NB: See example at end of this document illustrating literary style replete with metaphors and value judgments that mimics scientific writing.
NEW
See aids in starting science papers just after the
DIALECTIC Style.
NEW See
Model Term Paper
at end of this window...
A SURVIVAL MANUAL FOR TERM PAPERS
Copyright 2002
by Dr Jack Vazzana
Name
Institution
Course
Instructor
Date
PHYSICAL
FORM
1.
General
a.
typed
b.
double-spaced
c. white
non-erasable paper
2. Cover
Sheet
a. title - centered - approx
2/5s from top of page
b. lower
right hand
corner
name
institution
course
instructor
3. First
Page
a. 1 1/4"
margins
b. number "1" centered at
bottom of page
4. Subsequent
Pages
a. 1 1/4"
margins
b. paginated consecutively
("2" ad infinitum...)
c.
pagination placement - upper right hand corner
WRITING SUGGESTIONS
The successful term paper clearly demonstrates
applied concepts from the lectures and the readings. It is a pragmatic exercise.
One need not be brilliant to write an outstanding term paper. Just follow
the rules and believe in your presentation. Lead the reader by the hand, step by
step, through the process of introduction, description, analysis, opinion and
conclusion. Assume the reader knows very little about the subject. Make it
interesting! As Sprague suggests, "Will the reader turn the page?" (1957) Use no
slang, colloquialism or "cutsey-cutsey" language. Do not try to be funny or
sarcastic. Have no surprise ending nor write in metaphors. Keep to the topic and
do not wander. There may be side issues, but focus on only one and do not try to
be a "social savior" with a political agenda. A multi-focus paper is not only
boring, but also confusing to the reader. Additionally, rambling leaves the
writer open to criticism. Stick to the point and give evidence for what you
present. Granted, human intention is often highly subjective and capricious, but
never get so involved you lose sight of what you are attempting to accomplish.
Leave your opinions for the paper's
end. In the body of the writing, however, never start a paragraph or sentence
with, "It is my opinion..." or "I believe ..." At that point, all a reader has
to say is, "It is not my opinion ..." or "I do not believe ..." and your
argument is destroyed as well as the counter-argument. This is similar to
someone replying in everyday interaction, "Well, that's your opinion." It is
immediately recognized that they are dismissing the other's thoughts because
they believe themselves to be "righter." Arguments
based on opinion are pointless. Do not do it!
NEVER
EVERS Never ever use "you", "I", "seems" or
"appears" in a formal paper. The frequent use of "you" makes the reader uncomfortable
because the writer appears to be "telling them what to think". Readers get bored
with "I" for its egotistic properties. Never ever use "seems" or
"appears" - something is or
is not - be positive. Never ever contract. "Can't" and others are always in the
form of "can not", etc.. Never ever ask questions in a formal paper. The reader is
looking for answers, not something that may add to their confusion. Never ever
use a dictionary as a reference. Dictionaries are authorities on spelling words correctly (sometimes) and that is their
worth! Never ever use an on-line reference, especially wikipedia. They are not
credible sources. Never ever use a "perfect example" because it does not exist. Something may be
"appropriate" as a model or suggested parallel, but it is never "perfect"! Never
ever assume your spelling is correct because you use Spell Check. For example, a
huge difference exists between "there" and "their"! One can have spelled
correctly and come off a real jerk because their words are not in context.
Never ever be colloquial and remember the word "alot" does not exist, nor does
"high pedal stool" for "high pedestal" or "co-in side" for coincide or
"wala" for voila and others! Never ever refer to a theoretical
perspective without defining and explaining it.
ALWAYS, ALWAYS ASK YOURSELF, "WILL THE READER TURN THE
PAGE?" (Rosemary Sprague; Western Reserve
University
1957)
References should be in-text and the use of footnotes is not permitted. For
example, Vazzana (1994) suggested that ..." or "... as it has been noted.
