https://makingamark.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/breach-of-rules-taylor-wessing-photographic-portrait-prize-2017.html
I have been thinking about critical writing recently, and have come across a brilliant example in the above blog post by Katherine Tyrrell. So I'm going to analyse what she does. She is a retired senior civil servant and her writing shows her experience - I suspect she may have been something like a senior policy researcher, from her style and structure of argument.
Tyrrell starts by describing her purpose for writing about art competitions - 3 reasons. Then focuses on her 3rd reason - criticising the conduct of judging panels. Sad but necessary.
Makes the point that confidence in competitions is undermined by allowing entries that breach the rules, and allowing said entries to win prizes!
Gives example image.
Quotes from Judging panel - their first sentence confirms the entry is outside the rules.
Notes that £7,000 of prize money (funded by entry fees) was awarded to the entry that was outside the criteria.
Notes need for (MPs) everyone to operate within the law and clear rules.
Quotes competition legislation, Gaming Act, contract law, Advertising Code of Conduct.
Quotes from competition rules. Also quotes from entrant, who acknowledged her application is outside the terms and conditions - so no deceit on her part.
States Judging Panel only has titles and works, and no further information. Therefore competition administrator should have removed ineligible works prior to judging panel.
Quotes rules "Judges decision final and no further correspondence will be entertained". States she is outside of the competition and therefore can comment outside the competition.
States Judges do not have the right to vary the rules of the competition (i.e. eligibility or otherwise) or that they can include ineligible exhibits or award prizes to them, outside of the rules.
Suggests changes to rules be checked by a lawyer.
Notes competition was sponsored by Law Firm!
Notes there was no-one acting as Guardian of the Rules (in HR we used to call it Custodian of the Policy)
Suggests artwork could have been displayed outside of the competition, but at the venue.
Suggests rejected entrants/prize winners might want to claim their money back due to breach of rules - (reminds readers of Weinstein, Spacey, and 2008 BBC breach of Broadcasters Code and refunds subsequent)
Quotes Advertising Standards Authority - legal, decent, honest, truthful etc.
Sums up by suggesting Compliance with the Rules, Guardian of the Rules role, plan for non-compliant entries.
Clarifies that entrant was not at fault - clear statement of non-compliance
Names the Judging panel(!)
Provides bibliography
Provides links for previous winners.
I thought it was a brilliant piece of writing. Great structuring and clear narrative to a well reasoned outcome.
Wednesday, 22 November 2017
Sunday, 19 November 2017
Exhibition: Grayson Perry - The Life of Julie Cope - Firstsite, Colchester
Grayson Perry's exhibition opened last night, and the private view was absolutely heaving. I decided to go on Saturday morning, when it would be quieter, in order to sit and draw. This was a good decision.
There were 4 huge tapestries - two of the stages of Julie's life and two of her with each of her two husbands. The life tapestries were in GPs usual high colour, pattern and detail, and they repaid long study. As she is an Essex girl there was a lot of detail about Essex - from the Canvey floods with policemen with the Essex badge on the helmet, brutalist buildings and landmarks from Basildon, scenes from Colchester and Maldon. Absolutely brilliant detail.
Interesting use of the voiceover. GP has written The Ballad of Julie Cope which gives an auditory narrative to reinforce the visual narrative in the tapestries. Very clever social commentary that interweaves observations of how life has evolved in Essex, with social aspirations and the expectations contrasted with the reality of life. I identified with much of what the Ballad described, particularly when he poetically explains how the fictional Julie goes to university in mid life to expand her horizons. In her case, she then meets her second husband and life moves on. GP has an uncanny ability to pick out life details that many will identify with, and use them to demonstrate broader generalisations about life. I need to think about whether a written piece would enhance any of my embroidered samplers.
