Call for Contributions
Contemporary Media Ethics: A Practical Guide for Students, Scholars and Professionals in the Globalized World,
2nd ed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT'S NEW (Oct. 21, 2011):
The following shows some change in wording to explicate our expectations for the supplements:
(A) Glossary: Explain in your own words some technical terms
(e.g., the Four Noble Truths) relevant to your chapter, which will
be compiled at the end of the book. You can include as many
terms as you would like to explain, but we expect at least five
uniquely theoretical terms for each chapter. Do not create a
reference list or endnotes for the glossary.
(B) Activities/Questions for further enrichment: Prepare four
thought-provoking, engaging activities and questions related to
your chapter or the case. They can be team or individual
activities. At least one of them must have a global or intercultural
implication. Also for each activity or question, include your
detailed explanation, comment, or suggestion. Do not create a
reference list or endnotes for this section; be original.
(C) Objective test questions: Add six multiple-choice (five
choices) and four true-false questions relevant to your chapter.
Highlight the answer for each question. Do not create a
reference list or endnotes for this section; be original.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT'S NEW (Oct. 16, 2011):
(1) (Schedule) We have decided to change our review schedule as follows:
Timeline (subject to change):
Sept. 15, 2010: Call for chapter proposals; website
Dec. 31, 2010: Deadline for proposals
Jan. 15, 2011: Decisions on chapters
July 31, 2011: Deadline for completed manuscripts
Oct. 15, 2011: First revision requests
Dec. 31, 2011: Deadline for revisions
Feb. 15, 2012: All edits to complete
April 30, 2012: Publication (or sometime in May)
(2) Abstract: Please do not include your name, which is different from the first edition. Your abstract should be a traditional, brief abstract that contains between 150 and 200 words.
(3) Introduction: Please understand that the introduction is NOT the place where you discuss the case in detail. Instead, please focus on the theoretical and/or practical aspects of the case and ethical dilemma(s). Read through Lambiase's (2006) and Hornaday's (2006) chapters to see how they did not even mention their actual cases in the introduction section. The description of the introduction section has been changed to make our expectation clearer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT'S NEW (Aug. 16, 2011):
Two chapters from the first edition of Contemporary Media Ethics are available here. Although they do not meet all the requirements of the second edition, observe, for example, how they wrote the introduction without mentioning their case itself, how they wrote their case narrative (but ignore a bulleted list of case facts), how they prioritized principles and stakeholders, and how they phrased their "Activities/Questions for Further Enrichment."
(1) Jacqueline J. Lambiase, "The Problem with 'All-American Girls': Coverage of Slayings Brings Out Best, Then Worst, of Victims," in Contemporary Media Ethics: A Practical Guide for Students, Scholars and Professionals, ed. Mitchell Land and Bill W. Hornaday, 73–88 (Spokane, WA: Marquette Books, 2006).
(2) Bill W. Hornaday, "Racial Justice vs. the First Amendment: How Far Is Too Far to Protect Press Freedom?," in Contemporary Media Ethics: A Practical Guide for Students, Scholars and Professionals, ed. Mitchell Land and Bill W. Hornaday, 127–42 (Spokane, WA: Marquette Books, 2006).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT'S NEW (June 14, 2011):
(1) (Schedule) Because of the second editor's family emergency, we have decided to change our publishing schedule as follows:
Timeline (subject to change):
Sept. 15, 2010: Call for chapter proposals; website
Dec. 31, 2010: Deadline for proposals
Jan. 15, 2011: Decisions on chapters
July 31, 2011: Deadline for completed manuscripts
Sept. 15, 2011: First revision requests
Nov. 15, 2011: Deadline for revisions
Dec. 31, 2011: All edits to complete
April 30, 2012: Publication
(2) (Instructions) Before you start writing your chapter, please read through ALL the instructions specified here. If your submission doesn't follow all the specifications, I'm supposed to return it to you without further review. That may delay the publishing schedule, which causes serious inconveniences to everyone, or may eventually lead to the rejection of your chapter. Again, please make sure to exactly follow all the requirements discussed here.
