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

From Angl-Am
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎How do Professors evaluate our work?)
 
(156 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==How do I find a good topic?==
+
The process of writing research papers can be divided in three phases:
−
A good piece of academic work challenges existing views - by leading the debate a step further. There is more than one way do do this. You can attack general notions, you can offer insight into a subject matter that has been neglected and hint at blind spots in existing research, you can question existing debates by opening new ones, you can just as well support a position with a new argument or observation... these are thoughts for a dissertation rather than a 15 page seminar essay, yet they give you an idea of the direction you are supposed to take during your studies.
+
  
−
For student purposes it is enough to find a topic you will be able to advertise as interesting - your interest can be personal, yet to sell it to others you have to find arguments why others should share your fascination, and these must be independent from all personal views.
+
==Phase 1: Research – Finding Your Topic==
  
−
:It might be sufficient to note a surprising contradictory, startling aspect - ''Le Morte Darthur'' (1485) is a Christian Arthurian epic, yet the heroes of this epic fight without even asking for a just cause; how is their extreme violence justified? - that is already all you need to go ahead and to wonder how one would answer such a question.
+
* Start from an observation or a question that you found remarkable in some manner. (Try to grasp what it is that strikes you about this phenomenon.)
 +
* Check the state of research: Has this been asked or observed before (long ago, only recently)? Do critics agree or are there controversies? For this purpose, you need to use bibliographic tools (such as the MLA bibliography), and to read and excerpt the materials that make reference to your topic.
 +
* Return to the primary material you plan to analyse, picking out passages and aspects that are particularly relevant to your topic.  
  
−
A topic is often inspired by research - you read someone's statements and you feel you would not arrive at the same conclusions if you had to present the case. Why did your author arrive at his or her view? Why did he or she not reach the conclusions you reached?
 
  
−
If you get a topic - from your professor or in an exam situation - handle it openly: Why is it interesting? What answers might be expected? What answers would you have given before you began to study? What answers would you give now? What are the answers others might give?
+
==Phase 2: Structure – Planning Your Paper and Formulating your Thesis==
  
−
===Before I begin...===
+
Once you have looked at the state of research and examined your materials, review the results: How do the various results of your research fit together? Are they sufficient to account for your initial question in a satisfactory way? If so, good. If not, even better. In either case, you can now go about presenting your evidence and your evaluation of it to an academic audience.  
−
First: check research (see the [[Literary Studies:Research guide]] for further help). Secondly think of simple and more complex answers on your question. The good essay will take different views into account, it will show that you have anticipated criticism.
+
  
−
==How do I structure my work?==
+
* Define your goal (i.e. formulate your thesis): Make up your mind about what precisely you want to demonstrate concerning the topic you have chosen. Try to state this as completely, precisely and concisely as possible. (This usually takes several attempts, and is done parallel to the two following steps.)
−
Beginners are often tempted to think of a standard solution: "One does not understand my topic if I do not give an introduction about the period, the author, the work in question - once I'll have done this introduction, I'll answer the question I am supposed to answer." The result is an essay of 15 pages filled with background information (which can be taken from Wikipedia or the greatest professors in the field without much of a difference) and scattered remarks on the original question.
+
* Choose a structure that leads to your goal: Arrange the results of your research (both primary and secondary materials) in such a way that all the relevant materials, information and arguments are presented in such an order that they lead to the goal that you have set yourself. In order to reach a particular result, it is usually necessary to take several steps of analysis and reflection.
 +
* Make the structure of your argument explicit: The structure of your outline (i.e. the headings in the table of contents) should match the line of argument you have chosen, and should provide the reader with a ‘map’ of the steps of analysis and reflection that he or she is invited to take.  
  
−
First advice: drop the standard solution. Deal with the question - directly. Speak of the question and its implications, show why it is interesting to ask this question, think of the best sequence of follow-up-questions needed to answer it.
 
