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

From Angl-Am
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Different formats: seminar paper, BA-thesis, dissertation, essay, academic article)
 
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. Study the object in question. A good term paper will make observations one might not immediately make. Think of how others would interpret (or interpreted) the object in question. Ask yourself whether it is interesting to go beyond.
+
  
−
Avoid the safe statement. "I analyse the complexity of the piece, my thesis is that the author made it that complex to make it more interesting" (avoid that statement especially if you felt, you only read such complex stuff for seminars, personally you find it utterly uninteresting since it is so tediously and boringly complex). Another safe and boring statement: The author wrote it like this because he had a personal feeling moving him..." (You mean: Now that we understand that there was a personal feeling we have to know his life story and then we can claim to understand the object: it is simply personal, the way he does things when he feels like this. If you go that far you claim that there is actually nothing to discuss in the object. The author had to produce it like this out of personal reasons). The material you are analysing is public, you create public relevance. You should eventually be able to say more about the object and the culture dealing with it, and you should try to offer perspectives only someone schooled in looking at such materials can offer. 
+
==Phase 1: Research – Finding Your Topic==
  
−
Your paper is supposed to be a contribution to the ongoing '''scientific''' debate. Avoid your own biography as the reason why the object should be interesting. You have to sell your statement about the object to an audience. Public perceptions can be the object of your analysis. Your position towards them hast to be that of a distanced scientist.
+
* 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 you must sell them as views others can accept as simply advantageous in an argument, that is as more revealing, more potent to influence new research 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 that they hence should allow you your own view). Some students feel they received a bad mark, because their professor did not like their view. You misunderstand the role of your professor. '''Your professor should discuss your work in order to find out: what is merely personal opinion and what has the power to make points in the ongoing debate''' (as for instance an interesting refutation of views, or a viable substantiation of positions you dealt with, a new reading you offered with an awareness of its advantages).
 
  
−
== 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 where you should rather lead to 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 the reason why you will write a chapter on each of them, and finally a conclusion. Your paper is the result of your work not its beginning. Hence, write with the conclusion in mind. If you can show that these characters have basically three functions in the play, then do write chapters on these three functions and discuss them. If 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 - then defend your analysis with the appropriate headlines.
 
−
* Be careful if you offer too many chapters. A 12- to 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 and a debate of possible views together with a reflection of this 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. Reflect and address
+
−
* The 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 materials that require a new interpretation...
+
−
* The debate: Summarise 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 where address a topic of wider public discussions). 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.
+
  
−
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 raising a further discussion? Or: 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 in order to deal with this 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?).  
−
Good work has a certain rhythm. It raises questions and answers them. You lose your readers if they wonder: Why are we reading all this? An effective chapter has a certain length. If it is too short (e.g. a page or two) it is likely that it does not contain any observation plus an analysis of the results. Think of 3-5 page chapters and the points you want to make with them. To what result do you need this chapter. Some tips:
+
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.  
  
−
* A good headline does already make a point.
+
==Final Steps==
−
* Open your chapter with an outline of what you are trying to say with the following. What is your statement, how will you prove it.
+
−
* Your statement has to be based on observations.
+
−
* Observations remain - on the other hand - worthless if they do not substantiate your statement.
+
−
* Make sure that you are aware of alternative readings. Read research in order to be aware the debate.
+
−
* End every chapter with a conclusion - if possible with a conclusion in which you show what you have done up to here and what remains to be done in your present paper.
+
  
−
The audience of your paper has an academic background. Read academic research to find the appropriate tone. Take it for granted that your audience has read the text and the research involved (only if you do that you will be prepared to answer the more interesting questions); on the other hand write as if this audience suffers a short term fits of amnesia. If you quote a passage of a novel tell very briefly where we are. If you refer to a statement of research - give half a sentence to remind us of the situation in which this statement was made.
+
===Settle for a Title===
  
−
Take a look at the [[Literary and Cultural Studies:Style sheet]] for further information about how you quote other texts.
+
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).
  
−
== Conclusion: What have you done? ==
+
===Check for Formal Correctness===
−
The general question is here: What is the use of your work? What were you trying to do? What do you think you could achieve? How would you continue research on this question?
+
  
−
Introduction and conclusion should correspond with each other. Both should be designed to anticipate the evaluation your professor will give your work. Your professor will ideally offer his/her evaluation in a statement with brief remarks on
+
Reread for typing errors, spelling, grammar and syntax, incomplete sentences, style, formatting specifications.  
−
* the field of debate (is it a question under discussion, should it be more discussed, or is it outdated or uninteresting?)
+
Make sure the chapter headings in the table of contents and the headings used in the paper are the same.
−
* what you wanted to demonstrate
+
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.  
−
* what you actually managed to show
+
Make sure that you have documented all sources for ideas or statements that you take over from other sources (avoid the appearance of plagiarism).
−
* the extent to which you have managed to write a scientifically interesting work in this process (you might not have gone beyond stating personal likings, you might have worked with unreflected methodological assumptions, you might have ignored research and stated what has been said already, you might have swelled your work with a presentation of circulating information instead of discussing your question or even finding it, you might have addressed an audience that does not exist: readers who have no knowledge about the subject matter and who are not even interested in reading such papers.)
+
  