(3) (Content) We are still revising Land’s (2006) original chapter, but the basic thesis of his revised chapter will remain the same. First, we acknowledge some intricacies of utilitarianism, but as Michael J. Sandel (2009) argues, respecting individual liberty will eventually lead to the greatest human happiness in the long run. It would be hard to deny the strong association between individual liberty and utility. Second, in addition to five principles originally discussed by Ed Lambeth, we now have two new principles: harmony and diversity. Those two principles do not always go with humaneness or justice. Read the description of each principle below.
(4) The first editor, Mitchell Land, is transitioning to Regent University's School of Communication & the Arts, effective July 1, 2011, as its dean.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT'S NEW (Jan. 4, 2010):
(1) (Manuscript) For the sake of journalistic fairness, please try to contact at least one protagonist or antagonist for additional comments, which you can use in your case narrative or in the conclusion. Even if she or he refuses to give you any comment or ignore your phone call/e-mail, your effort must be discussed in the conclusion part of your manuscript. Googling the person's name, along with some additional personal information, usually leads to his or her whereabouts and current contact information.
(2) (Manuscript) In a separate file, please include a glossary of terms, along with activities/questions for further enrichment and objective test questions. Include citations if you use others' definitions of the terms.
(3) (Format) The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition, was published in September 2010. You are responsible for applying style rules of this new edition. In addition, please read through and follow all manuscript requirements and format specifications, as well as the Chapter and GlossaryQuestions template files below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT'S NEW (Dec. 10, 2010):
(1) The deadline for chapter proposals has been extended to:
Dec. 31, 2010: Deadline for proposals
Jan. 15, 2011: Decisions on chapters
(2) If you have a hard time finding a promising case (preferably after the year 2005) to analyze, you may like to visit the following sites and look for some cases. After you identify a promising case, you can go to LexisNexis Academic and google the case to construct your case narrative. Please e-mail me at kfuse@unt.edu if you know other good sites that may help others find good cases for our book.
(4) All changes made below are written in red and underlined.
WHAT'S NEW (Oct. 21, 2011):
The following shows some change in wording to explicate our expectations for the supplements:
(A) Glossary: Explain in your own words some technical terms
(e.g., the Four Noble Truths) relevant to your chapter, which will
be compiled at the end of the book. You can include as many
terms as you would like to explain, but we expect at least five
uniquely theoretical terms for each chapter. Do not create a
reference list or endnotes for the glossary.
(B) Activities/Questions for further enrichment: Prepare four
thought-provoking, engaging activities and questions related to
your chapter or the case. They can be team or individual
activities. At least one of them must have a global or intercultural
implication. Also for each activity or question, include your
detailed explanation, comment, or suggestion. Do not create a
reference list or endnotes for this section; be original.
(C) Objective test questions: Add six multiple-choice (five
choices) and four true-false questions relevant to your chapter.
Highlight the answer for each question. Do not create a
reference list or endnotes for this section; be original.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT'S NEW (Oct. 16, 2011):
(1) (Schedule) We have decided to change our review schedule as follows:
Timeline (subject to change):
Sept. 15, 2010: Call for chapter proposals; website
Dec. 31, 2010: Deadline for proposals
Jan. 15, 2011: Decisions on chapters
July 31, 2011: Deadline for completed manuscripts
Oct. 15, 2011: First revision requests
Dec. 31, 2011: Deadline for revisions
Feb. 15, 2012: All edits to complete
April 30, 2012: Publication (or sometime in May)
(2) Abstract: Please do not include your name, which is different from the first edition. Your abstract should be a traditional, brief abstract that contains between 150 and 200 words.
