Overview
A literature review is a common academic genre that you will likely encounter again after ENGL 1410. A literature review is an essay that presents a synthesis of sources curated and reviewed for the purpose of deliberation of an issue or topic. A stasis map is a form of a literature review that adds a structure for arrangement: your synthesis of sources will be arranged via the four levels of stasis.
Your purpose in writing a stasis map as the first part of your overall research project is to synthesize your sources to represent them as an ongoing conversation. Organizing your findings (your sources’ claims about the issue) by type of claim (argument of conjecture, category, and definition; arguments of cause and consequence; arguments of value and evaluation; and arguments of proposal, policy, and procedure) will help you to consider the issue more thoroughly and systematically, thus leading you to a more informed stance and adequately preparing you to write a persuasive, evidence-based final argument on your topic.
Task
Arrange using the four levels of stasis. Organize using boldface headings (and subheadings if/when necessary) specified to label each section of your stasis map. Each section should include the following:
Write a brief introduction that delivers your research question and any parameters applied to the scope of your project.
Divide the body of your essay into four sections, each representing the levels of stasis. Use headings (and subheadings) to clearly define your sections.
Within each section, summarize the claims made within each level of stasis by your sources (do not include any personal opinion). Explain how these sources are similar (where they agree) and/or distinct (where they counter one another or deliver entirely unique arguments).
Synthesize source information to effectively answer your research question.
Sample
Review the following sample for a model of the assignment: Stasis Map Sample Download Stasis Map Sample
Review the following sample for an annotated version of the assignment that identifies assignment expectations, citation practices, etc.: Stasis Map Sample Annotated Download Stasis Map Sample Annotated
Requirements
Because a stasis map aims to document the landscape of an issue, at no point in this assignment should you make your own claims about your issue or even appear to take a position (I promise you will get there in the final argument). You should indicate where in the
conversation the most contention lies, but reserve your judgment. Thorough and honest inquiry represented in the stasis map will authorize claims in final argument.
Your stasis map must represent all of the sources you included in your annotated bibliography (minimum 7) and should adequately represent each authors’ claims at each level of stasis.
Your stasis map will not include a conclusion. The page length requirement is minimum 6 full pages.
Your purpose is to synthesize the claims of others, so you will summarize, paraphrase, and quote frequently; thus, you’ll include many signal phrases / attributive tags and parenthetical (also known as in-text) citations. Be vigilant citing all summaries, paraphrases, and quotations. Use appropriate MLA style formatting, citation, and documentation.
Include a properly formatted Works Cited page with all your sources represented. Do not include annotations from your Annotated Bibliography.
Resources.
Schedule an appointment in-person or online with the UCCS Writing Center.
Contact Gabriela to arrange a visit with her for help with research.
Contact Michelle at *************** for help with research, stasis, and any other questions that might arise.
Ethical Acknowledgement:
Success in this class is associated with three individual values: productivity, self-efficacy, and agency. As a student and associate, I’ve put effort into aligning my resources (time, energy, and tools) towards the project goal, believing in my ability to achieve that goal by using the support provided, and exercising my ability to make choices. The choices I make have direct impacts on the outcomes.
I’ve also followed the student code of conduct for ethical and social behavior to support our learning environment.
If using AI to generate copy (words/content) for this assignment, I have taken personal effort to validate, revise, and edit the content. The work I submit reflects my knowledge and application of course concepts to demonstrate the skills required by this project.
By submitting your Stasis Map, you acknowledge the above statement to be true of your work.
Rubric
Stasis Map Rubric
Stasis Map Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIntroduction
– Research question
– Parameters of scope
5 pts
Advanced
Introduction is advanced. Concisely presents the author’s research question and clarifies the scope with established parameters.
4 pts
Proficient
Introduction is proficient. Presents the author’s research question and somewhat acknowledges scope.
2 pts
Developing
Introduction is developing. Research question is either missing, presented as a statement, or is not revised from Research Interest Sequence Essay notes. Introduction may take up too much space on the page.
0 pts
Not Assessable
Introduction is not assessable. It either does not exists, offers no reference to the research question or scope, or is excessively long.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDemonstration of the First Level of Stasis
– Conjecture
– Category
– Criteria
– Definition
– Resemblance
– Precedence
20 to >17.0 pts
Advanced
Demonstration is advanced. Author does an excellent job of addressing arguments of conjecture first, then complete arguments of definition or category. Audience fully understands the terms / phrases necessary to comprehend their research.
17 to >12.0 pts
Proficient
Demonstration is proficient. Author is mostly successful addressing arguments of conjecture, then includes arguments of definition or category. Audience somewhat understands terms / phrases necessary to comprehend their research.
