I Was an Under-Age Semiotician - NYTimes.com:
'via Blog this'
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Rethinking Technology in Higher Education in India
Rethinking Technology in Higher Education in India[1]
Anil Pinto
Dept of Media
Studies, Christ University, Bangalore, INDIA.
(Published in the journal ELT Vistas Vol 2, Issue 1. 58-63. Print. ISSN 0975-8526.)
While there have been many discussions on
technology in higher education,
especially in the context of language teaching, they have largely been either
utopic or dystopic.[2]
The former argues that technology is a panacea for all the difficulties that
one faces in teaching in the regular classroom, and educational administration.
The latter’s view would disagree with technology doing a better job than the
human teacher. The second group also asks questions about the teacher becoming
redundant with the technology, or the consequent loss of human touch in
education. What is to be noted is that both the responses are a reaction to the
phenomenon of the proliferation of the digital technology in the society and
its direct and indirect bearing on the classroom. However, both polemic positions ignore
the complex ways in which the digital technology has come to redefine our
engagement with the social- and the political aspects of our society and
consequently also the classroom.
Before I begin to discuss digital
technology in the context of higher education, I wish to clarify the use of
some key concepts here. One is technology. Technology on the one hand has come
to be understood as an object out there, and on the other, in recent times, to exclusively
refer to high technology like mobile phones and computers. However, I draw upon
the etymological understanding of the term technology which comes from the
Greek word techne meaning skill or that which reduces human labour. By
extension I treat script, print as technologies. Script and print are the two
technologies that have redefined the way human societies were organised and their
worldview.[3]
Although there is no availability of evidence that can stand the rigour of
academic inquiry to suggest that the digital is also a similar technology like
that of print and script, empirical observation, and anecdotal evidence clearly
points to such a direction.
I use the term digital technology in order
not to group the new phenomenon under the rubric of other technologies as I
wish to draw attention to the nature of the technology that defines it –
digitality. I also use it to make a point that the digital technology is
distinct in that “[m]uch like the print technologies the rise and emergence of
digital technology seems to be producing new citizenships, forms of governance
and public spheres of which … technology-mediated identities are a component.”[4]
Classroom although linguistically suggests
a physical organisation of place within an enclosure of four walls where
teaching-learning takes place, needs to be considered more as a space that
emerges in a specific relationship between knowledge disseminator and knowledge
‘receiver’ within the norms and laws framed by the state or society. Such an
understanding of the term will help in understanding the nature of the
classroom in the context of distance, and internet-mediated learning.
One of the reasons why the polemic
positions regarding the digital technology arise is because of the tendency to
concentrate only on the technology and not necessarily reflect on how do the
technologies influence and sometimes transform or enable different subjectivities.
The other reason is due to the tendency to treat the digital technology merely
as another technology and thereby collapse the present development as belonging
to the old developments of the television or print technology era.
Digital technologies have already unleashed
a different imagination, behaviour and thinking that are changing the
socio-political conditions as we knew them. These have already had a direct
impact on the classroom. The use of mobile phones quite unapologetically, constant
touch with the world outside the classroom through mobile phones, plagiarism
that seems completely normal for the students, blogging, social networking
among students based on political causes, academic needs, expressing academic
disappointment, venting the grouse against the teachers and institutions in the
cyberspace, institutions trying to woo prospective students through
institutional websites are some of the
immediately perceived outcomes of this new condition.
What makes the phenomenon worth taking note
of in India
is the recent interest of the state to harness the internet technology to
address the issues affecting the higher education. The Indian State has been
allocating significant amount of money and putting organisations in place to
not only make information and communication technology (ICT) part of existing
higher education apparatus but also to look at creating a new system
facilitated by the ICT alongside. Recently, Cabinet Committee on Economic
Affairs (CCEA) gave its go ahead for the National Mission on Education through
Information and Communication Technology. This mission costs Rs 4,612 crores in
the 11th plan.[5]
Indira Gandhi National University (IGNOU) is making its course material
available online and allowing students to take exams online round the year for
select courses. Quite a few universities are also shifting to making the course
material available on their websites, or giving it in CDs.[6]
These are some of the examples of existing universities trying to adapt to the
changed social demands mediated by digital technology.