(Vazzana 1994)" (See the writing examples below for
more detailed referencing from sources.) Remember that the content of your discussion will "prove"
nothing but may "suggest" many things concerning the scientific inquiry. Of
utmost importance - get started! Just write an opening statement and do not
worry about the form or spelling. Get it going and worry about the finished
product later.
STYLE
There are two forms of research papers. One is the
"orthodox" style and the other is the "dialectic". Each are appropriate for
university level scientific writing, although the former is more commonly used
because it approximates the positivistic method of investigation. The
"dialectic" style is amenable to interpretive, contemporary discussions. Both,
when used in industry, are impressive for their clarity and directness. Common
to each is the introductory "statement of the problem". "Problem" does not
automatically infer a conflict. "Problem", in this context, means there is a
question posed that begs to be answered. Actually, "statement" is really one or
two sentences concerning what the writer is trying to solve or simply
investigate. It should be short and describe exactly what the question is. Do
not drone on and on boring the reader to turn to something else. For example, a
concise statement of the problem might be: The earth spins and goes around
the sun. (Baker 1956) Did this discovery have any historical and scientific
importance? Actually this is two questions, but that is all right - just
answer them!
This is a good opening because:
1. The issues are clearly
defined.
2. The facts are
referenced.
3. A question is
asked.
4. The field of inquiry is
defined.
Often an opening statement does not
contain a question, but will infer further investigation, z.B.:
This is a
visual history of role stereotypes in geography textbooks from 1880 to 1910.
Social meaning of visual role stereotypes were investigated involving, men,
women, children and race representations. The years of 1880 to 1910 covered the
confluence of engraving and the introduction of the photomechanical reproduction
process. This period is all the more important because textbook pictures
flourished in the 19th Century, especially in visually oriented geography
textbooks. (Vazzana 1994,1)
Does the
previous paragraph meet the four conditions mentioned earlier? How does the
referencing differ in the cited two opening statements? Although there is no
question directly stated, what is the question? Notice how both statements
immediately involve the reader without "baggage". They are direct, succinct and
interesting. One does not have to be brilliant to write a brilliant scientific
paper, but one does have to be clear and immediately "take the reader by the
hand" and lead them step-by-step on the trail to scientific discovery. Let us
now look at the two writing models.
ORTHODOX STYLE
This style parallels the contemporary paradigm of scientific inquiry:
1. statement of the
problem
2. literature
review
3. hypothesis and
testing
4.
results
5.
discussion
This is the most
used form for writing Master's Theses and Doctoral Dissertations, although it is
also used in science investigations throughout industry, but not to a great
extent in business. The style is rooted in positivism in that what is "real" is
observable and empirically verifiable. The following "Earth's Motions" will
illustrate this style and also show some of the problems involved.
First, the statement of the problem section has already been explained. The second section (literature review) is research into what has been previously written about the problem. In the following, if one investigates spinning earths and orbiting suns, there is a great deal of information. For most of recorded history, the sun was generally considered as revolving around the earth which is known as the Ptolemaic System and was only challenged by Copernicus (Baker 1957,164-168). Galileo reinforced Copernicus' theory through his observations of Jupiter's moons, but was considered a heretic by the Inquisition and spent the rest of his life, 1633-1642, under house arrest (Bently 1966,115).
The new theory was in every way superior to the
old Ptolemaic system. It was far simpler and mathematically sounder, but it
upset many old notions. Aristotle had taught that the sun moves around the
earth. The common man thought he saw it so move. And churchmen had accepted this
view, for it seemed to fit in with the notions which made the earth the great
central stage on which the drama of man's salvation was being played. The
Copernican Theory which demoted the earth and its inhabitants to a secondary
role, therefore, made its way, but slowly. It was not accepted by the most
educated men before the middle of the Seventeenth
Century.