  
−
Speak about the period, the author, the general appreciation of his work... if you feel that your work is problematising any of these heads.
+
==Phase 3: Writing and Revising your Paper==
  
−
===The opening section===
+
Once you have arranged the results of your research in such a way that they lead towards demonstrating the proposition you have formulated, you are ready to start writing.  
−
*should open the question. Eventually your reader should understand why one should try to answer this question.
+
Term papers usually are written in this order:
−
*should offer the answer one might give at first sight and take the step into a deeper analysis. It is good to know the more complex answer your essay will lead to at this point (and it is hence best practice to revise the introduction in the last step of your work.
+
−
*should tell your reader how you will proceed with your investigation - a passage you should write with an awareness of different options you had when structuring the paper.
+
  
−
===Secondary literature===
+
* The introduction: state what you are going to examine and what you are hoping to show, how you are going to proceed (between which alternative methods did you choose) and give reasons for both (why is the topic relevant to an academic debate? why do you choose to treat the topic in the way you have chosen?).
−
It is good practice to summarise scholarly views right at the beginning rather than to lead a continuous battle between your view and other views throughout the essay. If you are dealing with a big topic try to present secondary literature as a progressing discussion, not as a mixture of individual statements. Think of the debate that produced this research as an exchange of different parties.
+
NOTE: In your response to the questions what?, how? and why? take into account the current state of research (which you have established in phase 1 and 2). If an extensive report on research should be necessary, you may give this an extra chapter heading after the introduction.
 +
* The chapters that make up your main part (i.e. the headings in the table of contents) should match the line of argument you have chosen, and should provide the reader with a ‘map’ of the steps of analysis and reflection that he or she is invited to take.
 +
* The conclusion does not introduce any new analytical steps. You should summarise at a higher level of abstraction, the results of the analytical steps you have taken. Then address the question of what follows from your analysis. What questions remain unsolved? What new questions have become visible in the course of your analysis? What direction could the debate take at this juncture?
 +
* Revision. Having written a first draft of your text, check your text and your argument for cohesion, and especially revise the introduction, if necessary.  
  
−
===Good headlines, good chapters===
+
==Final Steps==
−
You might have a question and three items to look at - three plays by Shakespeare for instance - and you might feel tempted just to open one chapter for each of these items.
+
  
−
Think back: Why did I decide to take a look at these three items (these three plays, these characters of the play, these three aspects of a particular problem...)? Each chapter should be written with an awareness of what you wanted to prove with your investigation. Good headlines will tell your reader why he should take a look at this text/character/aspect - what he is going to find out when reading your chapter.
+
===Settle for a Title===
  
−
Good conclusions of the individual chapters should reflect your work: Did you arrive at the result you promised? Do things look more difficult at the end of your research? Or have they become more simple? Both can be interesting results.  
+
If you have not decided on your title before, this is the time to do it. Titles usually consist of two parts. The subtitle should indicate the material(s) and topic(s) dealt with. The main title should indicate the special perspective you wish to establish on the material(s) and topic(s) (one example from the bibliography above: main title: The Unwritten War, subtitle: American Writers and the Civil War).
  
−
===The conclusion===
+
===Check for Formal Correctness===
−
A good essay leaves its reader with an awareness that things are much more difficult than considered at first - it inspires more work, shows you got involved in a debate.
+
  
−
You can just as well arrive at the conclusion that the question was asked the wrong way in the beginning - can you present the question that should have been asked at the end?
+
Reread for typing errors, spelling, grammar and syntax, incomplete sentences, style, formatting specifications.
 +
Make sure the chapter headings in the table of contents and the headings used in the paper are the same.
 +
Make sure that all the sources you are quoting are listed in the bibliography, and that the bibliography does not contain any entries that are not referred to in the paper.
 +
Make sure that you have documented all sources for ideas or statements that you take over from other sources (avoid the appearance of plagiarism).
  
−
You can come to the conclusion that the answer did not get you to where you thought to arrive - and that the whole topic is problematic as not leading us any step further. Even professional authors have reached such conclusions; see for example the epilogue to John J. Richetti's ''Popular Fiction before Richardson. Narrative Patterns 1700-1739'' (Oxford, 1969), in which the author considered all the  books he had read to be not worthy a second reading - the result was quite on the contrary a wave of research proving him wrong, yet a wave turning an immense interest to his book and his conclusion.
+
==Further Questions?==
  
−
Do not think that you have to give the only and true right answer and that's it. There might not be such an answer. Do rather think of a conversation in which your contribution might be one others will like to return to as a good starting point.
+
Here are some further considerations about aspects of the research, structuring and writing process. If you feel you could do with further guidance, you may try thinking about these points.  
  