There is however, an inherent flaw within
the present imagination which has brought ICT into the existing higher
educational institutions which are trying to accommodate the ICT within the
structure that is largely a legacy of the print era. For examples, one of the
direct outcomes of the digital technology is to increasingly present knowledge
as contested. This comes clearly in conflict with existing lecture method which
assumes that there is definiteness to knowledge and the teacher’s reading and
view is the sufficient proof of that.
The tensions one notices in the classroom or
within academic institutions between teachers and students are also due to the
way knowledge production has changed. During the print era formal knowledge
production was the sole privilege of the scholars and researchers on which the
teachers banked on. When knowledge production breaks the age barrier and in a
typical classroom or an academic space you have students who are producers of
knowledge in the cyber space, and teacher who has not involved in publication,
tension in their relationship is inevitable. The teacher and the student going
to the same source for information, for example, Wikipedia can also create new
tensions in the power-equations between the teacher and the students.
Within the Indian higher education set up the
present tension is due to the historical development of the borrowed university
structure meeting the changed socio-economic and political conditions. First, in
the Humoldtian imagination, a teacher in a university was supposed to be also a
knowledge producer.[7]
But the teacher for numerous reasons remained only as a knowledge disseminator.
It is this historical role only as a knowledge disseminator that now has come
to be challenged in Indian higher education due to state intervention which
likes to see teachers as knowledge producers and not merely knowledge disseminators.
Second, this state intervention comes along with the market demands for skilled
labour from the universities which has made theoretical or conceptual learning seem
like an aberration. Third, the exposure of Indian higher education to first
world thanks to globalisation coupled with India’s global ambitions
necessitated a global ambition of higher education.
However, none of these created a crisis in
higher education for which the state now thinks of the ICT as an answer. The
crisis that the state takes note of occurs when the three historical and contemporary
issues meet the fourth historical development of India – higher education as a
right – where increasingly various groups making claims to entry into higher
education . The demand looks nearly impossible for the state to achieve within
the present infrastructure and resources. Further, this claim to higher
education as a right runs counter to the Humboldtian imagination of the
university where the university is entrusted with the job creating a small
elite class which will preserve the national culture.[8]
Hence, the state turns to ICT as a way of addressing the crisis. In this
context the digital technology becomes for the state what in communication
theory is called the last mile solution. But the introduction the digital
technology to address the crisis, only further takes the university away from
its Humboldtian moorings.
The incorporation of the digital technology
would call for a different type of organisation of the institution in terms of
its curriculum, pedagogy, testing, evaluation, and administration. The idea of
institution as buildings may require change. It might more of a cyberspacial
presence. Curriculum may take on the coursework reading mode with blurring of
disciplines where the reading material is made available online. This might
even dissolve existing disciplines and create newer ones. Peer learning may
replace face-to-face regular contact classes. Testing could become anytime,
anywhere and may demand different levels of testing. Evaluation will undergo
changes perhaps of which we do not have clear idea. The administrative set up
of a university might undergo important change with the administrator becoming
the most important person than the professor, a trend that is increasingly
becoming a norm.[9]
While the digital technology is likely to
replace the physical teacher, it may not replace the symbolic teacher, and the
research-teacher.[10] The
symbolic teacher might be required to validate a skill or particular exposure
to knowledge and methods of a domain of knowledge. However, the
research-teacher is most likely to stay as the perhaps in a different role and
function.
However, the most significant change that
will occur would be the model of teaching-learning. With all the major
interactions of human societies with technologies which consequently shaped
them differently, if there was on model
that survived from the period of the script through print was the one to many
model of the teaching.[11]
It is this model that is under threat of becoming many-to-many model – a way in
which the knowledge architecture on the cyberspace is built.
In conclusion, with the state initiative in
proliferating ICT into existing traditional universities, and creating ICT
based educational systems imparting higher education, the very structure and
nature of higher education and classroom its microcosm, itself is emendable for
change. Since, such a change is inevitable, while implementing the ICT it would
be important to think about accommodating the technology enabled imagination
within the re structuring of the institution of higher education.
[1] This paper is an
outcome of the Digital Classroom course jointly taught by Ashish Rajadhyaksha,
CSCS, Nishant Shah, CIS and me at Christ
University, Bangalore.
[2] I owe this insight to Ashish Rajadhyaksha.
[3] Briggs, Asa and Peter Burke. A
Social History of the Media: From Gutenberg to the Internet. Cambridge: Blackwell,
2002, pp 1-14.
[4] Shah, Nishant and
Sunil Abraham. Digital Natives with a
Cause? Bangalore:
CIS, 2010, 23.
