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

From Angl-Am
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Introduction: Justify your work)
 
(37 intermediate revisions by one user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
== Choosing a topic: Your paper has to be a contribution to the ongoing scientific debate==
+
The process of writing research papers can be divided in three phases:
  
−
Do follow your interest and your curiosity. Think of something that startled you when first looking at the thing. Think, secondly, of readings you came across and that convinced you or did not convince you. '''Think of clarity you could try to offer'''.
+
==Phase 1: Research – Finding Your Topic==
  
−
Your paper is supposed to be a contribution to the ongoing '''scientific''' debate. Whatever you did, you will have to sell it to an anonymous audience of experts (e.g. at a conference or in a scientific journal). The story of how you dealt with the problem, what your learned in the seminar, what you felt when you first read the book... etc. is not part of your work.
+
* 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.  
  
−
Can you have personal views? Yes. But to win the audience you must sell these your results as results others can accept as simply advantageous in the ongoing debate. The absolute '''no go''' is the statement you define as personal with the assertion that others can have their own views and hence should not challenge yours. Some students feel they received a bad mark, because their professor did not like their view. You misunderstand the role of your professor and your work if you come to this conclusion. '''Your professor should discuss your work to find out: what is merely personal opinion and what has the power to make point in the ongoing debate''' (as for instance an interesting refutation of views, or a viable substantiation of positions you dealt with).
 
  
−
== Cover page ==
+
==Phase 2: Structure – Planning Your Paper and Formulating your Thesis==
−
See the [[style sheet]] for detailed information
+
  
−
== Table of contents: Make statements, be transparent ==
+
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.  
−
The interesting piece of work is problem oriented. The headlines offer solutions to problems. See [[#Your Chapters: Make points|“Your Chapters: Make points”]] for further information.
+
  
−
Be aware of the following general problems:
+
* 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.
  
−
* Some students feel compelled to offer a new introduction into “The Elizabethan Period” or “Shakespeare’s Life and his Work”. Do not offer any such chapter. Do not compete with handbooks.
 
−
* Avoid what is self evident rather than leading towards results. You are writing about the minor characters of ''Anthony and Cleopatra''. It is self evident that you will have to take a look at them. Do not let this be into the reason why you will write a chapter on each of them, and finally a conclusion. Your paper is the result of your work. So write with the conclusion in mind. You can show that these characters have basically three functions in the play? If that is your conclusion, then do write chapters on these three functions and discuss them. It is your conclusion that research has misunderstood this play as one of love, whilst it is actually a work of social criticism as soon as one looks at the minor characters? If that is your conclusion, then do offer the conventional readings and your own on the basis of your observations.
 
−
* Be careful if you offer too many chapters. A 12-15 page assignment might have an introduction of three pages, three or four chapters of three to four pages each and a conclusion of another page. If your chapters are of one page each you will not have risked the scientific exploration with a debate of possible views and a reflection of your work.
 
  
−
== Introduction: Justify your work ==
+
==Phase 3: Writing and Revising your Paper==
−
The introduction is almost the most important part: It is designed to sell your topic in front of an scholarly audience.
+
−
* Problem horizon: The field you enter
+
−
::What is your question? Why is it or why should it be a question of scientific interest. Can we hope to get beyond personal views, that is towards positions a further debate will have to take into account?
+
−
* The aim of your work
+
−
::You want to prove a certain position, to substantiate an observation, to balance a position with a look at a another work, to question an argument recently brought forth, to point at material that require a new interpretation...
+
−
* The debate: Research, discussions in the media
+
−
::Give a summary of the ongoing debate. Differentiate between a public and the scientific debate (your audience is located in the latter, even if address a topic of wider public debate). Summarize the debate as an exchange: What positions have been prominent following whose interventions. Can one discern movements? Did feminist research change our perspective? Did a certain event create a watershed? See our [[Literary Studies:Research guide]] to find research. 
+
−
* Your own work and its position in the debate
+
−
::Give an outlook of what you are doing in the field you have just opened.
+
−
* Methodological assertions
+
−
::Be aware of your own methodological decisions. If you feel that a certain interpretation failed to take an certain observation into account which you want to stress with your own work - then ask yourself: Was the interpretation you want to attack merely a personal point of view or rather made under assumptions we should not share. Be self critical at the same moment. You have a feeling like you know what character Jane Austen really was, and you want to re-interpret her work on the basis of this your view of her. Be aware that your reading will attract certain questions on your assumptions. (How have you created your picture of Jane Austen? Can you be sure that the work is like the author?) Reflect the validity of your own approach in about one paragraph of a 12-15 page assignment.
+
−
* A brief outline of the following
+
−
::The paragraph to write here should reflect what you have said under the last two headings.0
+
  
−
The introduction is to some degree the most important part of your work. You sell yourself in front of an audience - as an isolated voice who wants others to accept her view without further words? As an observer of the debate who takes a modest step to reconsider some of its points? Aim at the second role if you are a beginner. Be able to summarise the debate and to make your own statement with a certain amount of self awareness: You want to make a point, you know of other positions, you know what approach you took to deal with the question, and you structured your work accordingly.
+
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:
  
−
== Your Chapters: Make points ==
+
* 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?).
−
* A good headline does already make a point
+
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.
−
* Open your chapter with an outline of the following – What is the question? What will you do?
+
* 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.
−
* Each chapter has to be based on a presentation of observations
+
* 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?
−
* The observations remain worthless if they do not lead you to conclusions
+
* Revision. Having written a first draft of your text, check your text and your argument for cohesion, and especially revise the introduction, if necessary.
−
* Make sure that you are aware of alternative readings. Read research in order to be aware.
+
−
* End your chapters with conclusions
+
  
 +
==Final Steps==
  
−
* Avoid chapters of general background information: “The Elizabethan Period”, “Shakespeare and his Work” – you are supposed to deal with a question, every chapter should do that.
+
===Settle for a Title===
−
* Be critical of one or two page chapters. If you want to prove something you need space. A good chapter has an introduction “in this chapter I will try to show…”, your chapter will have observations and a debate plus a conclusion. It is hence obvious that you can possibly make a point in a chapter of less than three pages.
+
  
 +
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).
  
−
they are likely to lack vital ingredients: an opening of the question, research of yours, a discussion with a look at observations others have made, a conclusion
+
===Check for Formal Correctness===
  
−
== Conclusion ==
+
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?==
  
−
== Bibliography ==
+
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.
  
−
==Structure your argument==
+
===Providing a Map and Putting up Signposts===
−
Your work should have
+
−
*a problem analysis
+
−
*a look into materials with the aim to give answers on the specific questions
+
−
*an evaluation of possible views
+
−
*a statement of your position in the particular field of observation
+
  
−
When you begin your work try to think of different answers one could give. Write with knowledge about them.
+
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.  
  
−
==Streamline your presentation==
+
===Relating to the Work of other Critics and Scholars===
  
−
===Avoid any knowledge you just want to add for readers who know as little as you knew in the beginning===
+
* 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?)
  
−
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.)
+
===Defining Your Own Position===
  
−
===Write Chapters that actually offer answers===
+
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?
  
−
Every chapter you write must strictly refer to your question. Begin each chapter with a look back on the question you are now about to answer. You move from chapter to chapter with a look at what you were able to prove and what questions arose with these your observations.  
+
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…
 +
* …
  
−
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 foresee 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)
 
−
 
−
== Conclusion ==
 
−
 
−
 
−
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
 
−
* ...
 
−
 
−
==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 [[Survive Assignments|assignments]]
 
  
 
==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:Writing academic texts]]
 
[[Category:Writing academic texts]]

Latest revision as of 21:16, 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"