(3) Introduction: Please understand that the introduction is NOT the place where you discuss the case in detail. Instead, please focus on the theoretical and/or practical aspects of the case and ethical dilemma(s). Read through Lambiase's (2006) and Hornaday's (2006) chapters to see how they did not even mention their actual cases in the introduction section. The description of the introduction section has been changed to make our expectation clearer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT'S NEW (Aug. 16, 2011):
Two chapters from the first edition of Contemporary Media Ethics are available here. Although they do not meet all the requirements of the second edition, observe, for example, how they wrote the introduction without mentioning their case itself, how they wrote their case narrative (but ignore a bulleted list of case facts), how they prioritized principles and stakeholders, and how they phrased their "Activities/Questions for Further Enrichment."
(1) Jacqueline J. Lambiase, "The Problem with 'All-American Girls': Coverage of Slayings Brings Out Best, Then Worst, of Victims," in Contemporary Media Ethics: A Practical Guide for Students, Scholars and Professionals, ed. Mitchell Land and Bill W. Hornaday, 73–88 (Spokane, WA: Marquette Books, 2006).
(2) Bill W. Hornaday, "Racial Justice vs. the First Amendment: How Far Is Too Far to Protect Press Freedom?," in Contemporary Media Ethics: A Practical Guide for Students, Scholars and Professionals, ed. Mitchell Land and Bill W. Hornaday, 127–42 (Spokane, WA: Marquette Books, 2006).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT'S NEW (June 14, 2011):
(1) (Schedule) Because of the second editor's family emergency, we have decided to change our publishing schedule as follows:
Timeline (subject to change):
Sept. 15, 2010: Call for chapter proposals; website
Dec. 31, 2010: Deadline for proposals
Jan. 15, 2011: Decisions on chapters
July 31, 2011: Deadline for completed manuscripts
Sept. 15, 2011: First revision requests
Nov. 15, 2011: Deadline for revisions
Dec. 31, 2011: All edits to complete
April 30, 2012: Publication
(2) (Instructions) Before you start writing your chapter, please read through ALL the instructions specified here. If your submission doesn't follow all the specifications, I'm supposed to return it to you without further review. That may delay the publishing schedule, which causes serious inconveniences to everyone, or may eventually lead to the rejection of your chapter. Again, please make sure to exactly follow all the requirements discussed here.
(3) (Content) We are still revising Land’s (2006) original chapter, but the basic thesis of his revised chapter will remain the same. First, we acknowledge some intricacies of utilitarianism, but as Michael J. Sandel (2009) argues, respecting individual liberty will eventually lead to the greatest human happiness in the long run. It would be hard to deny the strong association between individual liberty and utility. Second, in addition to five principles originally discussed by Ed Lambeth, we now have two new principles: harmony and diversity. Those two principles do not always go with humaneness or justice. Read the description of each principle below.
(4) The first editor, Mitchell Land, is transitioning to Regent University's School of Communication & the Arts, effective July 1, 2011, as its dean.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT'S NEW (Jan. 4, 2010):
(1) (Manuscript) For the sake of journalistic fairness, please try to contact at least one protagonist or antagonist for additional comments, which you can use in your case narrative or in the conclusion. Even if she or he refuses to give you any comment or ignore your phone call/e-mail, your effort must be discussed in the conclusion part of your manuscript. Googling the person's name, along with some additional personal information, usually leads to his or her whereabouts and current contact information.
(2) (Manuscript) In a separate file, please include a glossary of terms, along with activities/questions for further enrichment and objective test questions. Include citations if you use others' definitions of the terms.
(3) (Format) The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition, was published in September 2010. You are responsible for applying style rules of this new edition. In addition, please read through and follow all manuscript requirements and format specifications, as well as the Chapter and GlossaryQuestions template files below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT'S NEW (Dec. 10, 2010):
(1) The deadline for chapter proposals has been extended to:
Dec. 31, 2010: Deadline for proposals
Jan. 15, 2011: Decisions on chapters
(2) If you have a hard time finding a promising case (preferably after the year 2005) to analyze, you may like to visit the following sites and look for some cases. After you identify a promising case, you can go to LexisNexis Academic and google the case to construct your case narrative. Please e-mail me at kfuse@unt.edu if you know other good sites that may help others find good cases for our book.
