Proposal Presentation Tips
September 2016
Purpose
•
•
•
•
I argue in this paper that sexism was not only visible but appeared to be
embraced at the most recent Winter Olympic Games in Vancouver. I refer to
three examples and incidences from the Games that will help to illustrate the
prominence of inequality that occurred during the Vancouver Games. More
specifically, I argue that the root of the problem has to do with treating women
athletes primarily as objects rather than subjects and full-fledged athletes.
Sport should celebrate the human as body-subject; however, its historical
exclusion of women reinforces the female as body-object. By perpetuating this
problematic dualistic approach, women athletes’ subjectivity and autonomy is
significantly decreased or in some cases is non-existent. An in-depth
examination of the complexity of treating women Olympians as objects should
help to divulge and breakdown some of the underpinnings surrounding sexism.
I. Introduction
This essay contains two sections that when combined demonstrate that the
Olympic Games perpetuates sexism. More specifically, I will show that
objectification is detrimental to women Olympians in not only a sexualized
form, but also in consistently treating women athletes solely as bodies, or
objects. It may appear as though I set out to accomplish too much in making
this claim; however, an analysis of examples stemming solely from the recent
Vancouver Olympic Games will show how the continued
Suggestions:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Avoid Serif Fonts… Use Sans Serif Fonts
@ least size: 32
Colour schemes (a la stop sign)
Bullet points come up separately
Include references (pg #--dqs)
Adhere to time guidelines (10 mins)
Can include pics., graphs, illustrations, etc.
PRACTICE! PRACTICE! PRACTICE!
Decrease ‘uuuummmms’
• Professional Dress
Proposal presentations must include the
following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Title Slide: title, name, date
**outline/overview of presentation***
Introduction
Literature Review (cannot include it all!!)
Purpose/thesis statement/hypothesis **
Methodology
Procedures/study design
*Acknowledge advisor/second reader
Qualitative-theoretical Presentations
• Delivery- reading style
• Not necessary to include:
hypothesis/procedures/
• Describe methodology (philo, historical,
sociological…etc.). See 397 HK
Quantitative Presentations
• Minimal Lit Review
• Detailed Methods
– More slides with less info/slide good
– Pictures/Diagrams good
• Be very clear on your statistics
– Refer to HK 396 and Research Methods text
• Provide example results
– This is what my results would look like
Excel Default Sucks
Jump Height
70
69
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
61
60
Jump Height
59
58
57
56
55
54
53
52
51
50
Pre
Post
Subjects had a lower preferred squat
depth after training
Tables with lots of info are BAD
Table 1. Initial serve conditions from each subject’s most optimal serve.
Subject
Dx (m)
Dy (m)
Vy Pre (m/s)
Vo (m/s)
θ (˚)
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
TF
0.75
1.07
1.12
0.86
0.61
0.62
1.16
0.81
0.72
JF
0.99
1.24
1.04
0.95
1.11
0.99
0.78
0.85
0.71
TF
3.22
3.01
2.88
2.86
3.06
2.85
2.98
2.62
2.69
JF
3.31
3.28
2.99
3.09
3.08
2.98
3.37
2.71
2.80
TF
-2.59
-1.88
-2.59
-2.12
-2.35
-2.83
-3.77
-3.65
-3.17
JF
-6.12
-4.71
-4.24
-4.47
-4.24
-6.83
-6.36
-4.76
-5.24
TF
16.81
14.08
16.62
15.17
16.43
13.42
13.13
14.89
15.94
JF
22.24
18.57
17.11
16.69
19.19
16.84
20.19
18.29
17.18
TF
2.41
7.69
4.88
10.74
6.58
14.22
13.48
5.50
8.01
JF
0.61
6.55
5.53
7.29
3.52
10.47
5.35
6.48
6.90
Mean
± S.D.
0.86
± .21
0.96
± .16
2.91
± .19
3.07*
± .23
-2.77
± .65
-5.22*
± .98
15.17
± 1.39
18.48*
± 1.84
8.17
± 3.96
5.86*
± 2.71
Note. * = statistically significant difference between TF and JF conditions. Dx = horizontal component of
contact position; Dy = vertical component of contact position; V yPre = pre-contact vertical ball velocity; Vo =
initial serve velocity; θ = initial serve trajectory.
Data Collection
Calibration Volume
o One pole with 4 spherical markers
•Moved to 10 precise calibration points
•Moved to 3 verification points
Y
z
x
10
Camera 1
Camera 2
Jam Results into 1 slide = Bad
Preferred Deep
T-stat
P-value
Push-Off Time (s)
0.4
0.6
4.07
.002
Peak Force (N/kg)
98
88
4.57
.001
Average Force (N/kg)
55
45
4.43
.001
Push-Off Time
t(11) = 4.07, p = .002*
Time (s)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Self-Selected
Deep
Squat Depth
Force / Body Weight
Peak Force
110
t(11) = 4.57, p = .001*
100
90
80
0
Self-Selected
Deep
Squat Depth
Force / Body Weight
Average Force
75
t(11) = 4.43, p = .001*
50
25
0
Self-Selected
Deep
Squat Depth
???? Question Period ??????
•
•
•
•
Avoid reliance on advisor
Think before you speak
“thank you, I will consider that”
Do not take criticism personally
Evaluation of proposal presentations
• http://people.stfx.ca/smackenz/Courses/H
onours/Honour%20Student%20Proposal%
20Presentation%20Evaluation.doc
Next Sessions:
• Sign up for a proposal time ASAP
• SEP 21st:
• SEP 28th:
Info on REB
Info on Pursuing a Masters