(Hayes, et.al., 1956.482)
With the above quote, we can now construct an interesting web of different viewpoints and philosophies that the literature search has discovered. In a sense, it has also answered the basic question of the problem statement. There was great historical importance to verification of the specific motions in a scientific, philosophical and religious understanding. In fact, the literature reminds us that there was a significant change in scientific paradigms (Kuhn 1970). Scientific consciousness was forever changed. This is the value of a literature search - it gives perspective to the investigation of where it has been and where it may be going. Most students in the 21st Century know that there are more than the two celestial motions just stated. An interesting investigation would be to research how other motions were discovered and how they fit into the then contemporary scientific milieu. There would be great room for discussion about the results and the effects on contemporary science. Ultimately, the writer (in the last section) has the opportunity to offer any sound and/or personal opinions on the issues whatsoever. Finally the study is published and entered into the body of knowledge for a peer review and critique. And critique they will - sometimes unfairly, but one must get used to this and defend their findings. If a writer wishes to have their work accepted at face value and are overly-sensitive to criticism, then scientific writing is not for you!
Nevertheless, the Orthodox Method is the accepted style of scientific contemporary writing. Obviously it may be too extensive for undergraduate work and most papers can be stopped at the "literature review" stage with some modifications as we shall shortly see!
DIALECTIC
The "Dialectic Style" utilized Hegelian philosophy (Lichtheim 1967) involving three sections:
1.
Thesis
2.
Antithesis
3.
Synthesis
The Thesis is the problem statement and the supporters of such. The Antithesis is who opposes the Thesis. The Synthesis critically discusses the interplay between the previous in an attempt to find just where the truth may lie. At the end of the Synthesis is the author's personal opinion and a summary of that which has gone before. For example:
The earth spins and goes around the sun (Baker 1956). Does this discovery have any importance in science? Actually it was a landmark. Prior to Copernicus, the best scientists felt that the sun revolved around the earth which was the center of the universe. This corresponded with religious dogma of the time that man was created in God's image and that it was only natural the earth would be the focus of the Creation's pageant. This blend of science and religion was the basis of scientific belief and investigation of the day (Hayes, et.al. 1956). In other words, much of science was devoted not only to discovering the secrets of the natural worlds, but to verify the existence of God. Copernicus did not entirely hold to this idea and proposed the earth spun around the sun (Baker 1957). This was against the orthodox beliefs of the day and met much resistance from the finest minds. Galileo, a century later using refined telescopes, confirmed Copernicus' beliefs by observing Jupiter's moons. For this Galileo was indicted by the Inquisition and spent the remainder of his life under house arrest (Bently 1966). We now understand that Copernicus and Galileo were correct, but their experience demonstrates how difficult it is to implement change, especially when it goes against religious beliefs (Kuhn 1970). Often people may have to give up their entire careers or even their lives for new ideas. Sometimes it is only the very bold that have the strength of their convictions to go against overwhelming social pressure in the name of what they believe is "scientific truth". But science builds on the past and as Isaac Newton suggested: "I have seen so far because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." Well, that is true. Newton was brilliant, which took him far, but history also tells us Newton was not a very nice person. He probably stepped on more people by standing on their shoulders!
Identify the three sections (thesis, antithesis, synthesis) in the previous. On what point does the author build? How is the paragraph summarized? What is the author's personal opinion? This format is popular with university students and it serves their purposes well. When executed with clarity, the Dialectic Style is also an impressive critical review and suggestion format. It involves research and critical thinking and good hard work. Challenge yourself on term papers and never write for the teacher - write to make yourself feel good about what you are doing. It lasts a lifetime.
AN AID TO STARTING SCIENCE
PAPERS NEW
Most people who write serious science papers have some
difficulty introducing their work to the reading audience. What one wants to do
is have a focus and then discuss it. This focus is very important in science
because, as Robert K. Merton suggested, it must not be too big as to take too
much in, nor too small and really say nothing. A good middle-range topic is what
one looks for with a strong focus on just one idea. The problem is the
introduction. Here are some ideas on how to accomplish a clear introductory
statement and to explain to the reader just exactly where you want to go, but
read the cautionary statement at the end of the examples:
1. Analysis: The purpose of this paper is to
describe developmental stages from infancy to adulthood.