[5] Mukherjee, Shubra.
‘Education Plan Halfway’. Deccan Herald. 31 Jan 2010, pp 7.
[6] Gandhigram Rural
University offers its M.Phil. course material in CDs.
[7] Readings, Bill. The University in Ruins. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996, pp 15.
[8] Ibid.
[9] ibid, pp 8.
[10] This insight is from Anup Dhar of CSCS, Bangalore.
[11] This insight is from
Anshis Rajadhyaksha.
Saturday, July 14, 2012
CONFERENCE: In Spotlight Again: English Language and Literature
AINET International
Conference & 5th National & 9th Vidarbha ELTAI Conference, Nagpur
18-19 January 2013
Venue: VMIET Campus, Dongargaon, Wardha Road, Nagpur
Call for Proposals
Proposals are invited for the following kinds of
presentations related to any of the conference focus areas:
15 minute paper
presentations
30/ 60 minute workshops
Poster presentations
Abstracts of papers, workshops or poster presentations (Max.
200 words) should be sent by email only in the given Presenter Proposal Format
to vidcon2013 AT gmail.com by 31 August 2012. All abstracts will be
blind reviewed and will be subject to the approval of the Selection Committee.
Important Dates
Submission of proposals/ abstracts: 31 August 2012
Decision on proposals/ abstracts: 30 September 2012
Re-submission after revision, if applicable: 31 October 2012
Best Speaker Awards
The best presentations from amongst the delegates will be
awarded the ‘Best Speaker Awards’. Presentations will be evaluated on the basis
of innovativeness of idea(s), academic quality, practicability, relevance to
the context and overall style.
How to Register?
Please download the form from www.theainet.net.
For Further Details Visit www.theainet.net.
Friday, July 13, 2012
An Interrogation of Translation Studies through Self-translation
Reading More Intimately: An Interrogation of
Translation Studies through Self-translation
Anil Joseph Pinto
Dept of English and Media Studies, Christ University
(Published in Salesian Journal of Humanities and Social
Sciences, Vol 3, No 1, May 2012. Pp 66-73. ISSN 0976-1861.)
Abstract
While the poststructural turn has made the study of translation more
self-reflexive, it has not made translation studies scholars rethink the
fundamental assumptions of translation process, which poststructuralism should
have. As a result, many practices in the nature of ‘translation’ have not only
got marginalised but have got relegated to absence, within translation studies.
One such practice is self-translation. This paper tries to read the process of
self-translation closely and thereby raise critical questions on the
fundamental assumptions about translation. The paper will conclude by positing
self-translation as an important domain for scholarly engagement by drawing
attention to its potential to make translation studies more nuanced.
----
Translation studies, since the post-structural turn, has evinced serious attention and concerns
from diverse set of domains, namely post-colonial studies, feminism, and cultural
studies, as against the old disciplines of biblical studies, linguistics,
anthropology, and philosophy. The turn not only weakened previous concerns and modes of inquiry which treated
the need for translation as granted and the process as a natural one, but also
began to question these very taken-for-granted positions. The whys and whats of
translation became more important than hows. Consequently the how of
translation found it extremely difficult to be a formula and got continuously problematised.
Self-reflexivity attained through poststructuralism showed that
translation was not merely a linguistic exercise but strongly embedded in the
political process of gender, colonialism, patriarchy, state and nation.
While postcolonial translation studies, post-theory, brought to the
fore the unequal relations of cultures and languages within which the process
of translations took place, feminists have looked at translations as not only
subduing and displacing women’s work but also inscribing patriarchal and
masculine agendas in them (Niranjana; Bassnett and Trivedi; Tharu and Lalita).
The cultural studies has not only taken both the post-colonial and feminist
concerns on board in the study of translations but also has looked at the role
translation is playing in shaping identities and enabling different ways in
which meanings are made.
Interestingly, most of the questions and concerns raised by these
newer domains have also in a sense been universal in nature, encompassing all
nations and races within their theorisation and marking the binaries, us and
they, into which all would include.
However, in the ambitious universal concerns of these different
domains only the model of translations across time and space became area of
inquiry leaving out multiple other practices of translation which might not
have been universal in nature. One such is self-translation.
