LECTURE 03: FUNCTIONALITY OF A DISSERTATION

Introduction

In this lecture I wish to look at a not uncommon way of writing and structuring books, dissertations and theses. This approach, I will argue, involves the writer announcing at the outset what he or she will be doing in the pages that follow. The default format of academic research papers and textbooks, it serves the dual purpose of enabling the reader to skip to the bits that are of particular interest and — in keeping with the prerogatives of scholarship — preventing an authorial personality from intruding on the material being presented. But what happens when this basically plodding method seeps so deeply into a writer’s makeup as to constitute a neutralisation of authorial voice, a limitation, a faux-objectivity?

Derrida, J. (1987) Glas, Nebraska : University of Nebraska Press. — 


Academic convention are like an institutional framework for your work
They structure and standardise
They aspire to academic honesty

At this level you are expected to be able to:

• Demonstrate a critical knowledge of practice
• Apply theory to practice
• Analyse relevant material
• Evaluate theory and evidence within the context of study
• Reflect – critiquing and critically reflecting on your learning and using this to improve practice.

Am I evidencing all of the above?

Dissertations with just a basic analysis and no critique will not get good marks, you need to analyse your sources instead of rewriting  them.

Surface Level of Approach

• Concentration on Learning Outcomes
• Passive acceptance of ideas 
• Routine memorisation of facts 
• Sees small chunks 
• Ignore guiding patterns and principles 
• Lack of reflection about, or ignorance of, underlying patterns and theories 
• Little attempt to understand 
• Minimal preparation and research

Deep Approach

• Independent engagement with material
• Critical and thoughtful about idea and information 
• Relates ideas to own previous experience and knowledge 
• Sees the big picture  
• Relates evidence to conclusions 
• Examines logic of arguments 
• Interested in wider reading and thinking
• Ongoing preparation and reflection

Writing

Academic writing is formal and follows some standard conventions 

Each academic discipline has its own specialist vocabulary which you will be expected to learn and use in your own writing 

The substance of academic writing must be based on solid evidence and logical analysis, and presented as a concise, accurate argument. 

Academic writing can allow you to present your argument and analysis accurately and concisely. 

No rhetorical questions!

Precision

Don’t use unnecessary words or waffle. Get straight to the point. Make every word count. 

If there is any uncertainty about a particular point, use cautious language (such as ‘may’, ‘might’, ‘could’, ‘potentially’).

Unless you are a confident writer, it is best to avoid over-long sentences and to aim for a mixture of long and short sentences for variation and rhythm. 

Avoid repeating the same words

Avoid abbreviations and contractions

Avoid slang words and phrases 

Avoid conversational terms

Avoid vague terms

Summarising

Paraphrasing

In many academic disciplines, writing in the first person is not acceptable as it is believed to be too subjective and personal. Many tutors prefer impersonal language to be used in assignments. 

Structure

Preliminaries — Title / Acknowledgements / Contents /  List of Illustrations

Introduction — The abstract / Statement of the problem / Methodological approach

Main body — Review of the literature / logically developed argument / Chapters / results of investigation / Case 

Study

Conclusion —  Discussion and conclusion / Summary of conclusions

Extras –  Bibliography / Appendices

Harvard reffernecing

Author (date) Title Place Publisher

— 

'Quote' Surname, Year, Page No.

—

                      

Getting Stuck

Ask yourself why are you really stuck?

Avoid negativity

Picture what being ‘unstuck’ would look like

Project Self Assessment

Write down the major aims of the project

Give a brief summary of the work so far

Comment on your time management

Do you know what the final project will look like?

What steps will you take to ensure it gets there?

What areas of the project are you worried about?

What ‘risk management’ plans do you have?

How are you going to use the remaining tutorials?

Running out of time

15^th Jan- 7 weeks away

Refer to your original plan

Be more disciplined than ever

Don’t prioritise the practical over the written element, or vice versa.

Set targets

Scale down your ambitions if necessary

Design Guidelines

— https://drive.google.com/a/students.leeds-art.ac.uk/file/d/0B_9HI_FPjv2Zb2llbnB2eElDUGc/view

Before monday the 12th!

Conclusion

In this lecture I have attempted to highlight the simultaneous necessity and limitations of a variety of academic conventions that institutionally frame research at undergraduate level. Put in slightly different terms, the necessity and limitations of structure per se. In doing so I hope to have broadly outlined a method for academic writing and the presentation of research in such work. As has been suggested, the contradictory nature of research sources on this topic can be disorienting for the budding researcher and, because of this, the importance of each individual finding consistent, but workable and personal, methods and approaches cannot be over-emphasised. Ultimately, ‘the default format’ of academic research, alluded to throughout, is one of many institutional codes, or discourses, that we have to learn to operate within, or perhaps subvert from within. The success of this maneuvre will ultimately determine ‘success’ in institutional terms, in the form of a grade but, hopefully, not at the expense of ‘success’ in different terms, be they creative, artistic, personal or such like.