During the peer review sessions on my written research proposal, I received constructive feedback that helped me determine the areas and ways in which I could improve and strengthen my overall proposal. One common suggestion I received throughout the various peer review sessions was to attempt to be more concise and to more quickly introduce the main idea and topic of my research(gentrification). Moreover, such feedback suggested that I get to the main point and topic of gentrification more directly so that the reader immediately know the subject of my research. These suggestions helped me revise my paper because they made me realize that part of the reason why I wasn’t quickly, clearly and directly introducing my research topic was because I hadn’t specifically honed in on what aspects of gentrification I wanted to examine and what my thesis was. As a result, in my final research proposal, in the introduction, rather than digressing, I attempted to quickly define the topic of gentrification and then clarify my stance on it. In my proposal, rough draft, I didn’t immediately define gentrification or clarify my stance on it, thus making my introduction and proposal as a whole manifest considerable ambiguity. Because of the digression and ambiguity in my introduction, the peers who read my paper struggled to navigate through the trajectory and organization of my paper. In my final proposal, I attempted to digress much less and stick strictly to the topic of gentrification so that my topic was clear and so that an unequivocal thesis and trajectory emerged. Also, all the peers who reviewed my proposal suggested that I introduce more sources and scholarly debate in my proposal. As a result, in my final proposal, I added a paragraph in which I included an array of different scholarly sources asserting diverse and interesting opinions on the topic of gentrification and its effects. The sources I provided, I felt each possessed a unique perspective on the topic of gentrification. Also, most of the peers who read my proposal also suggested that I talk much more about how activism is related to the issue of gentrification. Thus, in my final proposal, I included a paragraph in which I referred to numerous different activist movements within New York City and San Francisco, which I plan to explore much further in my RBA.
During my Genre Modes presentation, a repeated suggestion I heard was to perhaps use less words. This suggestion on my infographic translates directly to the suggestions I had received on my research proposal. I tend to be wordy and this showed through both in my research proposal and in my infographic. This is a habit I need to continue to work on and really tried hard in my final proposal to minimize repetition and digression. Moreover, the feedback on my genre modes presentation, in which it was made clear that the audience felt my infographic possessed too many words, caused me to consider ways in which I felt I could sufficiently convey the most integral facets of gentrification. I still struggled with this in my final paper proposal as I went considerably over the word limit. However, although I still wrote a lot and surpassed the word limit, I truly believe I decreased my repetition and digression significantly. Yes, I did write a lot of words in my final proposal, but in contrast to my proposal rough draft, I feel that in my final draft, all the words and sentences had substance and thus were needed and not superfluous.
All the feedback I received on both my research proposal and my infographic made me realized I had to more clearly convey a specific research question. I responded to this by strictly relating activism on gentrification to my specific research question and thesis. I reiterated my questions and potential thesis so as to convey more clearly that not only would I be examining the effects of gentrification in New York City and San Francisco, but that I would also/predominantly be examining many different activist movements/efforts and their specific responses to fighting gentrification in these two cities.