- Columbia Journalism Review (journalism)
- American Journalism Review (journalism)
- Jim Romenesko's Media News (journalism)
- Stinky Journalism.org (journalism)
- Center for Media and Democracy (PR)
- Ragan's PR Daily (PR)
- Bulldog Reporter's Daily 'Dog (PR)
- Advertising Age (advertising)
- Alltop (news aggregation website; topics including journalism, PR, advertising, etc.)
(4) All changes made below are written in red and underlined.
Note: This page will be updated as frequently as necessary.
Edited by: Mitchell Land (School of Communication & the Arts, Regent University, effective July 1, 2011), Koji Fuse (Frank W. and Sue Mayborn School of Journalism, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas), and Bill W. Hornaday (School of Journalism, Indiana University, Bloomington, Ind.).
Publisher: Marquette Books LLC.
Theme: The second edition of Contemporary Media Ethics will include new cases--most, if not all--in various areas of mass communications: (1) print and broadcast news media, (2) the Internet and social media, (3) advertising and public relations, (4) entertainment media, and (5) global media and international communication. This is a major revision. Living in the globalized world where different cultures and values constantly clash, we must carefully reflect on our ethnocentric ways of resolving an ethical conflict, become aware of various non-utilitarian approaches to decision making, and hone our skills in moral imagination. Appropriate for both undergraduate and graduate courses in media ethics, the second edition tries to expose its readers to non-Western and non-dominant Western philosophies in comparison with utilitarianism—the dominant philosophical framework of U.S. or Western mass communications practices—in order to make them realize how useful the non-utilitarian approaches, whether non-Western or Western, are to break an impasse in our moral reasoning.
Decision-making model for case analysis:
Please visit the first edition website to see the table of contents and read Land’s (2006) chapter on the Point-of-Decision Pyramid Model (Chapter 2: “Mass Media Ethics and the Point-of-Decision Pyramid,” pp. 15–38). The table of contents, preface, and first two chapters are available in a PDF file. However, the following three major changes will be made on the model:
(1) The comparative framework of the philosophical foundation in the first edition of Contemporary Media Ethics was utilitarianism versus communitarianism. However, we replace communitarianism with “non-utilitarianism” in the second edition. This term includes both Western and non-Western philosophical approaches. Therefore, the comparative framework of the philosophical foundation to be used for the second edition will be utilitarianism versus non-utilitarianism.
(2) “Principles and Values” include truth, justice, freedom, humaneness, and stewardship, as well as harmony and diversity. The first five principles are explained in Land’s (2006) chapter, and the last two are explained below. Moreover, the “principle of stewardship” refers to “management of resources of communication”—whether public rights (e.g., free expression, marketplace of ideas, watchdog role) or private self-improvement—related to social responsibility and “management of financial resources” (e.g., intraorganizational financial-resource allocation). Quest for profit and market share (e.g., competitiveness) is a nonmoral value.
(a) Harmony: Media might try to refrain from writing
reports, opinions, or comments that would foment (armed)
confrontation within a society or between countries, and instead
must promote closer friendly relations. Media also might exercise
moderation and good sense (or decency) in their editorial policy,
in the area of advertising, and in their circulation practices.
(b) Diversity: Media might try to uphold tolerance by offering
space to accurate, fair, and responsible opinions that happen to
differ from their own. They might also pay due regard to the
multiethnic, cultural, and religious fabric of society, as well as
the world, contributing to multicultural diversity.
(3) When you prioritize principles, it is unnecessary to discuss all principles equally. Choosing and discussing in detail three or four most important and relevant principles is sufficient; the remaining principles can be discussed briefly if they are not very relevant to the case you are analyzing.
