Difference between revisions of "Literary and Cultural Studies:Writing academic texts"

From Angl-Am
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
==What to aim at: Your paper has to be a contribution to the ongoing scientific debate==
  
 +
Your paper is supposed to be a contribution to the ongoing scientific debate.
  
−
===Understand your paper as a (possible) contribution to scientific research===
+
* Can you summarize the ongoing public debate?
 +
* Can you summarize the scientific debate? Where does it differ from the debate you find in blogs and in Wikipedia?
 +
* Did scientific research deal with your question? If not: Why not? Why do you think it should?
  
−
The humanities (the sciences from philosophy and history to the philologies) produce a scientific debate. Researchers make statements of how the debate and its science should continue. They do this on the basis of their research.
+
Can you define what kind of contribution you eventually made with your work? There are different options:
 +
* You may have recapitulated the debate in order to evaluate the present positions
 +
* You supported an existing argument with your own look at a certain text
 +
* You modified a perspective you found in public statements choosing a more scientific approach 
  
−
Your own work, whether seminar presentation or seminar paper of 15 pages, has to do the same. The final question will be: what is your position in the debate you opened, and can you defend this position with first hand knowledge you acquired for that purpose.
+
==The Preface==
  
−
===Do not aim at a scientific revolution – there are numerous moderate, yet efficient ways to contribute to scientific research===
+
Has to be rewritten in the end:
  
−
The dissertation level will require new results. All your work until then can play a more moderate role. You may support existing views; you can doubt them; you can add new knowledge that leads to the same (or slightly different) conclusions; you can evaluate what others said on the basis of what you know of the subject matter.
+
* Lead into the topic: Why is it interesting? What are present problems? How far have they been solved?
 +
* What is your contribution?
 +
:* What statement can you make?
 +
:* What kind of look did you offer (method)
 +
:* What results were you aiming at?
 +
:* What structure did you chose in oder to deal with the problem?
  
−
Two things will remain necessary:
+
==Research done by others==
−
# You will have to define your position within the scientific debate (there exist other debates as well, yet they are only of interest if you turn them into an object of scientific research).
+
Summarise the present view(s)
−
# Your work must be designed to support your position in the scientific debate with the help of observations you gathered in an analysis of primary sources.
+
*Are there different viewpoints
 +
*Is it possible to present them in a discussion - did new arguments evolve in the course of the debate? (This will enable you to state more clearly where you are with your contribution.)
  
−
==Structuring your work==
+
Quote research
 +
* As a cource of your knowledge
 +
* In the opening and during your paper where it offers opinions and perspectives you want to evaluate.
  
−
A good piece of academic work is a text other participants of the scientific debate could quote. Your reader is the colleague whose research you mention (not your teacher, who is supposed to consider how far you managed to write for an audience of colleagues in the field of research).
 
−
 
−
# Did you ask a question of interest within the scientific debate? (React on, communicate with research to make that sure!)
 
−
# Can you define the result of your work, your standpoint towards existing research, now that you have done your own research?
 
−
# Did you focus your paper/presentation on your question?
 
−
# Can you defend the structure of your paper?
 
−
# Can you critically evaluate your own work when it comes to the solidity of your observations?
 
−
 
−
===Define an interesting question===
 
−
A good question is one that actually needs research. Think of a question that allows more than one answer, think of simple answers against which you can position the more complex answers you have reached with your insight into the materials. Think of the discussion your results could raise.
 
−
 
−
===Check research===
 
 
See our [[Literary Studies:Research guide]] for further help.
 
See our [[Literary Studies:Research guide]] for further help.
  
