Study Skills Session II Writing Assignments Essays Dr

Study Skills, Session II Writing Assignments: Essays Dr Benno Teschke Office: Arts C 343 E-mail: B. g. teschke@sussex. ac. uk

Essay Writing in General • What is an academic/research essay? – Writing on a specific topic in an academic register – This involves: research/ways of approaching the issue/ constructing and substantiate an argument/use evidence/ analysis/conclusion • What is the purpose of writing essays - command academic debate on topic and develop independent argument – Research Skills (go to library) – Analytical and Critical Skills – Communication Skills (good presentation)

The Essay Writing Process You have received/decided the topic o Before Writing o o o Make sure you understand the question Do initial research & collect/skim through/read relevant readings (reading list and beyond) Develop an ESSAY PLAN (road map!) Do more readings /research as per your ESSAY PLAN NEVER START WRITING without having a clear ESSAY PLAN (regardless of any revisions you may have to do to it)

The Essay Writing Process: the Essay Plan q. How am I going to answer the question? Ø Think of your main thesis/argument (essays must develop an argument—never just describe) Ø Key themes/issues/variables (and their rationales) => develop essay structure/main sections Ø Supporting literature & evidence Ø Contemporary examples Ø Analysis (pros & cons) Ø Conclusion Ø Review the essay plan: each section must address the essay question and be a stepping stone in answering it

The Essay Writing Process: W v Essay Structure v. Introduction v Argument/thesis [what & how] v Locate/Contextualise your argument v Definitions of key concepts v Structure v. Main Body v. Development & Substantiation of Argument v Relevant literature v Other supporting evidence v (Contemporary) examples v. Conclusion v Sum up main points (and refer back to introduction) v State clearly your conclusion (make sure that it follows and is substantiated by your analysis in the main body; reiterate briefly the rational/justification for the conclusion)—this must be your answer to the essay question. v Avoiding bringing up new substantive issues v Other (weaknesses, broader implications/relevance) v. Bibliography

The Essay Writing Process: v. Re-read and make necessary changes ØIs it well-focused on the essay question? Did I stay ‘on target’? Don’t stray! ØIs the argumentation structure clear? ØWhat’s the purpose served by each and every paragraph/section ØAm I engaging with the relevant literature? What’s missing? Ø‘Let it be’ for some time & then re-read: a most important stage ØShow friend! Is it comprehensible?

‘introduction’: an example ROSEMARY FOOT (2006) ‘Chinese strategies in a US-hegemonic global order’, International Affairs , 82: 1 “The rise of China, especially marked in the 1990 s, has prompted a realist argument that the unipolar order is leading to the establishment of a Chinese-led anti-hegemonic coalition, and to China’s building up its internal economic and military capabilities in order to become a ‘peer competitor’ of the United States (1). Other analysts state that, while China (like some other states) generates ‘a paper trail’ indicating strong dislike of a US-dominated global order, its actual behaviour amounts to bandwagoning (2). The simplicity of these views makes them attractive; but in fact neither captures the complexity of Chinese perspectives or the sense of vulnerability that underlies Chinese behaviour. . . In this article, I will argue that… The structure of the article is as follows…”

‘conclusion’: an example Kim Richard Nossal (2004) Defending the Realm: Rethinking the Ideational Sources of Canadian Grand Strategy Conclusion In this paper I have argued that any exploration of Canadian strategic culture and grand strategy must address the fact that over the years Canadians have tended to define who and what is to be made secure in terms broader than the Canadian state. I have suggested that the term “realm” is a useful way to capture this dynamic, particularly because its etymological origins are apposite for an analysis of the Canadian experience in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when Canadian sovereignty was still located with the government in London… …given the restrictive vocabulary of traditional IR theorizing that tends to limit discussions of strategic culture to the state, we need an ideational construct that permits an analysis that more accurately reflects the reality of identity as it has been manifested in the Canadian historical experience…

Things to avoid in an academic/research essay Ø Be subjective Ø Be descriptive Ø Make generalisations or be vague Ø Take for granted what needs to ‘be proven’— treat ‘factors’ as self-evidence Ø Be ideological/normative (rather than analytical) Ø Let ‘quotes’ replace your argumentation Ø Don’t over-reference, don’t under-reference!

Exercise 1 : Style of Academic Writing 1. Is it academic, journalistic, fiction, novel etc. ? 2. Is its style appropriate for an academic/research essay? 3. What are its weaknesses in terms of academic/research style? 4. What are its strengths in terms of academic/research style?

