begins with recent publication • Citation search • moves forward in time -- begins with key paper • Star search • looks at “star” journals or institutions

15. Keyword search: the most common type. • Use careful keyword searches. • Qualify your search by adding words: toll roads Austin traffic 2005

16. Snowball (a) and Citation (b) Douglas (2003) Physical Rev. Letters, MIT Nicol et al. (1998) (a) Gaiver (1996) Phys. rev. Letters Bardeen (1994) Glasser (1995) IEEE Trans Auschnitt (1986) Applied Phys Lett Haus (1978) Internat’l J of Elect (b) Lugovoi (1976) Optics Haus (1975) IEEE Journal

17. Search Tools: Indexes and Databases • Science Citation Index • a CD-ROM in the McKinney Library • Academic Search Premier • Covers trade and industrial publications as well as journals published by professional societies. • EI Compendex • also the Engineering Index Annual (abstracts) • even covers conferences • Dissertation Abstracts

18. More Search Tools • Web of Science – links to cited articles • on UT Library web site • SciFinder Scholar – download from McKinney Engineering library • Includes conferences and dissertations, etc. • Has elegant search engine • Others?

19. Collecting Information: Interviewing • Gather necessary information • Prepare effective questions • focused • few yes/no • one at a time • Don’t interrupt • Allow time for response • Convey interest • tone of voice & body language • Write thank-you letter