The dominant imagination in translation studies is one of a second
person, a person other than the author, translating the work of a person living
or dead, in the same linguistic or national community or another linguistic or
national community. Postcolonial questions have largely been raised in the
context of a person from a colonising culture translating the works from the
colonised culture and looked at the assumption of the coloniser getting
embedded not only in the choice of texts but also in translating within the
framework of the worldview of the coloniser. Studies influenced by cultural
studies have taken the postcolonial interrogation further by showing how the
translations by the colonisers not only shape the worldview of the colonised
through the acts and products of translation but also the nature of reverse
translations, i.e. translations of texts from coloniser’s language to the
language of the colonised, and have shown the way these translation practices
get materialised within the discourse of the coloniser, thus aiding and
complementing the project of colonialism.
In the presumed model of translation in translation studies, because
a second person translates a text, a serious debate on the faithfulness of
translation emerges. In the case of self-translation, since the writers
themselves translate, the question of faithfulness seemingly becomes
irrelevant.
It needs to be noted that self translation also raises serious
questions on the notions of original as well. In case of the self-translation
what is original, the one written first or the one written later? If that is so then, the original gets defined
only in terms of chronology and not necessarily because of any inherent
properties.
An interesting phenomenon is that self-translations are normally
seen as original. For example Tagore’s Gitanjali
is seldom seen as translation of its Bengali version. Similarly, people are
hardly aware that all plays of Karnad were first written in Kannada, but for
two.
The postcolonial studies, and feminist studies now find it difficult
to engage with the phenomenon of self-translation as it does not easily lend
itself to the assumptions of enquiries borrowed from translation studies. Such
inability to engage with the phenomenon of self-translation also results in
then questioning and threatening the boundaries and more importantly the
legitimacy of the inquiries of these theoretical approaches in translation
studies.
While there have been marginal interests in self-translation in some
counties in southern Europe mainly in Italy United States
of America Canada India
Standard works on translation namely The Translation Studies Reader edited by Lawrence Venuti, Works of
Eugene Nida, Susan Bassnett, Tejaswni Niranjana, Harish Trivedi, GN Devi, have
no reference to this phenomenon. The only exception among standard works on
translation is Mona Baker’s Routledge
Encyclopaedia of Translation Studies
which has an entry by Rainier Grutman on self translation.
The name for the practice of self-translation has also been
contested. The first edition of Routledge
Encyclopaedia of Translation Studies published
in 1998 uses the term ‘auto-translation’ as against the 2009 edition which uses
the word ‘self-translation’. However, the recently held conference on
self-translation at Swansea
University 1 July 2010 chose
to title its conference ‘The Author-Translator in the European Literary
Tradition’, thereby throwing in yet another term for the phenomenon
‘Author-translation’.
Considering that most recent studies and research publications choose
to use the term self-translation, it is likely that the term self-translation
will become more accepted. Although a Google search provides nearly 42,000
results for ‘self-translation’ as against 98,600 for ‘auto-translation’ and 64,000
for, ‘author-translator’, since auto-translation also signifies automatic,
i.e., computer-mediated translation, and author-translator has overtones of
pre-structuralist understanding of the presumed relationship of the writer to
the text, self-translation seems a more suitable label.
Self-translation is a fairly common practice in non-literary
writings, especially academic writings where scholars do translate their works
to different languages for publication. While that is also an important area to
interrogate, this paper intends to concentrate only on literary translations as
it is this domain which has been much theorised by non-linguistics based
scholars.
The position of self-translation in India India
Non-acknowledgement of self translations has perhaps been due to two
reasons. One, given the multilingual nature of the country, there was no much
opportunity of knowing whether the English version was an independent work or a
‘translation’ from the native language. The practice of most of the translator
of not mentioning whether the work was a translation also has contributed to
this silence.
The other way of arguing this point is by not insisting that they
should have done it but looking for reasons for such practice – of not
mentioning the self-translation as a translation.
In the case of Rabindranath Tagore he did not call his work a
translation, perhaps partly because there was a re-writing of the poems rather
than reproducing them faithfully from its Bangla version.
Down south Girish Karnad also does not mention that the plays in
English are the translations of their counterparts in Kannada.
The phenomenon of not treating self-translation as translation is
prevalent perhaps because even the publisher’s endorse of this view. If either
of the writer or publisher had insisted on calling the ‘second’ work as
translation, it would have been called so. Therefore, it can be concluded that
there is a consensus between both the writer and the publisher in not referring
to a successive work a translation.