Exercise 1 : Style of Academic Writing Sample 1 • “I think we can sum up the cause of our current economic crisis in one word — GREED. Over the years, mortgage lenders were happy to lend money to people who couldn’t afford their mortgages. But they did it anyway because there was nothing to lose. These lenders were able to charge higher interest rates and make more money on sub-prime loans. If the borrowers default, they simply seized the house and put it back on the market. On top of that, they were able to pass the risk off to mortgage insurer or package these mortgages as mortgage-backed securities. Easy money!” By Pinyo ‘What Caused The Financial Crisis Of 2008’? , • Sep 22 nd, 2008

Exercise 1 : Style of Academic Writing Sample 2 • “The present financial crisis springs from a catastrophic collapse in confidence. The banks were laying huge bets with each other over loans and assets. Complex transactions were designed to move risk and disguise the sliding value of assets…How seriously, then, should we take comparisons with the crash of 1929? Most economists believe we have the monetary and fiscal instruments and understanding to avoid collapse on that scale. And yet the IMF and the US treasury, together with central banks and finance ministers from many other countries, are capable of supporting the sort of "rescue" policies that led Indonesia to economic disaster in 1998” Joseph Stiglitz The Guardian, September 16 2008

Exercise 1 : Style of Academic Writing Sample 3 “The intervention, or rather interference, of the state in financial and economic matters can only lead to sclerosis, the suppression of enterprise, the raising of taxes, starvation of investment, lack of innovation, technological retardation and the rise of the power of organised labour. Judging from yesterday's interest cut, the much-vaunted independence of the Bank of England has already gone out of the window and state control of the central bank is back with a vengeance” Simon Heffer, ‘Financial crisis: We're all socialists now, comrade’, Telegraph, 10/2008

Exercise 1 : Style of Academic Writing Sample 4 “Financial liberalization—at least when implemented without an earlier upgrading of financial supervision—has also been shown to be a leading indicator of financial crises in emerging economies, as well as a factor associated with credit booms (Kaminsky, Lizondo, and Reinhart 1998; IMF 2004 a). These are not abstract concerns. During the past two years, real credit to the private sector has grown faster than 20 percent a year in some East Asian and Eastern European economies (IMF 2004 b). A number of emerging economies (including Hungary, Poland, Latvia, Indonesia, and Thailand) have also experienced rapid growth in consumer and/or mortgage credit over the past four or five years—some of it driven by the competitive forces of increased foreign-bank presence in these economies (BIS 2004)” Morris Goldstein

To Sum up: Writing Essays • see the ‘Guidelines’ in the Handbook The Art of Argumentation • Have a position (and answer precise questions) • Do make a bibliographical research • Use supporting evidence/examples • Weigh the pros and cons • Have clarity in expression • Have a good (=strong) structure • Have a clear conclusion that recapitulates your central thesis/argument

To Sum up: Writing Essays So, what must be there • Argument • Evidence • Analysis • Clarity • Structure (Introduction, main body, Conclusions, References, Bibliography) • Imagination/Originality

remaining queries • • Length (e. g. max. 2500 words) How many sources: the ‘golden number’ Do I need to use contemporary examples? Can I use ‘I’ in the essays? – E. g. I contend globalisation has had a positive effect vs. It can be argued • Any other questions?

Essays: Formal Evaluating Criteria see the ‘Soc. Cul Generic Assessment Criteria’ in the Handbook Marks Criteria 0 -19 (below the standards) far too short. badly jumbled and incoherent. fails to address the essay question. very limited knowledge or understanding. very weak spelling and grammar, very inadequate or absent references and/or bibliography. contains major factual errors 20 -39 (below, /upper) The above, but a non-clear argument + evidence, if factually wrong 40 -49 (acceptable standards) Evidence of some reading and comprehension. Weakly structured, covers only a limited range of relevant material. Have a weak/ incomplete argument. Poorly presented (footnotes/bibliography) 50 -59 (satisfactory to very satisfactory standards) Clear knowledge and understanding of relevant material, and focused on the essay question. reasonably well structured and coherently presented. satisfactory use of footnotes and a bibliography. Arguments and issues not fully documented/detailed. 60 -69 (a good to very good standard) good level of knowledge and understanding. good use of a wide range of material. well-organized, accurate footnotes/bibliography. Arguments/issues illustrated by ref. to well documented, detailed and relevant evidence/examples. critical engagement with topic 70 – 84 , 85– 100 excellent levels of knowledge/understanding. critical engagement. independent analysis & research. originality. fluently written.