−
===Streamline your presentation in oder to present your observations and to make your points===
+
==Streamline your presentation==
−
There might be knowledge you feel comfortable with - knowledge on the author, his or her times, the works he or she wrote, or basic knowledge about your field of research.
+
  
−
Any knowledge the reader can get with a look into Wikipedia is common knowledge and can be handled as such: Your reader can close gaps with a look into these resources. Do not repeat and recapitulate such knowledge, it be then that you do this in order to attack it as flawed by a common misconception you want to address with more scientific research.
+
===Avoid any knowledge you just want to add for readers who have never heard about the period, the author, how people lived in these days===
  
−
Every chapter you write must strictly refer to your question and promise a step which will already modify some of the views you mentioned in your introduction. You are throughout your paper expected to modify or solidify views on the basis of your own observations. All chapters that do not do this are off-topic.
+
Any such "knowledge" is extremely controversial. Your two pages on "The Victorian Era" or "The Elizabethan Age" will contain less information than the respective Wikipedia articles. You should neither offer such views from Wikipedia nor out of the best books you found. Your reader is a participant of the scientific debate; he or she wants to see how you react on his or her arguments. He or she does not want to learn anything on Shakespeare and his age from your work, on "The situation of man in the 20th century", on "The history of the role of women in this our age" or any other such topic. (If it was helpful for you to get some such knowledge, this is the moment to step beyond the learner's position, do not even look back on it).
  
−
You are writing on the minor characters in Shakespeare's ''Anthony and Cleopatra''? This is the structure you should strictly avoid (though it might reflect your own steps into this work). Chapters 1-5 will not need any research of yours but simply be a kind of writing together of information you found (though not at all on your question, yet, you hope, possibly useful to some who have never heard of Shakespeare or his period). Chapters 5.1 to 5.12 will focus on materials, but the headlines promise summaries not results. The conclusion (7) will be the first chapter where you will wonder what all this might have shown - it will (as you are expected to do all this on 15 pages) fill less than one page and fail to make any interesting statements at that late stage of your work:
+
===Chapters===
  
−
{|cellpadding="10"
+
Every chapter you write must strictly refer to your question. Begin each chapter with a look back on the question. You move from chapter to chapter with a look at what you were able to prove and what questions arose with these your observations.  
−
|bgcolor="#f7f7f7" valign="top" align="left"|
+
−
::1    The Elizabethan Period
+
−
::2    William Shakespeare the Man
+
−
::3    Shakespeare's Works
+
−
::4    A Summary of ''Anthony and Cleopatra''
+
−
::5    The minor Characters of ''Anthony and Cleopatra''
+
−
:::5.1    Enobarbus
+
−
:::5.2    Agrippa
+
−
:::5.3    Chariman
+
−
:::5.4    Alexis
+
−
:::...
+
−
:::5.11    The first Messenger
+
−
:::5.12    The second Messenger
+
−
::6    A comparison of the role of the minor characters in King Lear
+
−
::7    Conclusion
+
−
|}
+
  
−
::All this will be done on 15 pages, with some chapters consisting of merely one ore two paragraphs. All these chapters will be too short for statements - for statements which you could support with quotations and with a discussion of your observations - against the backdrop of alternative interpretations of such passages (which alone would allow you to determine whether you can actually support your views)
+
===Headlines===
−
 
+
Use your headlines
−
Rather think of your question and possible answers. What roles do these characters play? Maybe this is the outcome of your research:
+
*to state the respective field of your observation and
−
* Option 1: They have by and large a functional role - they are needed to move the plot.
+
*to make a statement in the respective question
−
* Option 2: They critically evaluate the actions of the main protagonists and thus add different viewpoints the main protagonists could not offer without becoming too reasonable to make their tragic mistakes.
+
−
* Option 3: They are used to teach us (being subordinates and minor characters ourselves) strategies how to deal with those in power.
+
−
* Option 4: Shakespeare uses them to criticise those in power.
+
−
 
+
−
If these should be your results you should design your paper in order to present and discuss them. Use your headlines to make these statements, give an introduction to prepare your readers for your results. Think of quotations with which you can prove these statements, and evaluate each of your observations.
+
−
 
+
−
Finally: consider to what extent your observations support or re-evaluate scientific research on the problem. Is there research on the minor characters in ''Anthony and Cleopatra''? (If so to what results?) Is there research on the minor characters of other plays of the period? (If so: did it come to similar results? - if not: did these plays differ, or did the researchers fail to understand these characters better?)
+
−
 