One reason for this could be the dominant practice of calling
translation only that wherein a text of a writer is rendered into another
language only if it is done so by another person. This dominant imagination
perhaps has caused such a practice of not calling a translation by writers of
their own works not translation.
The second reason for the non-acknowledgement could be due to the prevalence
of self translation largely in multilingual countries as against monolingual and
economically dominant counties. The phenomenon of self-translation is seen in
countries such as India Canada Brazil Italy
A third reason is predominance of bilingual writing. The idea of
bilingualism was so strong that the practice of self-translation got associated
with bilingual writing. Since most bilingual writers wrote in English and their
purported mother tongue, it was taken for granted that the works in English
were the ‘original’ works and not translations.
These points then beg the question what is self-translation? According
to Rainier Grutman, “the term ‘self-translation’ refers both to the act of
translating one’s own writings into another language and the result of such an
undertaking” (2009).
Grutman makes a distinction between bilingual writers and
self-translators. He notes that unlike the bilingual writers, self-translators
make a conscious choice of creation in two languages. In the case of bilingual
writers, the context determines their choice. In the case of self-translators
in India
It cannot be overlooked that both Tagore and Karnad were part of the
global academic community with significant exposure to the Euro-American life, language
and academics, which may have shaped this phenomenon.
Old questions of faithfulness or new questions of unequal positions
within which translations take place, which is otherwise called politics of
translation, that have defined the scope of translation studies, are based on
the premise that a translation is always done by a second person other than the
writer of the source text. But if this assumption were to be disputed, one
would then have challenged translation studies from within.
Consideration of self-translations therefore either will have to be seen
as a separate domain of inquiry, independent of translation studies or as part
of translation studies. The problem of considering it part of translation
studies is that then translation studies will have to undo all the work that
defined it. But considering self-translation as a separate domain will then
raise questions about translation studies itself.
A more productive approach then would be to consider the questions
being raised by the study of self-translations and reinvent the domain of
translation studies leading to more fruitful insights into human societies.
What kind of questions can self-translation raise? The primary
question it can raise is regarding the relationship of translation studies to text.
Text for translation studies is the material text. The rendering of that
material text in another language by a person other than the writer of the
first text, constitutes translation for translation studies. This in turn draws
attention to two features of translation, one the source text comes before the
second text hence sourceness of the text is marked by chronology and not by something
inherent in it. Two, that translation is only that which is done by the second
person. This assumes that the first text has fixity. This fixity of the text can
be challenged by a different kind of literary practice where Karnad writers a
text in Kannada and then a similar one in English which of these would now
constitute the source text. If one were to produce a Marathi version, and were
to argue that an understanding derived from both the Kannada and English texts
was considered for translation, then, the argument is already outside the scope
of present translation studies. For then, the person is not translating the
text but a particular reading.
The secondary and subsidiary question it can raise is regarding the
idea of the original. The idea of the original is posited only in relation tot
its inferior re-production by a ‘non-creator’. By the same principle if the
creator were to create two works in two different languages of similar
structure and content, which one of these is inferior, or which one of these is
the original. If one were to apply this thought to translation studies then the
idea of the source text/or original text assumes the translation by a person
other than writer. Therefore, the originality is determined by not text but by
presence of non-writer translator.
These questions that arise from considering self-translation within
the domain of translation studies draw attention to the fundamental assumptions
formed by translation studies by not considering all activities in the nature
of ‘translation’ to be translation. This bypassing of such translation
activities contributes fresh question for the stagnating domain of translation
studies.
Works Cited
Bassnett, Susan, and Harish Trivedi, eds. Post-colonial Translation: Theory and
Practice. London
Bassnett, Susan. Translation
Studies, London
Grutman, Rainier .
‘Self-transaltion.’ Routledge Encyclopaedia
of Translation Studies. Ed.. Mona
Baker. London 2
July 2010 .
Mukherjee, Sujit. Translation as Recovery. Delhi
Munday, Jeremy. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications. London New York
Nida, Eugene A. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden
Nirajana, Tejaswini. Siting Translation: History, Post-structuralism, and the Colonial
Context. Hyderabad
Tharu, Susie, and K. Lalitha..