There were some of his sketchbooks on display, one of which is the original sketch from which the tapestry of Julie and her second husband was made. There were also about 9 linocut prints, unfortunately displayed opposite an orange screened window, which reflected on the photos. These prints were wonderful - GP has very distinctive ways of creating texture - circular scribbling, cross hatching etc - and it was lovely to see that these infills had been applied to linocut, for printing. Very inspiring.
Photos to follow
There were 4 huge tapestries - two of the stages of Julie's life and two of her with each of her two husbands. The life tapestries were in GPs usual high colour, pattern and detail, and they repaid long study. As she is an Essex girl there was a lot of detail about Essex - from the Canvey floods with policemen with the Essex badge on the helmet, brutalist buildings and landmarks from Basildon, scenes from Colchester and Maldon. Absolutely brilliant detail.
 |
| Courtesy of Firstsite |
 |
| Courtesy of Crafts Council |
Interesting use of the voiceover. GP has written The Ballad of Julie Cope which gives an auditory narrative to reinforce the visual narrative in the tapestries. Very clever social commentary that interweaves observations of how life has evolved in Essex, with social aspirations and the expectations contrasted with the reality of life. I identified with much of what the Ballad described, particularly when he poetically explains how the fictional Julie goes to university in mid life to expand her horizons. In her case, she then meets her second husband and life moves on. GP has an uncanny ability to pick out life details that many will identify with, and use them to demonstrate broader generalisations about life. I need to think about whether a written piece would enhance any of my embroidered samplers.
There were some of his sketchbooks on display, one of which is the original sketch from which the tapestry of Julie and her second husband was made. There were also about 9 linocut prints, unfortunately displayed opposite an orange screened window, which reflected on the photos. These prints were wonderful - GP has very distinctive ways of creating texture - circular scribbling, cross hatching etc - and it was lovely to see that these infills had been applied to linocut, for printing. Very inspiring.
Photos to follow
Sunday, 12 November 2017
Feedback on first draft of literature review - thoughts from my bike ride
During Writing Week, we were given advice from 3 highly experienced PhD assessors. One piece of advice was to get into a network of 'critical friends' so you can mutually critique each others work, so you don't end up handing in ill-crafted work. These Assessors had obviously seen too much work that was only crafted to first or second draft level. They said 8-12 drafts were normal.
So I took a brave pill, found a critical friend and sent my work to him. Oh my word - I've found a gem! He went straight to the heart of my discontent and identified what it was. I think participating in Writing Week has given me a very high overview of writing issues - but not given me the thinking skills to apply them.
One of my issues was about the use of integral and non-integral references. We were clearly told the difference between them - Author (date) says "..." (integral), or this is the idea (author, date) (Non-integral. Use one when you want to privilege the idea, the other when you want to privilege who said it. But no indicators as to when each is appropriate - that is for you to decide - unless your supervisor says otherwise! We were also shown bar charts analysing when integral and non-integral references were used in 4 different PhD theses (engineering, peace & justice; art, health sciences) - but these were only on the screen for 30 seconds each; they had different patterns of referencing; and had been randomly selected (not selected for being good examples). These bar charts showed referencing patterns varied, but not what was appropriate or why. So I came out of the session feeling somewhat bemused.
I decided to write my literature search as if the ideas were most important - so did non-integral references throughout. Yet, if I think about it, the literature search must focus on the high quality writers who went before - there is no point standing on the shoulders of anyone other than giants - so therefore credit them! Some of the points that I made, originated from the seminal writers in the field and were not opinion (which is how my review read). It would have been much easier if we had been directed to credit the authors in the literature review.
I had been worried that when I stopped writing about Standpoint Theory and Situated Knowledge, and moved onto Schwartz's Theory of Basic Values, it was too methodologically heavy and should be sited in the Methodology, rather than the literature review. But this appeared to be ok.