2. Relative value of two or more concepts: The purpose
of this paper is to compare Functionalism, Conflict Theory
and Symbolic Interactionism to determine their efficacy
in specific social situations.
3. Definitions: The purpose of this paper is to
establish the meaning of "Social Reality".
4. Causes: The purpose of this paper is to explain
possible reasons for Cooley's The Looking Glass Self.
5. Cause-Effect: The purpose of this paper is to
discuss the suggestion that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer.
6. For or Against a policy: The purpose of this paper
is to discuss the merits or drawbacks of America's policy
on terrorism.
7. For or Against an established statement of fact:
The purpose of this paper is to establish that heroin
is a harmful drug.
8. Identify and discuss a trend: The purpose of this
paper is to discuss that contemporary women are having
more abortions than women of the mid-twentieth
century.
9. Development: The purpose of this paper is to
discuss the change in attitude toward homosexuality
from 1970 to 2006.
10. Main ideas: The purpose of this paper is to discuss the
Mechanical Metaphor of Freud's psychoanalysis.
11. General concepts through specific examples: The purpose
of this paper is to discuss Goffman's Dramaturgy
through everyday examples of social
interaction.
12. Technique: The purpose of this paper is to discuss how
Dr Jack's model for deviancy explains the process
as opposed to Labeling.
13. Contrast and comparison: The purpose of this paper is to
discuss the relative merits and drawbacks
between Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and
Goldberg's Goal Theory.
14. Relate a part to a whole: The purpose of this paper is
to discuss the function of men in the
contemporary family structure.
15. Classification into groups or categories: The purpose of
this paper is to discuss smoking and its
demonization relative to Functional,
Conflict and Interactionalism Theory.
NB: These are opening statements on focus. Shortly one must then propose a
thesis or more specific idea of what one is going to do what they have proposed
to do. For example: (focus)
The purpose of this paper is to discuss how Dr Jack's Model explains
the process of deviancy as opposed to labeling. (thesis)
The Model is a generic explanation of moving into the ~ASB area while
labeling ends processes of positive communication.
REFERENCES
Baker, Robert H.. ASTRONOMY. 6ed.
(VanNostrand: Princeton) 1957.
Bently, Eric.. GALILEO BY BERTOLD
BRECHT. (Grove Press: New York) 1966.
Cohen and Lotan. WORKING FOR
EQUALITY IN HETEROGENEOUS
CLASSROOMS.
(Teacher's College Press: New York) 1997.
Hayes, C.J.H., Baldwin, M.W. and
Cole, C.W.. HISTORY OF EUROPE. rev.. (MacMillan
and Company: New
York) 1956.
Kuhn, Thomas S.. THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS.
2ed.. (University
of
Chicago Press: Chicago) 1970.
Lichtheim, George. ed.. THE PHENOMENOLOGY OF
MIND - GWF HEGEL.
(Harper
Torchbooks:
New York) 1967.
Vazzana, Jack. A VISUAL HISTORY OF ROLE STEREOTYPES IN
GEOGRAPHY
TEXTBOOKS
FROM 1880 TO 1910. (UMI: Ann Arbor) 1994.
For a more complete discussion of form
and writing see THE CHICAGO MANUAL OF STYLE
14ed.. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Note in the following term
paper, the author does not violate any of the "never evers" and
simulates a scientific writing. It is an impressive work, but is not a true
science paper. There is an excessive use of metaphors. Science deals with "that
which is", not that which "is like something!" This is a bright student that
fell in love with their own words. Not an uncommon event. Nevertheless, the
paper was judged as an "A" and, in the context of an undergraduate, justly
deserved. What should
be observed is the lack of personal pronouns and attention paid to appropriate
words and phrasing. Some concepts, however, do need clarification, zB;
"...exorcise itself from preconceived states of consciousness." There are too
many statements that need clarification and the paper, in Graduate School,
would
have been graded a "B". Another difficulty is the assumption of certain conceptual philosophy,
non-indigenous to the discipline, that is not common knowledge. In other words,
it is an inappropriate mixture of science writing and so-called creativity or
particularism. This can be disaster and the writer must be more careful to focus
on science (if that is their goal) in further efforts. Be that as
it may, most Professors would briskly bid to have such a student in their class.