We plan to revise Land’s (2006) chapter and upload the revised manuscript as soon as possible, which might add more new principles. In the meantime, we strongly encourage you to get a sense of our case-analysis method and writing structure. Although not perfect for the second edition, please read Koji Fuse, Mitchell Land, and Jacqueline J. Lambiase, “Expanding the Philosophical Base for Ethical Public Relations Practice: Cross-Cultural Case Application of Non-Western Ethical Philosophies,” Western Journal of Communication 74, no. 4 (July–September 2010): 436–55, available in the Communication & Mass Media Complete (EBSCOhost) database; and Mitch Land, “The Reporting of True Confessions: The Dallas Morning News and Timothy McVeigh’s Confession,” in Contemporary Media Ethics: A Practical Guide for Students, Scholars and Professionals, ed. Mitchell Land and Bill W. Hornaday, 253–67 (Spokane, WA: Marquette Books, 2006).
(1) The comparative framework of the philosophical foundation in the first edition of Contemporary Media Ethics was utilitarianism versus communitarianism. However, we replace communitarianism with “non-utilitarianism” in the second edition. This term includes both Western and non-Western philosophical approaches. Therefore, the comparative framework of the philosophical foundation to be used for the second edition will be utilitarianism versus non-utilitarianism.
(2) “Principles and Values” include truth, justice, freedom, humaneness, and stewardship, as well as harmony and diversity. The first five principles are explained in Land’s (2006) chapter, and the last two are explained below. Moreover, the “principle of stewardship” refers to “management of resources of communication”—whether public rights (e.g., free expression, marketplace of ideas, watchdog role) or private self-improvement—related to social responsibility and “management of financial resources” (e.g., intraorganizational financial-resource allocation). Quest for profit and market share (e.g., competitiveness) is a nonmoral value.
(a) Harmony: Media might try to refrain from writing
reports, opinions, or comments that would foment (armed)
confrontation within a society or between countries, and instead
must promote closer friendly relations. Media also might exercise
moderation and good sense (or decency) in their editorial policy,
in the area of advertising, and in their circulation practices.
(b) Diversity: Media might try to uphold tolerance by offering
space to accurate, fair, and responsible opinions that happen to
differ from their own. They might also pay due regard to the
multiethnic, cultural, and religious fabric of society, as well as
the world, contributing to multicultural diversity.
(3) When you prioritize principles, it is unnecessary to discuss all principles equally. Choosing and discussing in detail three or four most important and relevant principles is sufficient; the remaining principles can be discussed briefly if they are not very relevant to the case you are analyzing.
We plan to revise Land’s (2006) chapter and upload the revised manuscript as soon as possible, which might add more new principles. In the meantime, we strongly encourage you to get a sense of our case-analysis method and writing structure. Although not perfect for the second edition, please read Koji Fuse, Mitchell Land, and Jacqueline J. Lambiase, “Expanding the Philosophical Base for Ethical Public Relations Practice: Cross-Cultural Case Application of Non-Western Ethical Philosophies,” Western Journal of Communication 74, no. 4 (July–September 2010): 436–55, available in the Communication & Mass Media Complete (EBSCOhost) database; and Mitch Land, “The Reporting of True Confessions: The Dallas Morning News and Timothy McVeigh’s Confession,” in Contemporary Media Ethics: A Practical Guide for Students, Scholars and Professionals, ed. Mitchell Land and Bill W. Hornaday, 253–67 (Spokane, WA: Marquette Books, 2006).