One of the Writing Week sessions told us about signposting. But I've not grasped how to do it. I suppose a major criticism of this week is that while we've been told what is needed, we have not been told how - or given examples of work that shows it. The Centre for Academic Writing does offer one-to-ones, but this means another trip to Coventry for me. Maybe I should submit a piece of writing to them for critique, and book a session with them before I have my next tutorial with Jill. I'd like to get my Literature Review wrapped up for my next tute with her on 28 November. Hand-in is on 7 December.
I think a major stumbling block to higher level education is that we just don't do enough writing. In my first degree we only did 2 essays a year (theory and taught modules were a small part of the process), and when studying abroad in Australia for a year, I think I did 6. For my time at London Met, we only wrote 1 piece per module, and these were not always essays. A friend who did a history degree a long time ago said he had to knock out 4 essays a month, and with this level of practice, he could do it quickly and articulately. If I had written more essays, for different purposes, I'd be more able to just knock out an essay. If I'd only had to use one referencing system I'd be at least partly competent at it.
My writing skills should be better. It's not as if I've never written. I find it odd that I'm still feeling as if I'm running in treacle, and that highly experienced PhD supervisors are making very basic criticisms of the work submitted to them. Yet it is obvious that the same mistakes are being made by students and they are not being pushed to the right quality before submission.
My critical friend was so helpful - but I feel a bit downhearted that I can't already write to the appropriate standards. I need to think of it like an apprenticeship (except I don't have 7 years) - I have 2 years on my MRes to get from beginner writer to master wordsmith. It takes a lot of practice and botched work to attain skill. I'm not sure whether this makes me feel better or worse!
So I took a brave pill, found a critical friend and sent my work to him. Oh my word - I've found a gem! He went straight to the heart of my discontent and identified what it was. I think participating in Writing Week has given me a very high overview of writing issues - but not given me the thinking skills to apply them.
One of my issues was about the use of integral and non-integral references. We were clearly told the difference between them - Author (date) says "..." (integral), or this is the idea (author, date) (Non-integral. Use one when you want to privilege the idea, the other when you want to privilege who said it. But no indicators as to when each is appropriate - that is for you to decide - unless your supervisor says otherwise! We were also shown bar charts analysing when integral and non-integral references were used in 4 different PhD theses (engineering, peace & justice; art, health sciences) - but these were only on the screen for 30 seconds each; they had different patterns of referencing; and had been randomly selected (not selected for being good examples). These bar charts showed referencing patterns varied, but not what was appropriate or why. So I came out of the session feeling somewhat bemused.
I decided to write my literature search as if the ideas were most important - so did non-integral references throughout. Yet, if I think about it, the literature search must focus on the high quality writers who went before - there is no point standing on the shoulders of anyone other than giants - so therefore credit them! Some of the points that I made, originated from the seminal writers in the field and were not opinion (which is how my review read). It would have been much easier if we had been directed to credit the authors in the literature review.
I had been worried that when I stopped writing about Standpoint Theory and Situated Knowledge, and moved onto Schwartz's Theory of Basic Values, it was too methodologically heavy and should be sited in the Methodology, rather than the literature review. But this appeared to be ok.
One of the Writing Week sessions told us about signposting. But I've not grasped how to do it. I suppose a major criticism of this week is that while we've been told what is needed, we have not been told how - or given examples of work that shows it. The Centre for Academic Writing does offer one-to-ones, but this means another trip to Coventry for me. Maybe I should submit a piece of writing to them for critique, and book a session with them before I have my next tutorial with Jill. I'd like to get my Literature Review wrapped up for my next tute with her on 28 November. Hand-in is on 7 December.
I think a major stumbling block to higher level education is that we just don't do enough writing. In my first degree we only did 2 essays a year (theory and taught modules were a small part of the process), and when studying abroad in Australia for a year, I think I did 6. For my time at London Met, we only wrote 1 piece per module, and these were not always essays. A friend who did a history degree a long time ago said he had to knock out 4 essays a month, and with this level of practice, he could do it quickly and articulately. If I had written more essays, for different purposes, I'd be more able to just knock out an essay. If I'd only had to use one referencing system I'd be at least partly competent at it.
