Chapter 4 — Academic writing

Lesson map

Lesson 04 published. Map, example, EX010.

flowchart TD
  N0["Learning outcomes"]
  N1["4.1 Argument structure"]
  N2["4.2 Citing sources"]
  N3["4.3 Paraphrase"]
  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 Argument structure"]
  N2["4.2 Citing sources"]
  N3["4.3 Paraphrase"]
  N4["Synthesis"]
  N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> Q["EX010"]

[Learning outcomes]
    |
    v
[4.1 Argument structure]
    |
    v
[4.2 Citing sources]
    |
    v
[4.3 Paraphrase]
    |
    v
[Synthesis]
    |
    v
[Worked example] --> [Exercise EX010]

Learning outcomes

You will (1) write a short argument with evidence; (2) cite standards and sources correctly; (3) paraphrase rather than copy.

4.1 Argument structure

Sofia's first essay asks whether small organisations need formal security governance. She learns to structure an argument: a clear claim, reasons, evidence for each reason, a counterargument and a response. Her claim is that even small organisations need basic governance because they hold sensitive data and face the same threats as larger ones. Her counterargument is that formal frameworks cost too much for small teams. Her response proposes proportionate governance scaled to size and risk. For Elmfield, proportionate governance might mean an owned inventory and a short risk register rather than full certification.

4.2 Citing sources

Sofia cites NIST CSF 2.0 and its small business resources, ISO/IEC 27001:2022 and a paper by Spears and Barki (2010) on user participation in security risk management. Dr. Haddad teaches her to cite standards with their edition and year, because requirements change between editions, and to give a DOI or official link where one exists. He warns never to invent references or identifiers and to check each one against the publisher's record before submission. Citing ISO/IEC 27001:2022 rather than an earlier edition matters because control numbering changed between editions.

4.3 Paraphrase

Standards are copyrighted, and copying long passages is not allowed. Sofia learns to paraphrase in her own words and cite the source, quoting only short phrases where exact wording matters. She practises by summarising the idea of a risk treatment plan without copying any sentence. Paraphrasing also tests understanding: if she cannot explain an idea simply, she has not yet understood it. Her essay earns good marks for clear structure and accurate, honest citation. Her summary of a risk treatment plan, written without the standard open, shows whether she can explain treatment options in her own words.

Worked example

Sofia structures an essay with claim, reasons, counterargument and response, cites sources by edition and paraphrases standards.

Synthetic case. The essay is synthetic; CSF 2.0, ISO/IEC 27001:2022 and Spears and Barki (2010) are real.

Errors and limits

Short essays oversimplify. Paraphrases can distort meaning.

Exercises

• EX010 — Counterargument. What counterargument did Sofia address?
  Show marking criteria

  Rubric: 3 = formal frameworks cost too much for small teams;; 2 = cost;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
• EX011 — Edition reason. Why cite standards with edition and year?
  Show marking criteria

  Rubric: 3 = requirements change between editions;; 2 = editions;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
• EX012 — Paraphrase test. Why does paraphrasing test understanding?
  Show marking criteria

  Rubric: 3 = if you cannot explain simply you have not understood;; 2 = understanding;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.

Synthesis

Clear arguments, edition-specific citations and honest paraphrase are core academic skills for GRC.

Continue studying — chapter 04 of 40

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