Three Steps to Teaching Abstract and Critique Writing

Academic Writing Resource List

Introduction to Scholarly Writing: http://www.ons.org/publications/cjon/media/ons/docs/publications/science_chpt 20.pdf

Three Steps to Teaching Abstract and Critique Writing: http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/pdf/IJTLHE28.pdf

Writing @ Colorado State University: http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/index.cfm? guides_active=scholarly&category1=36

Purdue University Online Writing Lab: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/

Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, Sixth Edition American Psychological Association (the front matter in this book has some GREAT tips!!)

APA Style Blog: http://blog.apastyle.org/

Things to Avoid (from http://personal.ashland.edu/~jmoser1/papers.html): Contractions: Words like “didn’t,” “couldn’t,” and “wouldn’t” should not appear in scholarly writing. Instead use the full words. Apostrophes should only be used to indicate possession (for example, George Washington’s presidency). Passive Voice: “Washington chopped down the cherry tree” sounds a lot better than “The cherry tree was chopped down by George Washington.” The former is simple and straightforward; the latter is wordy and clumsy. Occasionally you will have no choice but to use passive—for instance, when the subject of the sentence is unknown—but in most cases you should use the active voice. [In SOME disciplines] First or Second Person: In scholarly writing, the author is assumed to have “distance” from his or her subject. You should therefore write as an outside observer, not a participant, and you should treat the reader in the same way. This means that pronouns such as “I,” “we,” or “you” are inappropriate. Note that this document is not an example of good scholarly writing (it is, rather, a piece of technical writing). Incomplete Sentences: Every sentence must have a subject and a verb, unless it is part of a direct quote. There are no other exceptions to this rule. Imprecise Language: Use words that express your point exactly. If you write, “Theodore Roosevelt was a good president,” the reader will probably be left wondering what you meant by that. You might have meant that he was an effective president, or a strong president, or a morally upright president. Therefore the words “effective,” “strong,” or “morally upright” are all far preferable to “good.” Slang: In conversational English it is perfectly acceptable to use phrases such as “bumped off” to describe a killing, or “laid back” to describe someone with a relaxed attitude toward life. However, such language has no place in scholarly writing (unless it is part of a direct quote). In general, try to imagine how a reader one hundred years from now would react to your words. What would your reaction be to a paper that referred to something as the “bee’s knees” (an expression that was in vogue one hundred years ago)? Words Out of Proper Proximity: We see sentences like this all the time, and they are frequently good for a laugh. For example, “Witnesses described the thief as a six-foot-tall man with a mustache weighing 190 pounds.” What weighed 190 pounds? This sentence would lead one to believe it was the mustache, when clearly the author meant the thief. Excessive Wordiness: Do not use more words than you absolutely need to in order to make your point. For instance, do not write “Queen Elizabeth was a woman who knew how to rule” when “Queen Elizabeth knew how to rule” will work just as well. Do not write “time period,” when either “time” or “period” will suffice. Do not write “due to the fact that,” when a simple “because” will do. Excessive Quotation: Often writers who have yet to develop their own “voice” have a tendency to use a lot of direct quotes from other authors. This is tedious for the reader, and likely to leave him wondering whether you have anything original to say. Wherever possible, paraphrase the work of other authors instead of quoting them directly. Limit quotes to instances where the author uses a particularly striking turn of phrase, and where his or her precise meaning would be lost in a paraphrase. Dumb Mistakes: College students ought to know better than to confuse “its” with “it’s,” “there” with “they’re” or “their,” and “who’s” with “whose.” At the college level students should know that subjects must agree in number with verbs, and pronouns with their antecedents; for example, “Each of them had their own ideas” is wrong. “Each of them had his [or her] own ideas” is correct. Errors like this will cause the reader to question the basic intellectual capacity of the author. Plagiarism: Most are familiar with the notion that it is wrong to pass of another author’s work as one’s own. However, there are more ways of doing this than simply by copying another author’s words (or cutting and pasting from the Web). Some seem to think that by changing a few words one can avoid an accusation of plagiarism. This is wrong; avoiding plagiarism means citing every single source that you used in writing a paper—and “use” means draw any sort of fact (except those which are common knowledge) or interpretation. Plagiarism is the worst form of professional misconduct that there is in the discipline of history. A Step-by-Step Guide on Writing a Scholarly Paper by Eiichi Shimomisse (1996)

It is absolutely necessary that you will have a clear, articulate vision of what you would like to write on. No miracle or magic will happen such that you will be able to write a wonderful paper by just keeping writing and writing without any specific idea or plan. Do not deceive yourself. Should you plan to write a paper on some article by somebody else, it is absolutely necessary to read and re-read it again and again until you have understood it completely and have almost spontaneously come to an idea of what you would like to write. Do not assume that you will get a marvelous idea from the secondary material. Such an attitude will end up with plagiarizing what you plan to write on. Near the beginning, state clearly and concisely what you wish to accomplish in the paper: Example A: In this paper, we intend to systematically present Sartre's view of the Body..... Example B: In this paper, we shall attempt to critically appraise Kant's treatment of causality... Write a detailed outline!