My writing skills should be better. It's not as if I've never written. I find it odd that I'm still feeling as if I'm running in treacle, and that highly experienced PhD supervisors are making very basic criticisms of the work submitted to them. Yet it is obvious that the same mistakes are being made by students and they are not being pushed to the right quality before submission.
My critical friend was so helpful - but I feel a bit downhearted that I can't already write to the appropriate standards. I need to think of it like an apprenticeship (except I don't have 7 years) - I have 2 years on my MRes to get from beginner writer to master wordsmith. It takes a lot of practice and botched work to attain skill. I'm not sure whether this makes me feel better or worse!
Saturday, 11 November 2017
Last day of Writing Week.
Over-confidence comes before a fall.
I'd had a good day of writing on Thursday and went out for dinner with a South African student, Darren, who has just started his PhD on the selfie. We went for a curry and he was telling me about his trips to London, where he had been to the National Portrait Gallery to look at 16th and 17th century self portraits. He's been considering the use of the mirror in his literature review - and he's concluded he knows NOTHING. (I know that feeling!). He asked at the NPG if he could access their archive, filled in some paperwork ... AND HE'S BEEN IN!!!! Wow! I did not think it was possible! I was so envious - but he had the confidence to ask, and was rewarded.
Then Friday morning I was tired and tetchy and I was late for the Writing Abstracts class - I checked twice the start time - and was told 11am - but when I got there, it had started at 10. The tutor was abrupt and quick, and I felt did not explain the exercises well, by assuming a lot of prior knowledge. I felt out of sorts and upset. I think there was a lot of valid learning and analysis in the session ... but I did not get it.
I caught the first train available home, and the first two trains interchanged perfectly - no waiting. I still felt tetchy and put it down to just wanting to be home and being tired from a week away. I just missed the train to Braintree by 4 minutes, so had an hour to wait. This meant I was travelling for 4 hours. Once I was home, I had an horrendous upset stomach which lasted about 12 hours. This might have been why I felt out of sorts all day long.
I'd had a good day of writing on Thursday and went out for dinner with a South African student, Darren, who has just started his PhD on the selfie. We went for a curry and he was telling me about his trips to London, where he had been to the National Portrait Gallery to look at 16th and 17th century self portraits. He's been considering the use of the mirror in his literature review - and he's concluded he knows NOTHING. (I know that feeling!). He asked at the NPG if he could access their archive, filled in some paperwork ... AND HE'S BEEN IN!!!! Wow! I did not think it was possible! I was so envious - but he had the confidence to ask, and was rewarded.
Then Friday morning I was tired and tetchy and I was late for the Writing Abstracts class - I checked twice the start time - and was told 11am - but when I got there, it had started at 10. The tutor was abrupt and quick, and I felt did not explain the exercises well, by assuming a lot of prior knowledge. I felt out of sorts and upset. I think there was a lot of valid learning and analysis in the session ... but I did not get it.
I caught the first train available home, and the first two trains interchanged perfectly - no waiting. I still felt tetchy and put it down to just wanting to be home and being tired from a week away. I just missed the train to Braintree by 4 minutes, so had an hour to wait. This meant I was travelling for 4 hours. Once I was home, I had an horrendous upset stomach which lasted about 12 hours. This might have been why I felt out of sorts all day long.
Thursday, 9 November 2017
Starting to flesh out my thesis.
I dropped in to see Jill, my supervisor, this morning. I was well fired up, having slept on the ideas raised in yesterday's writing sessions. I had created a one-page mind map, as suggested in the session with experienced Supervisors.
Upside down because I've forgotten how to rotate it here.
