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

From Angl-Am
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎How do professors evaluate our work?)
 
(137 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==First thoughts==
+
The process of writing research papers can be divided in three phases:
−
===You will have to make a statement - academic work is written to be quoted===
+
−
A good piece of academic work is a text others could quote - either for its new and substantial information or for its new evaluation of a situation.
+
  
−
A text others can quote has to be written with a preconception of what you think your readers should quote. Your readers must become aware of the question you studied, they must be able to summarise your result or your position in the debate you entered. If you want that people can quote you on something they must become able to summarise your work in a few sentences before they quote you on it.
+
==Phase 1: Research – Finding Your Topic==
  
−
===You will have be able to explain why your question is interesting===
+
* 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.)
−
Research answers questions - yet not all questions are interesting. You can challenge the results of someone else's work - that will be fascinating if you attack thoughts most of your readers will share. You can just as well answer a question no one hast asked before - in which case you will have to make sure that your audience realises why one should be interested. Both - the question and the possible answers - must be interesting. You will have to write an introduction to create this interest.
+
* 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.  
  
−
On the dissertation level this can only be done with a look on research and the current debate. On the student level it will be sufficient to begin with a surprising contradictory, startling aspect out of which you develop your question:
 
  
−
:''Le Morte Darthur'' (1471/1485) is published as Christian Arthurian epic, yet the heroes of this epic fight mostly without even asking for a just cause. They kill other knights at random - strangers they meet on their ways - as if to avoid the fight would be dishonourable; they fight for their honour even if the accusations against them are, objectively, justified. How is this extreme and often indiscriminate violence justified?
+
==Phase 2: Structure – Planning Your Paper and Formulating your Thesis==
  
−
...that is already all you need to go ahead and to wonder how one would answer such a question.
+
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.  
  
−
===Develop your question: Get into a situation in which you can offer more than one solution===
+
* 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.)
−
You are not demanded to give your perfect answer. Your work is much rather evaluated with a look at the awareness with which you worked. Do you just recapitulate what you read elsewhere? Do you just give your thoughts? These are the bad options.
+
* 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.  
  
−
The interesting piece of academic work reaches a point, at which you can give more than one solution. Think of different answers
 
−
* the answer your reader is likely to give
 
−
* the answer you would have given three weeks ago, before you invested more work on it
 
−
* the answers research has already given,
 
−
* the different answers one gets depending on what kind of research one applies.
 
  
−
It will be good to write the opening passages of your work with the feeling that you could have done it in more than one way - and that you choose quite another structure if you wanted to make the points others would make.
+
==Phase 3: Writing and Revising your Paper==
  
−
You will write a good opening section once you feel you know what kind of work others would have written - and why you rather invested a bit of more work to write the work you ultimately wrote.
+
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:
  
−
===Check research===
+
* 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?).
−
See our [[Literary Studies:Research guide]] for further help).
+
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.  
  
−
==How do I structure my work?==
+
==Final Steps==
−
Beginners are often tempted to think of a standard solution: "One does not understand my topic if I do not give first an introduction to the period, secondly say some important things about my author, and thirdly about his works. The result is an essay of 15 pages filled with an enormous amount of "necessary" background information - which can indeed be taken from Wikipedia or the greatest professors in the field without the slightest difference.
+
  
−
Remember: You are not writing an introduction into your topic - hence do not try to write outlines on periods and authors which will have to be brief and superficial (speak of such trivia only if your work is written to prove how mistaken these notions are). You are actually trying to answer a question with the aim to be quoted with this answer by others. Deal with the question - directly.
+
===Settle for a Title===
−
*Show why it is interesting to ask this question.
+
−
*Be aware of the different answers one could give.
+
−
*Think of the best sequence of follow-up-questions to be asked in order to get the answer you would defend as the appropriate one.
+
  
−
A second problem is that beginners tend to think of the materials they have to analyse: If a, b, and c are my materials, then my structure is clear: First chapter: my analyse of a; second chapter: my analyse of b; third chapter: my analyse of c; last chapter my conclusion.
+
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).
  
−
Do rather structure your work under headings which each propose a project of research. What do you want to find out with your look at material b?
+
===Check for Formal Correctness===
  
−
===The opening section===
+
Reread for typing errors, spelling, grammar and syntax, incomplete sentences, style, formatting specifications.
−
*should open the question
+
Make sure the chapter headings in the table of contents and the headings used in the paper are the same.
−
*should offer the answer one might give at first sight and take the step into a deeper analysis
+
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.
−
*should tell your reader how you will proceed with your investigation
+
Make sure that you have documented all sources for ideas or statements that you take over from other sources (avoid the appearance of plagiarism).
  
−
===Secondary literature===
+
==Further Questions?==  
−
You have to make clear where your work stands among existing research. This means:
+
−
*You have to give footnotes wherever you do something others have done already with the same or with contradicting results
+
−
*You have to position your whole work in the field of research:
+
−
**is there any research on this question
+
−
**where would others locate your work in this field if they had to speak about it
+
  
−
It is advisable to spend a whole chapter on the last question: "Where would others locate my work in the field of ongoing research". Offer this chapter after the introduction - or at the end of your introduction.
+
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.  
  
−
===Good headlines, good chapters===
+
=== Joining a Discussion / Joining a Conversation===
−
Good chapters are written with a self awareness: You can tell what point you are going to make, and you even tell why it is interesting to make this point. Ideally they are written with an awareness of different chapters that would have come to different results. You know what you wanted to prove and you anticipate criticism and alternative views by discussing these views within your work.
+
  
−
===The conclusion===
+
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.
−
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 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.  
  
−
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?
+
===Providing a Map and Putting up Signposts===
  
−
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.
+
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.  
  
−
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.
+
===Relating to the Work of other Critics and Scholars===
  
−
==Can I risk to state my own opinion - even if it contradicts my professor's?==
+
* 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?  
−
by all means, yes! The most interesting work is the one which leads your readers to second thoughts.
+
* 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?)
  
−
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.
+
===Defining Your Own Position===
  
−
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.
+
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?
  
−
===But if I am not interested in academic work?===
+
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:
−
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. Scientific work is not designed to motivate pupils - it is much rather a test whether you can get the attention of someone interested in the subject matter and whether you will be able to risk a mature tone, a tone in which you are no longer a pupil but a colleague. 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...)
+
* 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…
 +
* …
  
−
==How do professors evaluate our work?==
 
−
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 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.)
 
  
−
Secondly we evaluate your work first of all 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 trivial and not too ambitious.
 
−
 
−
A very good indicator of a good piece of work is that your reader can summarize your work: What was the topic, what points were you trying to make, how did you defend the individual arguments.
 
−
 
−
Your professor feels in a safe position if he or she could show your work to a colleague (who will not have seen the materials you were 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:
 
−
 
−
*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...
 
−
*that's good work, I understood it, and realise the student took a good step with this piece of work.
 
−
*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
 
−
*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
 
−
*...
 
−
 
−
==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]]
 
  
 
==Links==
 
==Links==
 
* [http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/EngPaper/ Jack Lynch's advice to his students at Rutgers]
 
* [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:Handout|Academic texts]]
+
[[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"