+
−
'''Nota bene:''' It can well be that you write the paper with a structure like the first only to realise in your conclusion, how you should have structured it, now that you know the four results - in that case: rewrite it to bring it under this very structure. A revision of 15 pages is done within two days and a pain everyone working in the field is expected to take; it is as vital as the spell check at the end - a sign of respect.
+
−
 
+
−
===Make sure your chapters offer orientation===
+
−
Each chapter should begin with an anylsis of the problem it tries to solve. It should end with an evaluation of your results written in a way to lead into the following chapter.
+
  
 
===The conclusion and the introduction===
 
===The conclusion and the introduction===
−
Write the introduction to lead into the question and to give a summary of research. Use the conclusion to think of questions you have or might not you have been able to answer. You could come to the conclusion that one should compare your results in a bigger investigation with those of other plays in order to see whether there is a development in Shakespeare or during the period (this could be a question other scholars might find inspiring, an invitation to consider your findings as part of a larger picture).
+
Use the conclusion to think of questions you have or might not you have been able to answer. Evaluate your own work.
 +
* It can be that the question imploded - there is no bigger work to write on this, you did not forsee the result
 +
* It can be that you realised one has to do quite different work to answer your question - state what kind of work that would need, so that others can do it (or you yourself in a bigger piece of research)
  
 
==Can I risk to state my own opinion - even if it contradicts my professor's?==
 
==Can I risk to state my own opinion - even if it contradicts my professor's?==
 
Yes! The most interesting work is the one which leads your readers to second thoughts.
 
Yes! The most interesting work is the one which leads your readers to second thoughts.
  
−
The problem is the essay in which you simply state your opinion, offer your arguments for it and think you have done your job. If your professor reads your essay with an awareness of all the criticism and questions you invited and simply did not think of - you have lost. The good essay anticipates criticism and deals with it.
+
Yet, some people misunderstand this point: If you simply state your opinion without reflecting the other opinions your readers might arrive at, they will complain that you failed to notice the failures of your work.
 +
 
 +
==How does your professor evaluate your work?==
  
−
The worst of all essays is the mild compromise - an essay in which you say: "Both sides are right once they accept the arguments of the others." The worst case is that your reader comes to the conclusion that you were simply trying to appear wise - feeling that it is wise not to get involved in any argument. The good step within any confrontation is the one that leads the participants one step further - the step which leads to a new understanding of the real problem debated here.
+
He or she will try to understand what you wanted to do and with what circumspection you did it.
  
−
==How do professors evaluate our work?==
+
The excellent piece of work is one fully aware of present research and assuming a position in it - up to the point that your reader realises: you would defend this your work against critical questions - you anticipate them, you know why you would still say what you said as you have an aim to continue with that thought.
−
They wonder what others - colleagues - would say, and whether you anticipated their criticism.
+
  
−
# Is the question asked with precision?
+
The good piece of work shows that you have learned to evaluate research and to make your statement. The self critical option is not there, your work is not yet designed to lead you on.
−
# How is the question positioned in the scientific debate? Is its relevancy reflected?
+
−
# How stringent and coherent is the line of argumentation?
+
−
# How fluent and differentiated are language and style?
+
−
# How relevant are your sources? How accurate is your documentation (quotes, bibliography)?
+
  
−
Basically we aim at performances you can offer anywhere else publicly. Hence, do avoid references to "our seminar" and all thoughts of your professor as your reader. Think of a public audience. Try to write for the reader of an article published in a scientific journal.
+
The moderate piece of work shows you understood the question, you were able to summarise other thoughts, you could arrive at at least one of these views with your own work.
  
−
Secondly we evaluate your work first of all with a look at what you were aiming at: Did you achieve your goals as explained in the outline and the summary of your texts? It is part of this perspective that we wonder whether you choose goals you could be expected to achieve - not too trivial and not too ambitious.
+
Basically we aim at performances you can offer anywhere else in the public. Hence, do avoid references to "our seminar" and all thoughts of your professor as your reader. Think of a public audience.
  