Non-utilitarian approaches: Except for Kantian deontological ethics and extreme forms of ethical egotism and subjectivism, any non-utilitarian approach can be used to contrast with a utilitarian solution to decision making in media ethics. Utilitarianism, which is based on libertarian individualism, is the dominant form of ethical decision making in U.S. media practices. Alternatives to utilitarianism include, but are not limited to, the following: virtue ethics, feminist ethics, ethics of care, dialogic ethics, communitarianism, the palaver, Confucianism, Mohism, Daoism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. Any other philosophical approaches from Latin America, Oceania, Russia, etc. are also welcome. Contributors are expected to choose and apply a non-utilitarian philosophical approach and contrast it with utilitarianism to demonstrate how the former leads to an ethical resolution different from the latter. We would like to make the second edition embrace truly diverse philosophical foundations, and our timeline offers a sufficient amount of time for contributors to research and theorize a non-Western or non-dominant Western philosophical approach. Please spend sufficient time to research a non-utilitarian approach when you work on your proposal. In particular, cross-cultural proposals that attempt to apply a non-Western philosophical foundation to a U.S. domestic case are welcome.
Nature of cases: All cases must be fairly new—preferably after the year 2005. The newer, the better. For example, Wal-Marting Across America and Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy are good examples, but cases do not necessarily have to be national or international in scope; local cases are also appropriate. A case can be about the process of production, organizational constraints, content, media effect, or anything related to mass communications.
Chapter proposal: Potential contributors must submit a 1,000-word chapter proposal, which consists of cover page, detailed description of the proposed chapter, and endnotes. First, the cover page must include (1) title, (2) author(s)’ names, affiliations, and contact information, and (3) the proposed work’s past history (e.g., conference presentation). Second, important case facts, an ethical dilemma, and a non-utilitarian approach must be discussed. It would be great if you could propose two alternative non-utilitarian approaches, one of which you will eventually use for your analysis. In case many contributors may want to apply the same philosophical approaches, we want to know in advance what alternative you have. Again, we want to make this revised text as diverse as possible. Third and finally, all citations and notes must be collected at the end of your proposal. Please e-mail your proposal to Koji Fuse at kfuse@unt.edu by Dec. 31, 2010. We appreciate it if you can e-mail us your proposal earlier.
Chapter content: The word limit is 7,000 (everything included). The second edition will streamline some sections. Please look at the chapter template included here.
(1) Cover page: Include the title of the manuscript, author(s)’ names, affiliations, and contact information, and the manuscript’s past history (e.g., conference presentation) and/or acknowledgment.
(2) Author biographies: Write a short, one-paragraph bio of each author.
(3) Abstract: Write an abstract for between 150 and 200 words. Also include 10 or less key words.
(4) Introduction: Discuss theoretical and/or practical aspects of a case and identify the main ethical dilemma(s). Do not dwell on the case itself because you will discuss it in depth later. Observe how Lambiase (2006) and Hornaday (2006) wrote their introductions without even mentioning the case itself.
(5) Exposition of a non-utilitarian approach: Discuss a non-utilitarian approach you have chosen to use and compare with utilitarianism. Make sure your explanation is necessary and sufficient for your analysis.
(6) Case narrative: Write a case narrative, focusing on significant facts. Do not use a bulleted list of facts because they are often redundant; you must save space for theoretical exposition of a non-utilitarian approach you have chosen.
(7) Application of the utilitarian approach: Discuss (a) principles and values, (b) stakeholders and loyalties, and (c) decision.
(8) Application of the non-utilitarian approach: Discuss (a) principles and values, (b) stakeholders and loyalties, and (c) decision.
(9) Conclusion: Compare utilitarian and non-utilitarian approaches and explicate exactly how they differ. Also discuss how the case was actually resolved in relation to the two approaches. Finally, mention your effort to contact a key player or key players in your case.
(10) Endnotes: Follow the Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition. Use the endnotes function of Microsoft Word. Try to include specific page number(s) of an article or a book you are referring to.
(11) (In a separate file):
(A) Glossary: Explain in your own words some technical terms
(e.g., the Four Noble Truths) relevant to your chapter, which will
be compiled at the end of the book. You can include as many
terms as you would like to explain, but we expect at least five
uniquely theoretical terms for each chapter. Do not create a
reference list or endnotes for the glossary.
