You are on page 1of 6

Postgraduate writing and Advanced Information Skills, Seminar 12

John Morgan Aberystwyth University Topic/theme: Issues in developing a narrative structure and how structure reflects argument.

Plotting a narrative structure All writing has some kind of narrative structure, i.e. it is an account or story of the issues that you are writing about. Constructing the narrative can be a problematic issue as there are many directions to follow when you have identified a specific topic and many ways in which you could argue your case. As soon as we change the direction of an argument, aspects of review and method may also change. The basic academic narrative is firstly functional. This means it is used to achieve some kind of descriptive, discursive or analytical purpose (among other purposes). Academic writing general follows a variation on this pattern (delete unnecessary stages or adapt as required): 1. Introduce Contextualised background Critical perspective on main issue Hypothesis (measurable, quantitative) Research qualitative) Limitations Aims Structure or sequence of argument of paper Summary of results Other question (not necessarily measurable,

If we compare this with the ideas discussed in seminar 6, semester 1, on introductions with impact/functional structures in writing, it may possible to identify how you are developing the main critical perspectives of counter claiming, identifying a gap, question-raising or continuing a tradition (Swales, 1990). These critical perspectives are not always clear from the beginning, but as your research narrative develops, the critical focus should become stronger. How would you describe the main critical perspective in your work and how it relates to other research in the field? 2. Review Historical perspectives Chronological development Perspectives developmental to an argument or theory Qualitative aspects (significant commentators and the value or relative value of their work) Comparative/contrastive aspects Perspectives that lead directly (and selectively) to your own theory Other

Your main critical perspective will have a direct impact on how your work with the literature. This can be compared with seminar 4, semester 1. It will set the foundation of your own research, selectively focusing on the main authors, theories and perspectives that are pertinent to the methods you are employing in your study. The literature is used to establish where your work fits in the academic field and you may use it to support your methods directly or your methods may be strengthened through critique of the literature. 2

What are the values of the published literature in establishing and justifying your critical perspective and methods? 3. Indicate method 4. What methods are you using? How will you analyse/represent the data (specific tools) Argument patterns in analysis: what criteria will you use to argue your point? Other

Indicate results What have you found? How will you present the data? In terms of qualitative research results may not be separable from method Other on whether your research is qualitative or

Depending

quantitative, the immediate visible structure of your written work may vary considerably. Where critical analysis or descriptive accounts are employed in qualitative work, it may be harder to identify a distinct separation between review, methods, results and discussion sections and how the data or analytical evidence emerges. These aspects may be more embedded throughout the work. What methods are you using in your work and what data or analytical evidence do they give you access to?

What do the results of data analysis or analysis of evidence begin to say about the perspectives presented in the literature review?

5.

Discuss Review background/context. State results (if appropriate). If the outcome is unexpected, comment on this. Refer back to previous research to put it in new context of your findings. Explain anything unexpected. Give examples to support this by referring back to your own method, results and/or argumentation. If you have a hypothesis it needs full evaluation here. Overall relevance of your own work in creating a place for yourself in the academic field. Other

At this stage your discussion builds on ways in which you have identified your critical perspective, the full extent of which may only be emerging at this stage. Here you will be able to reflect on the literature with the hindsight and evidence of having worked through your methods and results or critical analysis. Your work should now display its unique or original features as a direct comparison or contrast with the established studies. At the same time you will be able to validate your critical perspective to its fullest extent and present yourself as an emergent expert within the field.

What have you established through your work that makes a direct statement on the established literature, or ways of doing things, that puts you in the position of validating your claims and critical perspective?

6.

Conclude Compare with introduction to give a rounded view of what the paper was about. Background and issue combined. Procedure in discussing or solving the issue/problem. Solution (or lack of solution). Recommendations for further research.

In the conclusion you should be able to summarise your work and explain the full implications, relevance, applications and/or limitations of the study. You should also be able to make connections with the wider research or professional field and make recommendations for further research or contextualised development. What is the unique outcome of your work that will place it within reach of other people for further research and development?

Bibliography Bhatia, V.K. (1993). Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman. Dudley-Evans, T. (1989). Genre Analysis: An Investigation of the Introduction and Discussion Sections of MSc Dissertations. In Coulthard, M. (Ed.). Talking about Text, English Language Research, University of Birmingham. In Bhatia, V.K. (1993). Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

You might also like