 
==Practical hints / Style sheet==
 
==Practical hints / Style sheet==

Revision as of 17:27, 24 November 2008

What to aim at: Your paper has to be a contribution to the ongoing scientific debate

Your paper is supposed to be a contribution to the ongoing scientific debate.

  • Can you summarize the ongoing public debate?
  • Can you summarize the scientific debate? Where does it differ from the debate you find in blogs and in Wikipedia?
  • Did scientific research deal with your question? If not: Why not? Why do you think it should?

Can you define what kind of contribution you eventually made with your work? There are different options:

  • You may have recapitulated the debate in order to evaluate the present positions
  • You supported an existing argument with your own look at a certain text
  • You modified a perspective you found in public statements choosing a more scientific approach

The Preface

Has to be rewritten in the end:

  • Lead into the topic: Why is it interesting? What are present problems? How far have they been solved?
  • What is your contribution?
  • What statement can you make?
  • What kind of look did you offer (method)
  • What results were you aiming at?
  • What structure did you chose in oder to deal with the problem?

Research done by others

Summarise the present view(s)

  • Are there different viewpoints
  • Is it possible to present them in a discussion - did new arguments evolve in the course of the debate? (This will enable you to state more clearly where you are with your contribution.)

Quote research

  • As a cource of your knowledge
  • In the opening and during your paper where it offers opinions and perspectives you want to evaluate.

See our Literary Studies:Research guide for further help.

Streamline your presentation

Avoid any knowledge you just want to add for readers who have never heard about the period, the author, how people lived in these days

Any such "knowledge" is extremely controversial. Your two pages on "The Victorian Era" or "The Elizabethan Age" will contain less information than the respective Wikipedia articles. You should neither offer such views from Wikipedia nor out of the best books you found. Your reader is a participant of the scientific debate; he or she wants to see how you react on his or her arguments. He or she does not want to learn anything on Shakespeare and his age from your work, on "The situation of man in the 20th century", on "The history of the role of women in this our age" or any other such topic. (If it was helpful for you to get some such knowledge, this is the moment to step beyond the learner's position, do not even look back on it).

Chapters

Every chapter you write must strictly refer to your question. Begin each chapter with a look back on the question. You move from chapter to chapter with a look at what you were able to prove and what questions arose with these your observations.

Headlines

Use your headlines

  • to state the respective field of your observation and
  • to make a statement in the respective question

The conclusion and the introduction

Use the conclusion to think of questions you have or might not you have been able to answer. Evaluate your own work.

  • It can be that the question imploded - there is no bigger work to write on this, you did not forsee the result
  • It can be that you realised one has to do quite different work to answer your question - state what kind of work that would need, so that others can do it (or you yourself in a bigger piece of research)

Can I risk to state my own opinion - even if it contradicts my professor's?

Yes! The most interesting work is the one which leads your readers to second thoughts.

Yet, some people misunderstand this point: If you simply state your opinion without reflecting the other opinions your readers might arrive at, they will complain that you failed to notice the failures of your work.

How does your professor evaluate your work?

He or she will try to understand what you wanted to do and with what circumspection you did it.

The excellent piece of work is one fully aware of present research and assuming a position in it - up to the point that your reader realises: you would defend this your work against critical questions - you anticipate them, you know why you would still say what you said as you have an aim to continue with that thought.

The good piece of work shows that you have learned to evaluate research and to make your statement. The self critical option is not there, your work is not yet designed to lead you on.

The moderate piece of work shows you understood the question, you were able to summarise other thoughts, you could arrive at at least one of these views with your own work.

Basically we aim at performances you can offer anywhere else in the public. Hence, do avoid references to "our seminar" and all thoughts of your professor as your reader. Think of a public audience.

Practical hints / Style sheet

Links

Retrieved from "https://wiki.angl-am.uni-oldenburg.de/index.php?title=Literary_and_Cultural_Studies:Writing_academic_texts&oldid=16969"