(B) Activities/Questions for further enrichment: Prepare four
thought-provoking, engaging activities and questions related to
your chapter or the case. They can be team or individual
activities. At least one of them must have a global or intercultural
implication. Also for each activity or question, include your
detailed explanation, comment, or suggestion. Do not create a
reference list or endnotes for this section; be original.
(C) Objective test questions: Add six multiple-choice (five
choices) and four true-false questions relevant to your chapter.
Highlight the answer for each question. Do not create a
reference list or endnotes for this section; be original.
(1) Cover page: Include the title of the manuscript, author(s)’ names, affiliations, and contact information, and the manuscript’s past history (e.g., conference presentation) and/or acknowledgment.
(2) Author biographies: Write a short, one-paragraph bio of each author.
(3) Abstract: Write an abstract for between 150 and 200 words. Also include 10 or less key words.
(4) Introduction: Discuss theoretical and/or practical aspects of a case and identify the main ethical dilemma(s). Do not dwell on the case itself because you will discuss it in depth later. Observe how Lambiase (2006) and Hornaday (2006) wrote their introductions without even mentioning the case itself.
(5) Exposition of a non-utilitarian approach: Discuss a non-utilitarian approach you have chosen to use and compare with utilitarianism. Make sure your explanation is necessary and sufficient for your analysis.
(6) Case narrative: Write a case narrative, focusing on significant facts. Do not use a bulleted list of facts because they are often redundant; you must save space for theoretical exposition of a non-utilitarian approach you have chosen.
(7) Application of the utilitarian approach: Discuss (a) principles and values, (b) stakeholders and loyalties, and (c) decision.
(8) Application of the non-utilitarian approach: Discuss (a) principles and values, (b) stakeholders and loyalties, and (c) decision.
(9) Conclusion: Compare utilitarian and non-utilitarian approaches and explicate exactly how they differ. Also discuss how the case was actually resolved in relation to the two approaches. Finally, mention your effort to contact a key player or key players in your case.
(10) Endnotes: Follow the Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition. Use the endnotes function of Microsoft Word. Try to include specific page number(s) of an article or a book you are referring to.
(11) (In a separate file):
(A) Glossary: Explain in your own words some technical terms
(e.g., the Four Noble Truths) relevant to your chapter, which will
be compiled at the end of the book. You can include as many
terms as you would like to explain, but we expect at least five
uniquely theoretical terms for each chapter. Do not create a
reference list or endnotes for the glossary.
(B) Activities/Questions for further enrichment: Prepare four
thought-provoking, engaging activities and questions related to
your chapter or the case. They can be team or individual
activities. At least one of them must have a global or intercultural
implication. Also for each activity or question, include your
detailed explanation, comment, or suggestion. Do not create a
reference list or endnotes for this section; be original.
(C) Objective test questions: Add six multiple-choice (five
choices) and four true-false questions relevant to your chapter.
Highlight the answer for each question. Do not create a
reference list or endnotes for this section; be original.
| chapter_template.pdf |
| glossaryquestions_template.pdf |
Language: Please keep jargon to a minimum, preferring concise phrasing to make sure the practical as well as the grand concepts are accessible to a readership that includes academics, students, and professionals of journalism and mass communication.
Format (completely revised):The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition, was published in September 2010. You are responsible for applying style rules of this edition. If your manuscript does not conform to this edition of The Chicago Manual of Style, we will return it to you for revision before we closely edit it. The following is a list of major requirements, but they are not exhaustive.
University of Chicago Press. The Chicago Manual of Style. 16th ed.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010.
Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group. "Manuscript Preparation
Guide." Last Modified March 15, 2010.
http://pdfs.rowmanlittlefield.com/RL/PG_/RLPG_MSPrepGuide.pdf
- Use Microsoft Word. Other types of files must be converted to Word before submission.
- Obtain written permission from the copyright holder to reproduce any copyrighted material.