Model Term Paper by Kent:E. Liv. student
- click here ...
Marilyn Ippolito
Comparative Political Systems
University of Pittsburgh
Precis 3: Units 7 & 8
A tenable vehicle for political anthropology’s continuing search for an understanding of power includes two concepts: Eric Wolf’s theory of the retaining of an historical perspective, to act as a compass to navigate through the rough seas of traditional/modern global discourse, and secondly, a sensitive approach in regards to the symbolic nature of hegemony in respect to those domains and dimensions of power which embody "culture", (i.e.: gender, class/race, race/ethnicity) as it acts as shifting winds for the sail.
It is not a ship adrift that anthropology fears most; rather it is its inability to exorcise itself from its own preconceived state of consciousness. The abstract nature of the study of symbolic power as well as Foucault’s theory that dominant control pervades the discourse of social construct itself, act as latitudinal and longitudinal course settings through intricate straits of discursive human interaction. It essentially comes down to the ability to accept the ‘variable’ of change as a constant dynamic. Yet, as the influx of transnational social relations accumulate and interweave to create a clogged "Sea of China of Social Movements and Political Ideologies" of sorts, there remains the intense necessity to safeguard the ‘buried treasure’ of ethnographic study at the core, in order to avoid circularity.
In addition, the long oars of the contribution of feminist anthropology theory need to be evaluated in the same context as the original theories of political anthropology, with the recognition that not only do these theories have no intention of folding in upon themselves, or become "closed boxes", but that in terms of informative discourse on adaptation, articulation and resistance, these theories have proven indispensable tools of navigation on the anthropological journey, if not the actual proponents of the jettison of irrelevant ballast that may have well sunk the entire ship of discourse long ago.
Politics of identity, as a sea monster of sorts, rears its head in the discourse of the simultaneous creation/segmentation of the working class. Bourdieu’s ‘ideology of misrecognition’ shows how the state’s manipulation and control result from cultural actual "autonomy from the state and a democratic ‘internal’ organization."
Conflicting views exist among European and Latin American theorists, particularly in regard to Eurocentric views analyzing social movements as global processes associated with postmodernity. The first obvious objection lies in making Latin America a ‘classic’ model, supposedly derived from the Northern experience. Although there are similar issues, such as more women in the labor force, in terms of race and ethnic questions as well as pervasive poverty and urbanization, there can be no simple universal comparisons between ‘advanced’ countries and Third World nations, particularly in terms of hegemonic devices, identities, and the control of historicity.
The nearly indefinable ‘class position’ of those in Third World countries is due to the difference in the evolution of their own specifics. The identities of particular social movements cannot be universally connected to the actors’ place in the economy when that economy is constantly dynamic. ‘Newness’ becomes metaphorical and abstract, and needs to be addressed in terms of Foucalt’s theory of power. Social identities are always discursive constructions. "Social subjects and their practices are constructed through discourses, on ethnicity, gender, and indeed, politics." In this sense then, hegemony is reduced to a matter of "the misrecognition of the misrecognition." Using Bourdieu’s insistence on the mediating role of the habitus, we can keep theories of identities from floating away into discursive constructs like dandelion spores.
It is Bourdieu’s identification of the ‘established order’, out of which arises the sense of reality to which he refers to as "doxa", "the world of tradition," experienced as a natural world, and thus taken for granted." The "doxa" helps to create systems of classification which contribute to the reproduction of the power relations of which they are the product, and secure "the misrecognition and hence, the recognition of the arbitrariness on which they are based." "The theory of knowledge is a dimension of political theory because the specifically symbolic power to impose the principles of the
back to Academic Aids
back
to Assignments