12 to >0.0 pts
Developing
Demonstration is developing. Author may have missed establishing an argument of conjecture before providing arguments of definition or category. Audience is uncertain about terms / phrases necessary to comprehend their research.
0 pts
Not Assessable
Demonstration is not assessable. The author fails to develop an argument of conjecture, definition, and/or category. Audience does not have any necessary information to comprehend their research.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDemonstration of the Second Level of Stasis
– Cause(s)
– Consequence(s)
20 to >17.0 pts
Advanced
Demonstration is advanced. Author provides complete and compelling arguments for cause, then consequence, arranged in a logical and clearly separated to emphasize cause and effect.
17 to >12.0 pts
Proficient
Demonstration is proficient. Author provides arguments for cause and consequence, perhaps not always effectively or logically arranged, to show cause and effect.
12 to >0.0 pts
Developing
Demonstration is developing. Author provides argument for either cause or consequence, but does not adequately acknowledge the other. In doing so, there is no logical arrangement to show cause and effect.
0 pts
Not Assessable
Demonstration is not assessable. The author fails to develop an argument of either cause or consequence.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDemonstration of the Third Level of Stasis
– Value
– Evaluation
20 to >17.0 pts
Advanced
Demonstration is advanced. Author does an excellent job of addressing arguments of value and/or evaluation (good/bad, right/wrong, ethical/unethical) and shows keen awareness of audience and stakeholders in their transitions.
17 to >12.0 pts
Proficient
Demonstration is proficient. Author is mostly successful in addressing arguments of value and/or evaluation (good/bad, right/wrong, ethical/unethical) and show adequate awareness of audience and stakeholders in their transitions.
12 to >0.0 pts
Developing
Demonstration is developing. Author may focus disproportionately on one argument of value and/or evaluation (good/bad, right/wrong, ethical/unethical), creating an imbalance in their research. Transitions exist but aren’t always clear. Awareness of either audience or stakeholders, but maybe not both.
0 pts
Not Assessable
Demonstration is not assessable. Author fails to identify and/or support arguments of value and/or evaluation (good/bad, right/wrong, ethical/unethical). Transitions are nonexistent. No awareness of audience or stakeholders.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDemonstration of the Fourth Level of Stasis
– Proposal
– Policy
– Procedure
20 to >17.0 pts
Advanced
Demonstration is advanced. Author addresses arguments of proposal, policy, and/or procedure with optimal detail and context and considers counterarguments from sources.
17 to >12.0 pts
Proficient
Demonstration is proficient. Author addresses arguments of proposal, policy, and/or procedure with sufficient detail, may or may not consider counterarguments.
12 to >0.0 pts
Developing
Demonstration is developing. Author might address only one argument of proposal, policy, or procedure, or they do not offer context or counterargument.
0 pts
Not Assessable
Demonstration is not assessable. Authors fails to provide any arguments made as proposals, policies, or procedures.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeTextual Evidence and Synthesis
Uses relevant information from cited sources to support research. Effective synthesis and representation of ideas from borrowed materials. Evidence is carefully chosen and makes sense in context of research question.
20 to >17.0 pts
Advanced
Advanced balance of contextual evidence (without overdependence) and details from sources to support arguments made at each level of stasis. Excellent synthesis of each source. Textual evidence shows optimal selection of sources to support research. Scholarship is prominent in its citation throughout. All sources from Annotated Bibliography are present in Stasis Map.
17 to >12.0 pts
Proficient
Proficient balance of contextual evidence and details from texts to support arguments made at each level of stasis. Author attempts to synthesize sources, but sometimes relies too much on summarizing individually. Textual evidence shows adequate selection of sources to support research. Scholarship is referenced but not fully integrated. All sources from Annotated Bibliography are present in Stasis Map.
12 to >0.0 pts
Developing
Developing attempt to balance contextual evidence and details from text to support arguments at each level of stasis. Author summarizes more than synthesizes texts together. Some textual evidence is chosen carefully while others ‘check a box’ without being integrated in support of research, particularly scholarship. Author incorporates personal opinion rather than source material. Not all sources from Annotated Bibliography are present in Stasis Map.
0 pts
Not Assessable
Not assessable attempt to balance contextual evidence and details from texts to support arguments at either level of stasis. Lacks support using textual evidence and makes no effort to support the original research question. Author relies exclusively on personal opinion. Sources from Annotated Bibliography are hardly referenced or not referenced at all.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOrganization
Author guides their readers through development of ideas
15 to >12.0 pts
Advanced
Stasis Map is advanced, fluid and easy to read. Excellent use of transitions within and among paragraphs. Author demonstrates advance awareness of audience as they incorporate sources and present research findings.