−
==Can I risk to state my own opinion - even if it contradicts my professor's?==
+
=== Joining a Discussion / Joining a Conversation===
−
by all means, 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 allows you to defend any position you want to defend as it is written with an awareness of other possible views on the problem. It anticipates the criticism and deals with it.
+
Before you start and while you are writing you may find it helpful to think of your paper as a contribution to a conversation or a discussion. Before you make a contribution to a conversation, you will want to be aware of the issues that have been talked about and of the things that have been said before.
 +
* You will not generally make statements simply ‘because they are true’ (even if they are true). If you refer to something that has been said before, you will tend to indicate somehow that you are aware of this.
 +
* Neither will you just say once more what someone has just said before you. If you introduce information, you will tend to make clear, why you are mentioning this.
 +
* In any case, you will generally check that your contribution is relevant to this conversation. You will also make clear what your own position is in the conversation: Is your purpose to agree with previous speakers and support what they have said? Is it to contradict them? Is it to add a different angle or to start a new topic?
 +
There are differences, of course: In everyday conversations you will check the relevance of your contribution more or less intuitively. In written academic work, this process must be made explicit as part of your contribution, and it usually takes a good deal longer.
 +
As you are doing your research and finding your topic, structuring your ideas and your argument, and finally writing and revising your paper, it may help you to bear this in mind.  
  
−
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.
+
===Providing a Map and Putting up Signposts===
  
−
===But if I am not interested in this stuff?===
+
As you are writing, make sure you signpost your paper: Where will you be taking the reader, by what means and by what route are you going to do this, and why should a reader want to go there with you? Make sure that you have addressed these questions in your introduction. Give your readers a map, and set up signposts at appropriate places (e.g. at the beginning and / or end of chapters) in order to prevent them from getting lost, and make sure that at the end they know where you have taken them and why they should want to be there.  
−
Well actually it is a mark of professionalism if you can start research with the aim to get involved. After all you are expected to do this for the rest of your life: make sure that others get interested in what you are doing. If you simply feel you are not interested you have possibly just avoided to do the amount of research which would have involved you. Once you have a certain knowledge and understanding of a subject matter you will feel tempted to take part in the exchange. (It can of course happen, that you will finally tell the participants of a controversy that they have so far asked the boring questions only...)
+
  
−
==How do professors evaluate our work?==
+
===Relating to the Work of other Critics and Scholars===
−
Basically we aim at performances you can offer anywhere else publicly and as professional work - at a conference, (or less professionally:) if you had to write a Wikipedia article on the subject matter - though we know of course that you are only writing for us. We wonder whether your text would make sense outside the seminar context. (Hence do avoid referenced to "our seminar" and all thoughts of your professor as your reader. Think of a public audience, the reader of an article in a journal as your reader.)
+
  
−
Secondly we try to evaluate your work with a look at what ''you'' were aiming at: Do 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 simple and not too ambitious ones.
+
* If other scholars have already dealt with this topic, ask: Do they agree with each other? Is there a current controversy? Were there controversies in the past? What were the points that were debated, what arguments were used (what kind of references were made to the primary materials you have analysed)? Was there a shift in opinion?
 +
* If few or no other scholars have dealt with this topic (made this observation, raised this question): why have they overlooked it? Is it simply too obvious, too easy to answer? Have they focused on something else instead (on what, and why)? What has prevented them from making this observation (or raising this question)? What would be gained by raising this question? Were they right or wrong to ignore this question (Perhaps it is too obvious or trivial? Perhaps they were prevented from perceiving its relevance by some kind of unjustified bias?)
  
−
A very good indicator is whether your reader can possibly summarize your work: What was the topic, what points were you trying to make, how did you defend the individual arguments.
+
===Defining Your Own Position===
  
−
Your professor feels in a safe position if he or she could show your work to a colleague (who will not have read the texts you are dealing with) - the virtual or real colleague should be able to make sense of your work and he or she will ideally come to the same evaluation:
+
Your line of argument will depend on where you stand in relation to this state of research. Is your goal to compare and evaluate critically the (different) existing research positions and measure them by the degree of insight and relevance they have for the question that you have chosen? Is your goal to add new perspective to the research?
  
