Chapter 4 — Academic writing

Chapter 4 — Academic writing

Lesson map

Lesson 04 published. Map, example, EX010.

flowchart TD
  N0["Learning outcomes"]
  N1["4.1 Writing with evidence"]
  N2["4.2 Citing sources"]
  N3["4.3 Findings versus opinions"]
  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 Writing with evidence"]
  N2["4.2 Citing sources"]
  N3["4.3 Findings versus opinions"]
  N4["Synthesis"]
  N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> Q["EX010"]

[Learning outcomes]
    |
    v
[4.1 Writing with evidence]
    |
    v
[4.2 Citing sources]
    |
    v
[4.3 Findings versus opinions]
    |
    v
[Synthesis]
    |
    v
[Worked example] --> [Exercise EX010]

Learning outcomes

You will (1) write clear, evidence-based paragraphs; (2) cite sources correctly; (3) separate findings from opinions.

4.1 Writing with evidence

Academic writing makes claims and supports them with evidence. Elena practises paragraphs that state one point, give the evidence and explain what it means. For example: thirty-two of 140 Greenhill staff do not use multi-factor authentication, according to the March export; most are in the repairs team, who mainly sign in on shared tablets; this suggests the barrier is the device setup rather than staff reluctance. Each sentence has a job, and the reader can see where each claim comes from and how strong it is.

4.2 Citing sources

When Elena uses published guidance she cites it so readers can check it. She refers to NIST SP 800-63B-4, which sets out current guidance on authenticators, rather than to a blog summary of it. Each citation in her text matches a full entry in the reference list, with authors, year, title and a working link or DOI. She checks that the source actually says what she claims, because citing a document for a point it does not make is a serious academic error and also misleads practitioners.

4.3 Findings versus opinions

Elena separates what she observed from what she thinks it means. Findings are counts, dates and quotations from interviews; interpretations are her explanations, which may be wrong. She marks interpretations with words such as suggests or may, and offers alternatives where they exist. Recommendations come last and follow from the findings. This structure helps her supervisor and Greenhill's managers trust her reports, because they can agree with the facts even if they weigh the interpretation differently. Her supervisor checks this separation in every draft she submits.

Worked example

Elena rewrites a vague paragraph claiming staff dislike multi-factor into one citing the March export, locating the gap in the repairs team and suggesting a device explanation.

Synthetic case. Paragraphs and exports are synthetic; NIST SP 800-63B-4 is a real source.

Errors and limits

Citing a summary instead of the original guidance risks repeating someone else's misreading.

Exercises

• EX010 — Paragraph parts. What three things does a good evidence paragraph contain? Rubric: 3 = point, evidence, meaning;; 2 = two;; 1 = one;; 0 = none.
• EX011 — Original source. Which original source does Elena cite on authenticators? Rubric: 3 = NIST SP 800-63B-4;; 2 = NIST;; 1 = a blog;; 0 = none.
• EX012 — Interpretation words. How does Elena mark interpretations? Rubric: 3 = words like suggests or may;; 2 = hedging;; 1 = bold;; 0 = none.

Synthesis

Clear evidence-based paragraphs, correct citations and separating findings from opinions make writing trustworthy.

Continue studying — chapter 04 of 40

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