These are some categories. You may have a project in mind that doesn’t fit these categories. Just check it out with me. Although many of the projects involve describing the work of others, they will also involve original analysis and/or other original work of your own.

Theorist (s)

You may choose to focus on a particular theorist (or theorists) such as Weston or Sideris. You would have to narrow your topic to some particular aspect of the theorist’s thought in one book or groundbreaking article that interests you. Or, you might choose a single key theme or thesis that runs throughout several pieces. You would discuss this aspect in charitable terms, offering summaries, quotations, examples, and definitions where appropriate. You would situate her work in the context of our study this semester. You would then do a literature survey of what others had to say on the topic or related topics. And, finally, you could evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the theorist’s argument on the topic, discuss where it may have led interpretive theory astray, and/or provides an impetus to further work, etc. Another possible approach would be to compare and contrast two theorists who address the same issue or topic. After highlighting the similarities and differences, you could then evaluate their work. You might suggest what insights you believe can be drawn from each, which has the better argument or approach and why, or where both go astray, etc. You would offer counter-arguments and/or counter-examples where appropriate. You might describe possible objections to the theorist’s ideas. It would be well to explain your own presuppositions and discuss and deal with any possible objections to your own interpretation of the theorist(s).

Interpreters in many disciplines such as history, literary criticism, anthropology, etc. have developed new approaches to their fields.  This is also true in philosophy. These new approaches have been informed by different types of theory as well as the nature of the discipline involved. For your paper, you may wish to explore one of these new approaches/methods in philosophy as applied to a topic in environmental philosophy or religion and the environment and apply it. Or, describe two approaches and apply them to a single object of study to illustrate their differences and similarities. Or, you might take a traditional approach in the field and contrast it with a different approach applied to the same text, issue, or problem.

You may focus on a particular issue or problem. You would need to explain the issue or problem clearly. This would likely involve offering examples to illustrate as well as defining key terms. You would also include a literature survey of how one or two thinkers have approached the problem or key ways the problem or issue has been addressed, placing them in the context of our study of environmental philosophy and religion and the environment this semester. Then, you would discuss which approaches seem to address the issue or problem in the most astute and comprehensive ways and why. Or, you might suggest a solution of your own, either unique or which improves upon previous attempts to address the issue or solve the problem. It would be well to discuss possible objections to solutions--your own or those of others.

You may choose to survey an area such as environmental epistemology or ecocriticism. In this case your research agenda would involve reading fairly widely on the topic and then discerning key schools of thought, thinkers, issues, etc. that occur in that area. Your paper would survey the field by describing key thinkers or schools of thought, etc. You would need to use citations and examples to illustrate and offer definitions of key terms. You might also outline key arguments that occur. In the rest of the paper you would place the thinkers in the context of our study this semester and explain why the issues, thinkers, schools of thought, etc. are significant.  You may also evaluate them from your own presuppositions and position, considering possible objections to your evaluation.

1.   Introduce your quotations smoothly.  Reference to the author or text is often best:  As Preston argues, "....." (34).  As the Nicomachean Ethics says, "........... ."  Our class text, Turabian (7th edition) has excellent advice on incorporating quotations in Section 25. 

2.  Identify quotations with quotations marks unless five lines or longer.  Indent quotations longer than five lines.

3. Properly attribute quotations or resource materials in  MLA or Turabian/Chicago Manual of Style - CMS (University of Chicago A or B). Must have a "Works Consulted,"  Reference List, or Bibliography page.

4.  Do not simply change a few words in a sentence.  If you are closely following your source, you should quote instead.

5.  Quotations and use of an idea or structure, etc. including very loose paraphrase require citation. More information on when to cite and how to cite is available in our class text, Turabian (7th edition) Sections 15 and 25.

4. Do not make up citations.  Guessing about correct source or inventing source is not acceptable.

5. Cite ALL sources used including personal communications, internet material, other student papers, etc.

6.  Annotate all sources.  Annotations will include both descriptive and evaluative comments.