The standard, empirical social science paper can be given a simple provisional structure. By "provisional", I mean one that you can impose on your image of a paper in the early planning stages, before you've written very much of it. It gets you "into the ballpark", we might say. It does not guarantee a home run.
The structure goes as follows:
3 paragraphs of introduction
(The first tells us something interesting about the world you have studied. The second tells us about the science that studies it. The third tells us what your paper is going to say.)5 paragraphs of background (elaborates §1)
5 paragraphs of theory (elaborates §2)
5 paragraphs of method
15 paragraphs of analysis (in 3 5-paragraph sections)
5 paragraphs of implications
2 paragraphs of conclusion
Now, over these past three days I've been considering other kinds of paper: theory papers, methods papers, and critical essays. I suggested that a similar provisional structure could be used there too. Here's how I think it might look:
A theory paper could have:
3 paragraphs of introduction
(The first tells us something interesting about the practices that you want to theorize. The second tells us about the state of the theory. The third tells us what your paper is going to say.)5 paragraphs of background (elaborates §1)
5 paragraphs on the current state of the theory (elaborates §2)
5 paragraphs of the problems with that theory when confronted with practice (anomalies)
15 paragraphs of theory development (in 3 5-paragraph sections)
5 paragraphs of implications (usually methodological)
2 paragraphs of conclusion
A methods paper could have:
3 paragraphs of introduction
(The first tells us something interesting about the kind of object that you want to develop method to observe. The second tells us about the state of the methods today. The third tells us what your paper is going to say.)5 paragraphs about the object (elaborates §1)
5 paragraphs on current methods (elaborates §2)
5 paragraphs of the problems with those methods (impasses)
15 paragraphs of methodology (in 3 5-paragraph sections)
5 paragraphs of promised advantages to using your new method
2 paragraphs of conclusion
Finally, a critical paper could have:
3 paragraphs of introduction
(The first tells us something interesting about some interesting real-world issue. The second tells us about the current state of scholarship. The third tells us what your paper is going to say.)5 paragraphs about the world as seen by scholars (elaborates §1)
5 paragraphs on what the scholars believe about this (elaborates §2)
5 paragraphs about how you approached this material
15 paragraphs of critical analysis (in 3 5-paragraph sections)
5 paragraphs of implications for future scholarship
2 paragraphs of conclusion
Like I say, these are just rough guides. They offer a place to start and a way of dividing up the problem of writing in smaller tasks. You've now got your work cut out for you.
2 comments:
And a literary-critical paper?
Just off the top of my head:
3 paragraphs of introduction (the first tells us something interesting about the author or circle of authors the paper is about; the second tells us about the dominant consensus or dispute among scholars about this work today. The third tells us what your paper is going to say.)
5 paragraphs of background (elaborates §1)
5 paragraphs of lit review (elaborates §2, and like a theory section is intended to set up the reader's expectations for "artful disappointment")
5 paragraphs that provides an initial survey of the primary sources (i.e., major works, juvenilia nachlass, letters, etc.), giving us a sense of the scholar's familiarity with the author studied (like a method's section, this builds trust)
15 paragraphs of analysis (in 3 5-paragraph sections)
5 paragraphs of implications (whether for the study of literature, teaching, or its role in society)
2 paragraphs of conclusion
I have not practical experience with this, but if you want to give it a shot, let me know how it goes.
Post a Comment