Literary and Cultural Studies:Writing academic texts
Contents
Preliminary thoughts
Why scientific research if I only want to become a teacher?
Papers you hand in on the university level are supposed to show that you have understood the rules and conventions of academic research.
Why should this be necessary – if you are just thinking of becoming a teacher? Basically because this is the self awareness you should by all means overcome: “I am only a teacher”. You will feel self confident if you can handle all kinds of research of your subject English, from grammar and linguistics to didactics and literature.
You are therefore required to develop skills in these fields – skills which will enable you to evaluate prefaces of books, scientific literature, school curricula on the basis of research you yourself did.
Understand your paper as a (possible) contribution to scientific research
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.
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.
Do not aim at a scientific revolution – there are numerous moderate, yet efficient ways to contribute to scientific research
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.
Two things will remain necessary:
- You will have to define your position in within the scientific debate
- Your work must be designed to support your position with the help of observations you gathered in the primary sources you analysed
Structuring your work
A good piece of academic work is a text others can eventually quote in the scientific debate. Your reader is not your teacher (he/she will consider how far you got in finding a reader interested in research on this subject) but a colleague, someone else doing research in the field.
- 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 stand point 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 answer you have with your insight into the materials. Think of the discussion your results should raise.
Check research
See our Literary Studies:Research guide for further help.
Streamline your presentation in oder to present your observations and to make your points
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.
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 analysis of a; second chapter: my analysis of b; third chapter: my analysis of c; last chapter my conclusion.
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?
The opening section
- should open the question
- should offer the answer(s) one might give at first sight and take the step into a deeper analysis
- should tell your reader how you will proceed with your investigation (and why you chose this path rather than an alternative one...)
Secondary literature
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. Offer this chapter after the introduction - or as a final paragraph at the end of your introduction.
Good chapters lead your work a step further
Good chapters are written with self awareness: You can tell what point you are going to make, and you can 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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 the criticism and deals with it.
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.
How do professors evaluate our work?
- Is the question asked with precision?
- 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.
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.
Practical hints / Style sheet
- Observe the Literary and Cultural Studies:Style sheet
- Take a look at the Literary Studies:Research guide
- Remember the advice that helped you in your first assignments
