Thanks! I think this is pretty close to what I have right now (hook -> contribution -> design and data -> findings -> implications -> future directions). I'm unsure whether I want the hook to come from my data, or to use a news event that everyone in the room already intuitively understands.
I'd lean towards news events as long as it isn't too stretched.
The diss is about crime news, so news events are easy to bring in :)
Ideally both, maybe looping the news into the contribution (ie, you're explaining a real world problem and an academic theoretical one) instead of using it as an intro. If you need space, cut from design. Unless your contribution is methodological, it's mostly a brief CYA or "i did So Much" slide
Got it. I think doing both is definitely possible. It's an applied/substantive contribution, but the advice I've gotten thus far has been to weight findings > data/design > implications > theory (so still a lot of data talk).
I want to add that for me what distinguishes the great qual talk is when there is a clear link between narrative and the theoretical/scholarly contribution. In other words, the narrative structure itself lays out the argument, and the "moral of the story" is your theoretical contribution.
Yeah ideally the structure of the argument and the narrative are the same
Narrative structure *is* analysis, as one of my mentors used to say