Chapter 4 — Academic writing

Chapter 4 — Academic writing

Lesson map

Lesson 04 published. Map, example, EX010.

flowchart TD
  N0["Learning outcomes"]
  N1["4.1 Structuring an argument"]
  N2["4.2 Citing accurately"]
  N3["4.3 Evidence and opinion"]
  N4["Synthesis"]
  N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4
  N4 --> EX["Worked example"]
  EX --> Q["Exercise EX010"]

Logical drawing

flowchart LR
  N0["Learning outcomes"]
  N1["4.1 Structuring an argument"]
  N2["4.2 Citing accurately"]
  N3["4.3 Evidence and opinion"]
  N4["Synthesis"]
  N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> Q["EX010"]

[Learning outcomes]
    |
    v
[4.1 Structuring an argument]
    |
    v
[4.2 Citing accurately]
    |
    v
[4.3 Evidence and opinion]
    |
    v
[Synthesis]
    |
    v
[Worked example] --> [Exercise EX010]

Learning outcomes

You will (1) structure a short academic argument; (2) cite sources accurately; (3) distinguish evidence from opinion.

4.1 Structuring an argument

Nadia's first essay asks whether staff are the weakest link in security. She structures it with a claim, reasons, evidence and a conclusion. Her claim is that calling staff the weakest link misdirects effort. Her reasons are that systems often ask too much of people and that blaming staff discourages reporting. Each paragraph makes one point and links to the next. Dr Prescott reminds her that a good argument also addresses the strongest counter-argument, which in this case is that many breaches do involve human actions.

4.2 Citing accurately

Nadia cites Sasse, Brostoff and Weirich (2001), whose paper on transforming the weakest link argued that security must be designed around human capabilities. She also cites the Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report, which reports that a large share of breaches involve a human element. She checks each source directly rather than copying citations from other essays, records full details and never invents a page number or DOI. Accurate citation lets readers check her evidence and protects her from repeating others' mistakes about what a source actually said.

4.3 Evidence and opinion

Nadia learns to separate evidence, such as a study's findings, from opinion, such as a blogger's view. She marks each sentence in her draft as claim, evidence or interpretation. She finds two sentences where she presented an opinion as fact and rewrites them with hedging. She also notes that the DBIR's human element figure counts errors, misuse and social engineering together, so it does not show that staff are careless. Reading what a statistic actually measures is part of honest academic writing.

Worked example

Nadia writes a structured essay on the weakest-link idea, cites Sasse et al. and the DBIR accurately and separates evidence from opinion.

Synthetic case. The essay is synthetic; Sasse et al. (2001) and the Verizon DBIR are real.

Errors and limits

Hedging can become vague. Reports update their figures yearly.

Exercises

• EX010 — Counter-argument. What counter-argument must Nadia address? Rubric: 3 = many breaches involve human actions;; 2 = human element;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
• EX011 — Sasse et al.. What did Sasse, Brostoff and Weirich (2001) argue? Rubric: 3 = security must be designed around human capabilities;; 2 = design;; 1 = users are careless;; 0 = none.
• EX012 — DBIR caution. Why does the DBIR figure not show staff are careless? Rubric: 3 = it combines errors, misuse and social engineering;; 2 = combined;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.

Synthesis

Academic writing structures claims, cites accurately and keeps evidence distinct from opinion.

Continue studying — chapter 04 of 40

← Chapter 03 (draft) · Course chapter index · Chapter 05 (draft) →