Putting it into a linear order:
Title - Valuing Women
Literature review - describe Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. Useful because multi-dimensional
contrast with single value theories (Kohlberg and Gilligan) Unhelpful because one-dimensional
Situated knowledge - partial and privileged. Plus debate by critics
Women (+ lack of power) -v- men (+ power) in situated knowledge
Masculinist values
Data gathering - visit to NPG 20th Century Gallery - rehung 4/11/17
use Schwartz Table of Basic Values to identify values in artworks
identify gendering of media in art
identify Collections Policy and gendering in collecting criteria.
identify sources of artworks on display (NPG collection or private collections)
Analysis - evaluate values displayed in 20th Century Gallery rehung artworks/selection criteria
create gender breakdown
evaluate compliance with policy
identify patterns and trends
Conclusions - to be advised
Practical outputs - My textile artworks
Semi-structured interviews with many woman about specific women.
Identify values and categorise according to Schwartz Table of Basic Values
Identify patterns and trends
Select (very few) women who display values that demonstrate a diversity of values on Schwartz's table
Create (3?) samplers
Upside down because I've forgotten how to rotate it here.
Putting it into a linear order:
Title - Valuing Women
Literature review - describe Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. Useful because multi-dimensional
contrast with single value theories (Kohlberg and Gilligan) Unhelpful because one-dimensional
Situated knowledge - partial and privileged. Plus debate by critics
Women (+ lack of power) -v- men (+ power) in situated knowledge
Masculinist values
Data gathering - visit to NPG 20th Century Gallery - rehung 4/11/17
use Schwartz Table of Basic Values to identify values in artworks
identify gendering of media in art
identify Collections Policy and gendering in collecting criteria.
identify sources of artworks on display (NPG collection or private collections)
Analysis - evaluate values displayed in 20th Century Gallery rehung artworks/selection criteria
create gender breakdown
evaluate compliance with policy
identify patterns and trends
Conclusions - to be advised
Practical outputs - My textile artworks
Semi-structured interviews with many woman about specific women.
Identify values and categorise according to Schwartz Table of Basic Values
Identify patterns and trends
Select (very few) women who display values that demonstrate a diversity of values on Schwartz's table
Create (3?) samplers
Wednesday, 8 November 2017
Writing week - Day 3
Thesis Structure and Argumentation
Each discipline will have its own meaningful structure. Take advice from your supervisor.
Titles should indicate topic and scope of study. Play around with your title. My first attempt:
Valuing Women: identifying the rationale for women to value other women in roles rarely portrayed in art.
Consider your audience for your thesis. What impact do they expect?
General statement
Elaboration
More detail
Leading to Broader Statement
or Opening with an anecdote/case study that illustrates point then moves to a more general discussion. (I've seen this in various theses and it really puts me off. I want something that tells me the purpose before the detail).
Intro - General to specific
Method
Results
Discussion/conclusion - Specific to general
Often used for science subjects - no literature review
Intro - General to specific
Literature Review
Theme 1
Theme 2
Theme 3
Conclusions
Creating a Research Space (CARS)
We analysed some text - I found this difficult. Is this for the Introduction?
Move 1 - Establishing a research territory
Move 2 - Establishing a niche
Move 3 - Occupying the niche.
Move 1 - sets context, identifies where you are coming from. Enables you to claim centrality and make generalisations.
Move 2 - Counter claims; identifies gap/contradictions/problems in previous research. Raises questions. Extends previous knowledge.
Move 3 - Purpose/nature of research. Creates research questions or hypotheses. Indicates principle findings.
Introduction is 10% of word count. When well written, makes the rest impactful.
Literature Review
Based on themes. Argument driven.
Methods
Important to say why useful to your practice. Prove rigour. Don't go multi-methodological unless there is a reason.
Gather data - but explain the implications of the data.
Conclusions.
Points to consolidate your research. Report, relate, interpret, and anticipate potential criticisms.
Don't fall into the front loading pit - too much literature review and method, too little on research; or the backloading pit - too much results, too little theory.
Create paragraphs with Topic, Expansion; Narrowing; Illustrating; Analysis; Conclusion.