−
*that's very good piece of work - I did not know much about the subject matter, yet I came to realise that this is an interesting topic and I am beginning to understand why people work in this field...
+
Once you have looked at the state of research and the primary material as it relates to the topic that interests you, you can formulate a proposition that you will seek to substantiate. Here are a few typical lines of argument that may help you decide, which argument should guide your structure:
−
*that's good work, I understood it, and realise the student took a good step with this piece of work.
+
* One typical line of argument: Scholars have always agreed that this phenomenon should be described as [x], but I disagree. The reasons [if any] they have given, are the following… The reasons why I disagree are the following.  
−
*that's a satisfying piece of work - the student understood the topic, the questions he or she asked were reasonable, the answers convincing though not very creative, it serves its purpose
+
* Another typical line of argument: Scholars have never been able to agree about whether we should describe this phenomenon as [a] or as [b]. Those who favour [a] argue that …, those who favour [b] argue that …, a critical evaluation of their arguments shows that … [a is right / b is right / both are partly right and partly wrong / both are wrong and c is right]…
−
*the topic was handled with less care than it deserved, the considerations were not always conclusive, one can accept this piece of work, however, as the student has managed to avoid gross errors
+
* A third typical line of argument: Scholars have never noticed [a]. They have been talking about [b] and [c], however. In my judgment, the following reason(s) may be responsible for the fact that they have done so. I will now try to show why they were right [wrong] to ignore [a], for the following reasons…
−
*...
+
* …
  
−
==Practical hints==
 
  
−
*Observe the [[Literary Studies:Style sheet]]
 
−
*Take a look at the [[Literary Studies:Research guide]]
 
−
*Remember the advice that helped you in your first [[Survive Assignments|assignements]]
 
  
−
[[Category:Handout|Academic texts]]
+
==Links==
 +
* [http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/EngPaper/ Jack Lynch's advice to his students at Rutgers]
 +
* [http://www.angl-am.uni-oldenburg.de/intro-to-literature/d/1998_Aczel_How_to_Write_an_Essay.pdf Richard Aczel, ''How to Write an Essay'' (1998) Excerpt]
 +
 
 +
[[Category:Writing academic texts]]

Latest revision as of 22:16, 20 October 2011

The process of writing research papers can be divided in three phases:

Phase 1: Research – Finding Your Topic

  • Start from an observation or a question that you found remarkable in some manner. (Try to grasp what it is that strikes you about this phenomenon.)
  • Check the state of research: Has this been asked or observed before (long ago, only recently)? Do critics agree or are there controversies? For this purpose, you need to use bibliographic tools (such as the MLA bibliography), and to read and excerpt the materials that make reference to your topic.
  • Return to the primary material you plan to analyse, picking out passages and aspects that are particularly relevant to your topic.


Phase 2: Structure – Planning Your Paper and Formulating your Thesis

Once you have looked at the state of research and examined your materials, review the results: How do the various results of your research fit together? Are they sufficient to account for your initial question in a satisfactory way? If so, good. If not, even better. In either case, you can now go about presenting your evidence and your evaluation of it to an academic audience.

  • Define your goal (i.e. formulate your thesis): Make up your mind about what precisely you want to demonstrate concerning the topic you have chosen. Try to state this as completely, precisely and concisely as possible. (This usually takes several attempts, and is done parallel to the two following steps.)
  • Choose a structure that leads to your goal: Arrange the results of your research (both primary and secondary materials) in such a way that all the relevant materials, information and arguments are presented in such an order that they lead to the goal that you have set yourself. In order to reach a particular result, it is usually necessary to take several steps of analysis and reflection.
  • Make the structure of your argument explicit: The structure of your outline (i.e. the headings in the table of contents) should match the line of argument you have chosen, and should provide the reader with a ‘map’ of the steps of analysis and reflection that he or she is invited to take.


Phase 3: Writing and Revising your Paper

Once you have arranged the results of your research in such a way that they lead towards demonstrating the proposition you have formulated, you are ready to start writing. Term papers usually are written in this order:

  • The introduction: state what you are going to examine and what you are hoping to show, how you are going to proceed (between which alternative methods did you choose) and give reasons for both (why is the topic relevant to an academic debate? why do you choose to treat the topic in the way you have chosen?).

NOTE: In your response to the questions what?, how? and why? take into account the current state of research (which you have established in phase 1 and 2). If an extensive report on research should be necessary, you may give this an extra chapter heading after the introduction.

  • The chapters that make up your main part (i.e. the headings in the table of contents) should match the line of argument you have chosen, and should provide the reader with a ‘map’ of the steps of analysis and reflection that he or she is invited to take.
  • The conclusion does not introduce any new analytical steps. You should summarise at a higher level of abstraction, the results of the analytical steps you have taken. Then address the question of what follows from your analysis. What questions remain unsolved? What new questions have become visible in the course of your analysis? What direction could the debate take at this juncture?
  • Revision. Having written a first draft of your text, check your text and your argument for cohesion, and especially revise the introduction, if necessary.

