Literary and Cultural Studies:Writing academic texts

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. It is good to deal with it with an awareness of ongoing public debates.

• Can you summarize the ongoing public debate? (In media like Wikipedia, forums, blogs, newspapers - a question to inspire your curiosity.)
• Can you summarize the scientific debate? (You will have to do this so that your reader understands your position in this debate.)
• Where does the scientific debate differ from the debate you find in blogs or Wikipedia? (You do not have to address these public debates in your work, but they might give you a wider awareness of possible perspectives on your topic. Do speak of public views if there is an interesting discrepancy between them and scientific views.)
• If scientific research did not deal with your question: Why did it avoid the topic? Why do you think it still should deal with your question? Can you prove that a scientific answer can be given? (If not, do not continue with the question as you are possibly on a course to offer your personal opinion as one others have to accept as simply your personal opinion without a further debate).

Looking back on your work: 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 different present positions
• You may have supported an existing argument with your own look at a certain text
• You may have modified a perspective you found in public statements choosing a more scientific approach
• You may have promoted research in a certain direction
• ...

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 on the problem did you offer (method)
• What results were you aiming at?
• What steps of argumentation did you chose in oder to deal with the problem?

Research done by others

Summarise the present view(s) in a section at the end of the introduction, or (if more specific) in greater detail at the beginning of a respective chapter

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

Quote research (only) where this is necessary

• Common knowledge (as presented in dictionaries and handbooks) remains unquoted. Mention it casually where it clarifies a point you make: Marlowe wrote his Jew of Malta (1589 or 1590) without knowing Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice (1600). Get out of further summaries of common knowledge as soon as you realise they are designed to help students, whilst those within the debate want to hear what you have to add.
• Common perceptions and views (on "the Elizabethan period" or "morals of the Victorian age") are strictly off-topic. Refer to them only where you want to criticise them. (And criticise them only if you can show that they still influence scholars.)
• Knowledge we would not have without the work of a particular scholar (e.g. archival information he/she made available, a book he/she first moved into the debate) has to be referenced with that respect.
• All Views and opinions of other experts must be evaluated: What led this scholar to formulate such a view? Does your research substantiate this particular view?

A golden rule on this topic: Consider your own paper and reflect where you would feel exploited and disrespected by readers using your thoughts, your analysis... without stating that they received this insight out of your work.

See our Literary Studies:Research guide and our Literary Studies:Style sheet for specific hints.

Streamline your presentation

Avoid any knowledge you just want to add for readers who know as little as you knew in the beginning

You offer such knowledge in a lecture if you feel your readers cannot understand you otherwise (they cannot look things up while you are speaking). In a written paper they can be expected to close information gaps themselves, you are not supposed to improve their general knowledge. You are, however, supposed to prove your points. (General information usually does not prove any new idea.)

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.

The real problem is the interpretation you expect others to accept as your personal interpretation. Any view you want to protect with the statement that one can have different views, of course, but that this happens to be your view (and if others come to other readings, that's their decision, literature and culture are subjective and so are all views dealing with them) - remains simply personal. We might discuss the personal creations of artists, but our analysis is organised to proceed analytically, in an inter-subjective scientific debate. Any move towards personal interpretations is reserved to famous critics (who have discussed their general assumptions elsewhere), it is even where they speak essentially unscientific and it will be opposed by your professor as unacceptable even if he or she should share your personal value systems and your interpretation.

Make sure that your evaluations and judgments remain based on a logic you are interested to defend.

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

• 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

Links

• Jack Lynch's advice to his students at Rutgers