Don't use However unless you are showing contrast.
Start with territory, move from old to new information; repeat key words to carry through readability.
Homework - create 3-5 sentences on each of Topic, structure, Headings.
Meet the Supervisors Session
Sir David Morris, Economist - Centre for Academic Writing - purpose to give a practical, supportive edge to Doctoral Writing.
1. Expectations of written English are changing. More non-native English speaking candidates and assessors. Less formulaic now. Important to transmit meaning. You need to understanding it!
2. Get structure clear. 1 subject per paragraph. 1 idea per sentence. Clean numbering of paragraphs and clearly labelled diagrams.
3. Golden thread running through thesis. Create yourself a 1 page diagram of your thesis outline.
4. 8-12 drafts is normal. Do not try to write it in one draft. Write as you go for practice.
5. Manage your resources. Your have to manage your supervisor. You provide the agenda and minutes. Use the Centre for Academic Writing for support.
When your supervisor asks What have you been reading, try to include something like Rowena Murray' "How to Write your Thesis".
Get non-supervisoral people to read your work. Other students. Other people with academic backgrounds or specialist interests in your field.
Sheena .... Faculty of Arts & Humanities
1. Writing process - varies according to student. Many right ways of doing it.
2. Writing Product - Don't go against convention of your discipline. Take from your Supervisor ... and follow it.
Erik Borg - CAW
Writing is iterative - repetitive.
Provide some of your writing to your Supervisor before your tutorial. Your intro to date, or some ideas, or a book review. You are leading the process.
Your PhD is a collection of evidence to prove your expertise in your field. It may lead to a book or 3/4 journal articles.
Look to other people's theses for structure. Make a judgement on readability.
PhD is negotiation between you and 2 examiners. Find 'critical friends' who will practice how you might respond to questions arising.
Work out how to synthesise conflicting guidance from different supervisors.
Narrow your journey.
Your supervisor may not be as expert as you in your field. Their skill may be in asking the questions that provoke you to go further, in a pertinent direction. Use the full supervisory team. Identify the diversity of their skills e.g. the methodology expert.
Read selectively and purposefully. Keep note taking.
Key problem - mismatch of Research Question and Research. If so amend the research question to fit the research.
What's in it for the Supervisor? Pique their interest.
Do one thing well, not several things badly. Focus your interests.
Another really interesting session.
Each discipline will have its own meaningful structure. Take advice from your supervisor.
Titles should indicate topic and scope of study. Play around with your title. My first attempt:
Valuing Women: identifying the rationale for women to value other women in roles rarely portrayed in art.
Consider your audience for your thesis. What impact do they expect?
General statement
Elaboration
More detail
Leading to Broader Statement
or Opening with an anecdote/case study that illustrates point then moves to a more general discussion. (I've seen this in various theses and it really puts me off. I want something that tells me the purpose before the detail).
Intro - General to specific
Method
Results
Discussion/conclusion - Specific to general
Often used for science subjects - no literature review
Intro - General to specific
Literature Review
Theme 1
Theme 2
Theme 3
Conclusions
Creating a Research Space (CARS)
We analysed some text - I found this difficult. Is this for the Introduction?
Move 1 - Establishing a research territory
Move 2 - Establishing a niche
Move 3 - Occupying the niche.
Move 1 - sets context, identifies where you are coming from. Enables you to claim centrality and make generalisations.
Move 2 - Counter claims; identifies gap/contradictions/problems in previous research. Raises questions. Extends previous knowledge.
Move 3 - Purpose/nature of research. Creates research questions or hypotheses. Indicates principle findings.
Introduction is 10% of word count. When well written, makes the rest impactful.
Literature Review
Based on themes. Argument driven.
Methods
Important to say why useful to your practice. Prove rigour. Don't go multi-methodological unless there is a reason.
Gather data - but explain the implications of the data.
Conclusions.
