Journal Article

in order to do the assignment you have to look back at the proposal journal to complete the response draft.

Proposal on Journal Article Response

For the proposal portion of the Journal Article Response writing assignment I have chosen to review a peer reviewed article by Sadowski and Wojcieszak. The authors provide an assessment based on Poland tourism sector where the geographical aspects if the country are assessed to determine which is the biggest contributing factor to the influx of tourists in rural areas. The authors used the Hellwig’s synthetic development indicator in their assessment and they were able to confirm cultural and natural attractiveness of the region in question as one of the most important factors. The support of the European Union is key in most of the destination areas of tourists in rural Poland but the funds are only directed towards subsistence farming and not strategic areas with high potential due to natural and cultural attractiveness.

Iam interested in writing a response to this article because it integrates geographical features of Poland with agriculture and culture and explores its influence tourism. I will understand both culture and geography of Poland by engaging this article. The biggest challenge will be trying to analyse the fine details on geographical data and tourism provided to provide a clear response on the issues raised.

References

Sadowski, A., & Wojcieszak, M. M. (2019). Geographic differentiation of agritourism activities in Poland vs. cultural and natural attractiveness of destinations at district level. PloS one, 14(9), e0222576. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0222576

Here are a few notes on writing your response draft.

Getting Started:

1. You have already made a good start by selecting your article and writing your proposal statement. This should have given you a good chance to articulate what you are writing about and why.

2. Figure out the article you have chosen. To write a good response you need to be an active reader. That is, you need to firmly establish what the article is about and what you think of that.

· As you are reading keep in mind the key components to your response:

· Identify the empirics of your article. What is the subject of the investigation, what is the actual thing being discussed? Empirics are sometimes obvious and simple and sometimes are more obscured.

· What theory is being used to analyze, interrogate, explore, discuss, etc. the empirics in the article? What are the big ideas that are being used in conjunction with the empirical subject?

· What is the methodology? This is both a question about what methods are used to analyze the empirics- did the author read all the written correspondences between two artists? Or did they examine the layout of a neighborhood? Interview fisherman to determine how they imagine the life worlds of fish? Secondly, methodology concerns how the theory is applied to the subject. Are the authors making a direct correlation? As in stating that the empirics prove the theory. Or are they saying the theory merely helps understand an aspect of the empirical questions? Or are the empirics being used to develop new theory by expanding on those ideas?

· What is the context of the paper? This is key to figuring out the next part as well. How does the paper fit into the practice of cultural geography? What is the intervention it is trying to make? Put another way, what larger discourse is it placed in? Another way of figuring out context is to ask who the intended audience for the paper is.

· What is the author’s positionality? What are they trying to say and why? Are the authors merely concerned with expanding knowledge? Do they have a political or social justice agenda? Are they concerned with establishing the legitimacy of a discourse or with critiquing one? What role does their occupation have? Their personal experiences? Their culture? Ethnicity or race? This is embroiled with everything they write and will sometimes be foregrounded and sometimes you will need to read between the lines or do additional reading to figure it out.

· Finally, what is your position on the paper? What were your expectations before you read it, did it meet or defy your expectations? Will you use ideas in it? Why or why not?

3. Once you have worked all of that out you are ready to start the paper. You are turning in a draft first but do not treat it as a first draft. It should be complete, and it should be something you are willing to have others read. Write a first draft, then revise. Consider your first drafts structure. Does it work for to explain the paper you are writing about? Is it complete? Grammatically correct? Ask yourself if someone else could read it and come away with a correct conception about the paper you are responding to?

Constructing your paper:

I have provided a response to an academic book as an example of this. The example I provided as an overwrought structure that is obvious and uses subheadings to guide the reader through it. You can use that structure or another one. Just be sure you are hitting all the points outlined above.

You do not have to follow that structure though. You do not even need to use subheadings. Just address the key points in a way that makes sense for the paper you are responding to and you personally as a writer.

One way to do this is to write each section separately and then figure out where things go later. Instead of subheadings you might just use transition sentences. Different orderings of the key pieces of your response are fine.

Either way your response should have an Introduction consisting of a hook and a “map” to the writing. The hook tells the reader what the response is about and why the reader should read it. The map tells the reader how the article is structured.

The response should also have a conclusion. Here you reiterate all the key points and try to wrap the paper up on a sentence that ties them together.

The adage to, “tell them what you are going to tell them, tell them, and then tell them what you told them,” sums up the response structure.

Here are two possibilities (different then the provided example) outlined:

1. Intro

a. Hook

b. Map

2. Body

a. Context

b. Position

c. Theory

d. Empirics

e. Methodology