12 to >8.0 pts
Proficient
Stasis Map is proficient, fluid, and sometimes easy to read. Some transitions within and among paragraphs are in place. Author demonstrates some awareness of audience as they incorporate sources and present research findings.
8 to >0.0 pts
Developing
Stasis Map is developing, not consistently fluid, and somewhat disjointed to read. A few transitions within and among paragraphs are employed. Author demonstrates some awareness of audience, but do not consistently incorporate sources and/or present research findings.
0 pts
Not Assessable
Stasis Map is not assessable, not fluid, and difficult to read. No transitions within and among paragraphs. Author demonstrates no awareness of audience and fail to incorporate sources and/or present research findings.
15 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProper MLA Format
Font size; Headers, Heading; In-Text Citations; Works Cited page
20 to >17.0 pts
Advanced
Meets ALL criteria below: *Heading *Headers w/ page numbers *Double-spaced *Paragraph indentation *Appropriate in-text citations for all paraphrase and/or direct quotes *Appropriate Works Cited page that is alphabetized with correctly formatted citations
17 to >12.0 pts
Proficient
Meets MOST criteria below: *Heading *Headers w/ page numbers *Double-spaced *Paragraph indentation *Appropriate in-text citations for all paraphrase and/or direct quotes *Appropriate Works Cited page that is alphabetized with correctly formatted citations
12 to >0.0 pts
Developing
Meets SOME criteria below: *Heading *Headers w/ page numbers *Double-spaced *Paragraph indentation *Appropriate in-text citations for all paraphrase and/or direct quotes *Appropriate Works Cited page that is alphabetized with correctly formatted citations
0 pts
Not Assessable
Meets NO criteria below: *Heading *Headers w/ page numbers *Double-spaced *Paragraph indentation *Appropriate in-text citations for all paraphrase and/or direct quotes *Appropriate Works Cited page that is alphabetized with correctly formatted citations
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeConventions
10 pts
Advanced
Advanced application of conventions that include (but are not limited to): grammar, sentence structure (including sentence usage, formation, and complexity), punctuation, capitalization, present verb tense, and strong proper and/or pronoun use
6 pts
Proficient
Proficient application of conventions that include (but are not limited to): grammar, sentence structure (including sentence usage, formation, and complexity), punctuation, capitalization, present verb tense, and strong proper and/or pronoun use
4 pts
Developing
Developing application of conventions that include (but are not limited to): grammar, sentence structure (including sentence usage, formation, and complexity), punctuation, capitalization, present verb tense, and strong proper and/or pronoun use
0 pts
Not Assessable
None or limited application of conventions that include (but are not limited to): grammar, sentence structure (including sentence usage, formation, and complexity), punctuation, capitalization, present verb tense, and strong proper and/or pronoun use
10 pts
Total Points: 150
PreviousNext
here the citations i used if you can used them it be greatly appreciate it · 1) Boucher, Stephen R., et al. “Immigration and the US Farm Labour Supply.” Migration Letters, vol. 9, no. 1, 2012, pp. 87-99. https://doi.org/10.33182/ml.v9i1.205
1) Chandrasekhar, A. (2024, January 28). Farmers ready to employ refugees as farmhands. SWI swissinfo.ch. https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/society/farmers-ready-to-employ-refugees-as-farmhands/41442042#:~:text=The%20refugees%20will%20initially%20be,this%20sector%20in%20most%20cantons.
1) Farmworkers and immigration: Priorities for reform. Farmworker Justice. (n.d.). https://www.farmworkerjustice.org/blog-post/farmworkers-and-immigration-priorities-for-reform/Which countries have had the most successful migration … (n.d.). https://www.dannydorling.org/wp-content/files/dannydorling_publication_id5891.pdf
1) “Immigrant Farmworkers and America’s Food Production – 5 Things to Know.” FWD.Us, www.fwd.us/news/immigrant-farmworkers-and-americas-food-production-5-things-to-know/. Accessed 10 Feb. 2024.
1) Martin, Philip. “Outlook: Immigration Reform and California Agriculture.” California Agriculture (Berkeley, Calif.), vol. 67, no. 4, 2013, pp. 196-198. https://doi.org/10.3733/ca.v067n04p196
1) Martin, P.L. (California Univ., Davis, CA (USA). Dept. of Agricultural Economics), and J. E. Taylor. “The Initial Effects of Immigration Reform on Farm Labor in California.” Population Research and Policy Review, vol. 9, no. 3, 1990, pp. 255-283.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00162838
1) Richards, Timothy J. “Immigration Reform and Farm Labor Markets.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 100, no. 4, 2018, pp. 1050 – 1071. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aay027