−
Show that you are aware of your decisions and of problems you encountered. You have reached the aim of your studies if you can speak and gain the respect of colleagues in the field.
+
==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.
−
Structure you bibliography
+
−
* General resources (you will not always have such a heading, yet sometimes you'll need it for example to mention biographies of primary texts you used)
+
−
* Primary sources (the materials you analysed)
+
−
* Secondary sources (research dealing with your materials)
+
  
−
The usual structure is alphabetical. It is often more interesting to bring the items into a chronological sequence. Take a look at the [[Literary Studies:Research guide]] to quote your materials consistently.
+
=== Joining a Discussion / Joining a Conversation===
  
−
A general question is what editions you should use. You might have read the cheapest edition of a novel, your reader might, however, be unable to get hold of that old and outdated 1963 edition. Use good editions with a reliable text source. Read critical editions if you are dealing with books that developed a complex publishing history, i.e. editions that tell you something about the different versions that existed. If you have access to editions published in the period you are dealing with (e.g. through EEBO and ECCO) use them. Should you use the first edition or the last the author modified before his/her death? There is no general answer on that question. If the editions differ immensely you will rather use the edition that helps you to make your point and speak about the choice in the methodological assertion in the introduction.
+
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.  
  
−
== Different formats: seminar paper, BA-thesis, dissertation, essay, academic article ==
+
===Providing a Map and Putting up Signposts===
−
'''12-15 page seminar papers''' are a format the German academic system is traditionally fond of. The usual length varies between 12-15 pages (Aufbaumodul 6KP, old Proseminararbeit) and 25-30 pages (old Hauptseminarbeit). The format is - if you compare it to the essay you will be required to write at a British or North-American University - less creative, more defined to lead to a discussion of research. That is also why the paper is usually handed in several weeks after the course. You are supposed to spend a couple of weeks on research and your paper. To understand the cultural differences one has to bear in mind that the German University system was designed for students who had already written more personal essays back in their school days. The essay written in British and North American Universities are supposed to gradually lead to a constructive reflection of research. The focus is more on the personal opinion. The step towards a summary of research rather done in final work. The German seminar paper is an interesting format with the step from the personal to the more public statement it requires. The successful piece of work shows a certain maturity, it invites the critical exchange. It is leading towards the article one could publish in an academic journal.
+
  
−
'''BA-thesis''' and '''dissertation''' do not structurally differ from the Aufbaumodul seminar paper. They are just longer and growingly aware of the contribution one has to make. A seminar paper can support a present view with new observations. The final BA-paper has to be based on several weeks of research. You should be aware of the shift of perspective research brings about. the Dissertation must have the potential to influence further research. That is why the dissertation is only acknowledged if it actually finds a publisher and if it actually risks the critical evaluation of readers elsewhere.
+
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.  
  
−
The British and North-American '''essay''' is usually about 3-5 pages. Students can be supposed to write three such essays whilst the course is going on. They have a weekend to write the paper and spend a day or two reading research for the particular paper. The structure of the essay is less formal. It is advisable to include
+
===Relating to the Work of other Critics and Scholars===
−
* Observations (reading and anaylsing materials)
+
 
−
* A thesis
+
* 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?
−
* A discussion of the thesis
+
* 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?)
−
* An outlook (giving the work its potential relevance)
+
 
−
Structures can differ. One might begin with an observation, create a problem, go into research, discuss this research with a look on the object, come to conclusions. One could also begin with a scholarly statement, discuss it, re-evaluate it with a look at other research, balance the view with a look at the material in question. Or one might begin with a public perception, add the more scientific reflection, go to materials and discuss them, come to a conclusion. The good essay might not have a paragraph on the method chosen. Yet it will be written with an awareness of the methodological decision. The essay will get its reader with its succession of thoughts. The longer German term paper allows to work with different arguments that can be brought to ends. New chapters allow fresh beginnings, new projects - that is the special freedom the longer paper offers.
+
===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…
 +
* …
  
−
The '''academic article''' is usually a mixture of the German 12-15 page seminar paper and the British and North-American essay. The sequence of steps can be chosen as the object and the thesis require. The German notion is that you step through a solid argument to develop the skills with which you will not fail in a situation of greater academic freedom. The British and North-American notion is that you move from the personal statement to one you can make in a public confrontation. The aim is the same: a statement others can refer to as one that brought the ongoing academic debate a step further.
 
  
−
Whatever genre you have to deal with, remember: '''You are expected to produce a difference between what one would have said without a scientific exploration and what you have said with the distanced look of the scientist who is able to analyse both, the object in question and the discussion dealing with it.''' --[[User:Olaf Simons|Olaf Simons]] 13:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 
  
 
==Links==
 
==Links==

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"