Points to consolidate your research. Report, relate, interpret, and anticipate potential criticisms.
Don't fall into the front loading pit - too much literature review and method, too little on research; or the backloading pit - too much results, too little theory.
Create paragraphs with Topic, Expansion; Narrowing; Illustrating; Analysis; Conclusion.
Don't use However unless you are showing contrast.
Start with territory, move from old to new information; repeat key words to carry through readability.
Homework - create 3-5 sentences on each of Topic, structure, Headings.
Meet the Supervisors Session
Sir David Morris, Economist - Centre for Academic Writing - purpose to give a practical, supportive edge to Doctoral Writing.
1. Expectations of written English are changing. More non-native English speaking candidates and assessors. Less formulaic now. Important to transmit meaning. You need to understanding it!
2. Get structure clear. 1 subject per paragraph. 1 idea per sentence. Clean numbering of paragraphs and clearly labelled diagrams.
3. Golden thread running through thesis. Create yourself a 1 page diagram of your thesis outline.
4. 8-12 drafts is normal. Do not try to write it in one draft. Write as you go for practice.
5. Manage your resources. Your have to manage your supervisor. You provide the agenda and minutes. Use the Centre for Academic Writing for support.
When your supervisor asks What have you been reading, try to include something like Rowena Murray' "How to Write your Thesis".
Get non-supervisoral people to read your work. Other students. Other people with academic backgrounds or specialist interests in your field.
Sheena .... Faculty of Arts & Humanities
1. Writing process - varies according to student. Many right ways of doing it.
2. Writing Product - Don't go against convention of your discipline. Take from your Supervisor ... and follow it.
Erik Borg - CAW
Writing is iterative - repetitive.
Provide some of your writing to your Supervisor before your tutorial. Your intro to date, or some ideas, or a book review. You are leading the process.
Your PhD is a collection of evidence to prove your expertise in your field. It may lead to a book or 3/4 journal articles.
Look to other people's theses for structure. Make a judgement on readability.
PhD is negotiation between you and 2 examiners. Find 'critical friends' who will practice how you might respond to questions arising.
Work out how to synthesise conflicting guidance from different supervisors.
Narrow your journey.
Your supervisor may not be as expert as you in your field. Their skill may be in asking the questions that provoke you to go further, in a pertinent direction. Use the full supervisory team. Identify the diversity of their skills e.g. the methodology expert.
Read selectively and purposefully. Keep note taking.
Key problem - mismatch of Research Question and Research. If so amend the research question to fit the research.
What's in it for the Supervisor? Pique their interest.
Do one thing well, not several things badly. Focus your interests.
Another really interesting session.
Writing Week - Day 2
Referencing
Why reference? Situates your work in history and culture. Strengthens and gives credibility. Shows grasp of conventions. Shows your working and progress through ideas to your conclusion. Also identifies the gap.
Integral citation - X (date) says ... Privileges the author. Most often used when you want to identify a seminal writer, and they are the most important thing.
Or when you are comparing/contrasting two authors, so you can be specific about each writer's position.
Non-integral citations. This idea shows .... (X, date). Privileges the idea, and is used more often when you are reviewing and analysing the concepts while acknowledging the author.
Or when you are giving a negative evaluation of what an author says.
Direct quotes used for short pieces of text. A summary is used for long pieces of text that you want to reference and paraphrasing is used for shorter pieces that you can say better or apply in a context.
Direct quotes to be used when you cannot say it better. Be selective in this.
Indirect quotes to be used when you are showing your interpretation, and how you control and craft your text. Gives your authorial voice.
Verbs used when using integral and non-integral citations indicate your stance and give authorial voice: X says; X claims; X suggests; X postulates; X proves.
Use of past/present tense gives indication of your view on cited work - present tense for concepts that are current; past tense for outdated thinking.
Coventry uses Harvard referencing (Author, date) with tweaks!
A good session.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)