- Create two files: (1) chapter text and (2) glossary/test questions. Label each file--by linking with underscores [_]--last names of authors, the organization or topic, and "Chapter" or "GlossaryQuestions," like "Fuse_Coach_Chapter.doc" and "Fuse_Coach_GlossaryQuestions.doc."
- Apply the letter size (8.5 x 11 inch), not the A4 size, with one-inch margins all around. Make sure your Word setting is appropriate particularly if you use a non-U.S. version of Word.
- Avoid using special formatting as much as possible.
- Use 12-point Times New Roman for all text, including the endnotes.
- Double-space all pages, including the endnotes, with one-inch margins all around.
- Prepare all text flush left (ragged right) to avoid inconsistent spacing between words and sentences. That is, "lines should not be 'justified' to the right margin" (Chicago Manual of Style, 2010, p. 60).
- Use a tab or Word’s indent feature to indent the first line of a paragraph. Never use the space bar for this purpose.
- Do not insert a blank line between paragraphs.
- Create a block quote for five or more lines and indent it one-half inch from the left margin.
- Remove all mid-sentence hard or soft returns if you copy and paste text from an e-mail or a PDF file.
- Do not use hyphens to break words at the ends of lines. Turn off the hyphenation feature of your software.
- Use italics for emphasis, but do not overuse them.
- Do not use underlining.
- Follow punctuation guidelines. For example, you need a serial comma before "and."
- Eliminate all comments, tracked changes, highlighting, or hidden text in the final version of the manuscript. Rather, do not use any of them from the beginning.
- Use parentheses for special characters, including Chinese and Japanese characters. Although we may not be able to publish them because of their potentially high publishing cost, we recognize a need for differentiation, such as ritual (li 礼/禮) and benefit (li 利), under certain circumstances.
- Do not place note numbers on chapter titles, subtitles, author names, or subheads.
- Set each subheading on its own line.
- Do not start your chapter with a subhead, especially "introduction."
- Use Word's endnote feature to gather all notes at the end of your chapter manuscript.
- Add a DOI (digital object identifier) to an electronic version of a journal article. If the DOI of the article you cite in your manuscript is not immediately available, you need to locate the journal's website and search for the DOI in order to be perfectly accurate, rather than use some online services. The following is an example of an endnote, which shows a specific page number, as well as both the issue number and month. "Neither month nor season is necessary when the issue number is given, though it is never incorrect to include it" (Chicago Manual of Style, 2010, p. 732):
2. Yong Huang, "Confucius and Mencius on the Motivation
to Be Moral," Philosophy East and West 60, no 1 (January
2010): 68, doi:10.1353/pew.0.0089.
University of Chicago Press. The Chicago Manual of Style. 16th ed.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010.
Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group. "Manuscript Preparation
Guide." Last Modified March 15, 2010.
http://pdfs.rowmanlittlefield.com/RL/PG_/RLPG_MSPrepGuide.pdf
Timeline (subject to change):
Sept. 15, 2010: Call for chapter proposals; website
Dec. 31, 2010: Deadline for proposals
Jan. 15, 2011: Decisions on chapters
July 31, 2011: Deadline for completed manuscripts
Oct. 15, 2011: First revision requests
Dec. 31, 2011: Deadline for revisions
Feb. 15, 2012: All edits to complete
April 30, 2012: Publication
Sept. 15, 2010: Call for chapter proposals; website
Dec. 31, 2010: Deadline for proposals
Jan. 15, 2011: Decisions on chapters
July 31, 2011: Deadline for completed manuscripts
Oct. 15, 2011: First revision requests
Dec. 31, 2011: Deadline for revisions
Feb. 15, 2012: All edits to complete
April 30, 2012: Publication
Send proposal or inquiry to: Koji Fuse at kfuse@unt.edu.
Contact: Koji Fuse, assistant professor of strategic communications, Frank W. and Sue Mayborn School of Journalism, University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle #311460, Denton, TX 76203, U.S.A. 940-369-8083 (phone).