Final Steps

Settle for a Title

If you have not decided on your title before, this is the time to do it. Titles usually consist of two parts. The subtitle should indicate the material(s) and topic(s) dealt with. The main title should indicate the special perspective you wish to establish on the material(s) and topic(s) (one example from the bibliography above: main title: The Unwritten War, subtitle: American Writers and the Civil War).

Check for Formal Correctness

Reread for typing errors, spelling, grammar and syntax, incomplete sentences, style, formatting specifications. Make sure the chapter headings in the table of contents and the headings used in the paper are the same. Make sure that all the sources you are quoting are listed in the bibliography, and that the bibliography does not contain any entries that are not referred to in the paper. Make sure that you have documented all sources for ideas or statements that you take over from other sources (avoid the appearance of plagiarism).

Further Questions?

Here are some further considerations about aspects of the research, structuring and writing process. If you feel you could do with further guidance, you may try thinking about these points.

Joining a Discussion / Joining a Conversation

Before you start and while you are writing you may find it helpful to think of your paper as a contribution to a conversation or a discussion. Before you make a contribution to a conversation, you will want to be aware of the issues that have been talked about and of the things that have been said before.

  • You will not generally make statements simply ‘because they are true’ (even if they are true). If you refer to something that has been said before, you will tend to indicate somehow that you are aware of this.
  • Neither will you just say once more what someone has just said before you. If you introduce information, you will tend to make clear, why you are mentioning this.
  • In any case, you will generally check that your contribution is relevant to this conversation. You will also make clear what your own position is in the conversation: Is your purpose to agree with previous speakers and support what they have said? Is it to contradict them? Is it to add a different angle or to start a new topic?

There are differences, of course: In everyday conversations you will check the relevance of your contribution more or less intuitively. In written academic work, this process must be made explicit as part of your contribution, and it usually takes a good deal longer. As you are doing your research and finding your topic, structuring your ideas and your argument, and finally writing and revising your paper, it may help you to bear this in mind.

Providing a Map and Putting up Signposts

As you are writing, make sure you signpost your paper: Where will you be taking the reader, by what means and by what route are you going to do this, and why should a reader want to go there with you? Make sure that you have addressed these questions in your introduction. Give your readers a map, and set up signposts at appropriate places (e.g. at the beginning and / or end of chapters) in order to prevent them from getting lost, and make sure that at the end they know where you have taken them and why they should want to be there.

Relating to the Work of other Critics and Scholars

  • If other scholars have already dealt with this topic, ask: Do they agree with each other? Is there a current controversy? Were there controversies in the past? What were the points that were debated, what arguments were used (what kind of references were made to the primary materials you have analysed)? Was there a shift in opinion?
  • If few or no other scholars have dealt with this topic (made this observation, raised this question): why have they overlooked it? Is it simply too obvious, too easy to answer? Have they focused on something else instead (on what, and why)? What has prevented them from making this observation (or raising this question)? What would be gained by raising this question? Were they right or wrong to ignore this question (Perhaps it is too obvious or trivial? Perhaps they were prevented from perceiving its relevance by some kind of unjustified bias?)

Defining Your Own Position

Your line of argument will depend on where you stand in relation to this state of research. Is your goal to compare and evaluate critically the (different) existing research positions and measure them by the degree of insight and relevance they have for the question that you have chosen? Is your goal to add new perspective to the research?

Once you have looked at the state of research and the primary material as it relates to the topic that interests you, you can formulate a proposition that you will seek to substantiate. Here are a few typical lines of argument that may help you decide, which argument should guide your structure:

  • One typical line of argument: Scholars have always agreed that this phenomenon should be described as [x], but I disagree. The reasons [if any] they have given, are the following… The reasons why I disagree are the following.
  • Another typical line of argument: Scholars have never been able to agree about whether we should describe this phenomenon as [a] or as [b]. Those who favour [a] argue that …, those who favour [b] argue that …, a critical evaluation of their arguments shows that … [a is right / b is right / both are partly right and partly wrong / both are wrong and c is right]…
  • A third typical line of argument: Scholars have never noticed [a]. They have been talking about [b] and [c], however. In my judgment, the following reason(s) may be responsible for the fact that they have done so. I will now try to show why they were right [wrong] to ignore [a], for the following reasons…
  • …


Links

Retrieved from "https://wiki.angl-am.uni-oldenburg.de/index.php?title=Literary_and_Cultural_Studies:Writing_academic_texts&oldid=20664"