Should you be explicitly aware of the approach you are employing (hopefully you are!), state your methodology with such detail that no reader will misunderstand your method. Example A: This paper attempts to phenomenologically analyse, elucidate and describe the phenomenon of "power". Example B: We shall explain why Heidegger failed to comprehend and disclose others' Dasein. Example C: It is our intention to apply Hegel's dialectical method to uncover the dynamic development of the philosophical thought in African philosophy. It is also necessary, if you are aware of them, to make explicit and clearly state your premises, assumptions and the scope of investigation: Under what assumptions, what presuppositions are you pursuing the task of this paper; and what kind of limitations are you going to impose upon this paper; e.g. State also if this paper consists exclusively of logical arguments, or of phenomenological descriptions, or of a combination of both. Should you write about someone else's idea or philosophy, explore and uncover the frame of reference of the author, the implicit assumptions, the logical, epistemological, ontological or even ethical presuppositions, and the naive, unquestioned employment of philosophical principles, concepts and relationships (Try to explore, e.g. assumptions of empiricism as to all knowledge coming from outer world, senses being receptive, while understanding (reason) being active, autonomous, etc . In case of either elucidating or critically appraising some philosopher's paper, a thesis or a concept, present a well-thought-out summary‹on the basis of your own outline of it‹ (if it be a principle or a clear thesis, make sure to quote it at the start of this portion). In case of attempting to present your own thoughts or opinions (to be always justified), make sure to compare them with the neighboring or similar thoughts, or opposite ideas, so that you are prepared to show that these thoughts did not come to your mind out of the blue, but came through long, careful deliberation. Should you develop an argument, make sure to write an outline and carefully examine it so that you will commit neither formal, nor informal fallacies (If you have forgotten what fallacies are, in particular, informal fallacies, go back to a Logic text.) Always try to give an example, whether or not you believe that such an example will assist the reader's comprehension. (Do not assume that the reader knows what you are talking about. Assume that the reader is ignorant. See below!) Should you present a phenomenological analysis and description, choose to demonstrate it by a concrete example which is most familiar to you (& also to any reader if possible) and continue keeping your sight on that concrete, particular example, even if you are attempting to do the description abstractly and in terms of universal concepts. (See the instruction for phenomenological analysis.) Clearly and concisely state the conclusion after having summarized the entire enterprise. Criticize, if possible, aspects which are a) weak, b) inconsistent, c) contrary to fact, and thereby distinguish the apparent "fact" and the disclosed fact. Upon completion of critical appraisal of the "object-article," try to summarize your conclusion in the final form including the immediately above stated critical appraisal of yours. Quotations: There are perhaps four cases in which you may use quotations. a) When you want to attack (or, seldom, elaborate on) the statement at the beginning of the discussion: b-i) When your contention or idea which you have just stated is to be supported, place the quote the quotation right after your construing statements; b-ii) Sometimes, we feel that the author said so well that it seems impossible to state the same by our own words. In this case, quote the author and right after the quotation, make sure to add your own interpretation of the quotation. In this case, you want to confirm or strengthen your own thought by the quotation; b-iii) When you want to reveal certain inconsistency of the author whom you criticize, state the inconsistency and support your argument by quotation. Repetitions Do not hesitate to repeat yourself (whether it is right after you said it once or later) when you consider the point very important. If you do not want to use the same words or expression, use a synonymous word or expression. Sentences: When you write a proposition, try to formulate your statement as concisely and precisely as possible. No assumptions: Do not forget that you are not writing for yourself, but for a reader who may not know what you already know. Do not assume anything when you write. Avoid the Straw Man Fallacy: Make sure that you do not commit the error of the Straw Man argument (by making the original argument (i.e, the argument of the object-article) so extreme or taken out of context so that it is of course easy to attack!). Be concrete, particular, not abstract nor universal: Sometimes it is very helpful to be more precise by beholding right in front of our eye a concrete example when you talk about something abstract.