‘Introduction.’Women Writing in India New
Delhi
Venuti, Lawrence, ed. The Translation Studies Reader. London
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
II National Students’ Conference on Literary and Cultural Studies
Centre for Comparative
Literature
RAW.CON 2012
Researchers at Work Conference
II National
Students’ Conference on Literary and Cultural Studies
25th – 27th September, 2012
RAW.CON or Researchers at Work Conference 2012 symbolizes a student initiative. We, the
postgraduate and research students from the Centre for Comparative Literature,
University of Hyderabad, believe that a student conference would create a
platform for the researching student community. Such spaces are valuable and
would contribute a lot through discussions, exchange and sharing of ideas, interrogations
and interventions on interdisciplinary studies from universities around the
country. RAW.CON 2012 -- a three-day national students’ conference planned and
organized by students and for students, with the support of the Centre and the
University, is happening for the second consecutive year.
The focus is on Interdisciplinarity, urged
by the need to transcend frontiers. RAW.CON
hopes to provide an ‘ideal’ legroom for researchers to think beyond
disciplines, explore and test paradigms, yet be rigorous and mindful of the
demands of quality research. We hope RAW.CON would provide a dynamic space/platform
for upcoming scholars.
RAW.CON invites students and researchers from all over India
De-Constructing Caste Nations and Sub-nationalisms
Religion and Representation Gendering Language
Centering Margins New Trends in Cinema
Re-reading Histories Comparing Literatures
Religion and Representation Gendering Language
Centering Margins New Trends in Cinema
Re-reading Histories Comparing Literatures
The
Popular and The Academic Identities
and Beyond
Translating
Literatures and Cultures Media, Representation and Violence
Research papers in related
areas are also welcome! In addition, we invite panels on issues of contemporary
literary and cultural relevance.
500
word abstracts (Maximum time for a single presentation is 20 mins) may be emailed to raw.con2012@gmail.com
or snail-mailed to RAW.CON 2012, Centre
for Comparative Literature, University
of Hyderabad , Hyderabad
Last date for
submission of abstracts: 5th August, 2012
Intimation of
selection: 25th August, 2012
Submission of full
papers: 15th September, 2012
Wednesday, July 04, 2012
Sunday, July 01, 2012
Artciles on determinants and factors in relationships
While browsing some articles on the determinants that go into making a relationship effective, I came across some interesting articles in PsychToday.
Share if useful!
1. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/between-you-and-me/201206/after-the-sacrifice-did-you-do-it-the-right-reasons
2.http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/what-the-wild-things-are/201206/are-you-really-angry-and-how-is-working-you
Share if useful!
1. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/between-you-and-me/201206/after-the-sacrifice-did-you-do-it-the-right-reasons
2.http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/what-the-wild-things-are/201206/are-you-really-angry-and-how-is-working-you
Friday, June 29, 2012
Academic Writing—Reference Books at Christ University Library
For MPhil Students
Bailey, Stephen. Academic Writing: A Handbook for
International Students. 2008.
Balss, Laurie. Quest Reading and Writing in the Academic
World. 1999.
Bazerman, Charles. Traditions of Writing Research. 2010.
Canagarajah, A. Suresh. Geopolitics of Academic Writing. 2007.
Cholij, Mark. Towards Academic English: Developing
Effective Writing Skills. 2007.
Gupta, Renu. A Couse in Academic Writing. 2010.
Hamp-Lyons, Liz and Ben Heasley. Study Writing: A Course in Written English for Academic and
Professional Purposes. 1997.
MLA
Handbook for Writers of Research Papers. 7th Ed (2009)
MLA
Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing, 3rd Ed (2008)
Oliver, Paul. Writing Your Thesis. 2004.
Publication
Manual of the American Psycological Association, 6th Ed. (2009) (Not in the library)
Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-By-Step Guide
for Students. 2008.
Rocco, S. Toneete, S. Rocco, T. Hatcher, T. Garry. The Handbook of Scholarly Writing and
Publishing.
Citation Style Download Links
Click here to download Publication Manual of American Psychology Association, 6th Ed.
Click here to download the the APA Citation Style Handout from Purdue University (You have a photocopy of it.)
Click here to download a handout on MLA style which I had prepared.
Click here for an earlier consolidated post on Citation Styles.
All the best.
Click here to download the the APA Citation Style Handout from Purdue University (You have a photocopy of it.)
Click here to download a handout on MLA style which I had prepared.
Click here for an earlier consolidated post on Citation Styles.
All the best.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
I MA English--Western Aesthetics Course Plan 2012
You can download this course plan using the downward arrow at the bottom of the box or by clicking here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)