Grad student writing
Grad students: I've been collecting notes from reading grad student papers and recognizing that many writing issues are very common. This should remind you that if you struggle with this, it is not a sign that you are a bad writer, or failing at grad school. Learning to write well in academia is a real skill to develop, and of course should be done with your own style and flair. But, to get your ideas across clearly and convincingly, here are some tips:
1) Aim to be concise and precise
o Be precise: Avoid vague statements that don’t say much, like “environmental sociology is interested in environment and society.” Also try to avoid making overly general statements like “these things are related.” Aim wherever possible for specificity and precision. (i.e. how are they related?)
o Be concise: Try not to needlessly repeat the same idea and look for places where you go down a side tangent that may not be necessary for your main argument. (We all do this! Go back and edit your writing when you are done).
2) Structure: Argument-driven, engaged with literatures
Academic writing in sociology is difficult, and it is a real skill to develop in graduate school. It does not mean big words, jargon, or never using the first person. Instead, social scientific writing is a particular way of framing knowledge claims, arguments, literatures, and evidence.
First, social science writing is nearly always argument-driven. In other words, you are intervening in a conversation to make a particular claim. You describe how “theoretical body A” has made X claims, and perhaps “this other theoretical body” has made Y claims. Then you explain, based on evidence, what YOUR argument is and how it relates to these bigger bodies of literature. In coursework, this is obviously not going to be “I conducted a study, here’s my evidence, and therefore here’s the basis for my argument.” But you can still practice writing in this way. You can stake a claim vis-à-vis the literatures and make your case by using the evidence from other peoples’ studies (i.e. the course readings). If there are relevant opposing views, you need to engage with these too.
The strongest papers usually have one clear argument. Everything else is then oriented around this. Findings (or a discussion of relevant literatures and examples, in a course paper), for example, are not just reported descriptively. (i.e. “we conducted this study, and we found these four themes, and here’s what they are”). Instead, an argument-driven paper organizes the findings in service of an argument.
Second, discuss literatures or key ideas/concepts rather than single authors. Single articles usually come in as examples or case studies or components of broader literatures. But very rarely is one author the ONLY one saying XYZ argument. They are usually adding a small layer or component but they are taking part in a broader conversation. There are usually dozens and dozens of scholars all working on a single theoretical strand. So talking about literatures or approaches is a way of acknowledging these broader contributions from many scholars (and also signals that you are aware that there are these broader literatures!). Once framed this way, you can then draw on individual authors and their studies to identify how their specific arguments or sets of evidence help add specificity, nuance, clarity, evidence, etc.
How to state your opinion: Yes, your opinion matters in academic writing! But stating your perspective in general terms like “I like this approach,” or “I agree with this perspective” or “this resonated with me,” or “I found this article interesting” is too vague and not part of advancing an argument. It fills space without specifying WHAT was convincing or why.
Your opinion should thus come through as the thread of your argument (see above), based in evidence and justification, rather than a free-standing opinion that is disconnected from anything to support it.
While it can feel perhaps too formulaic, it may be useful to follow this guide in structuring an introduction:
Two approaches are common here. One is to “funnel” into the specifics of your topic by starting with the larger stakes and debate (i.e. “there are massive debates over GMO crops as a tool for improving hunger in Africa”), then narrow in on what is missing (“but insufficient empirical data”) and why your case is useful (“so I’m going to study the case of Bt Cotton in Burkina Faso”). OR: do the opposite; start with something interesting about the empirical case at hand but then rapidly move back out to show why this empirical case is important to larger questions/debates.
By the end of the intro, clearly state what your essay is doing: the big picture, your specific argument or intervention, and perhaps a very brief overview of how you are going to achieve this argument. Provide a roadmap.
Some other smaller points:
Avoid using “we” or “our” as general terms to refer to society at large. It is vague and collapses all people into this category. If you find yourself using it, ask yourself: who is this “we”? Does it really include everyone, or does it assume your reader shares your social location in (a particular) society?
Use an active writing voice rather than a passive voice. In active voice, the subject performs the action: “Researchers surveyed 500 voters.” In passive voice, the subject receives the action: “500 voters were surveyed by researchers.” Active voice is usually shorter, more direct, and identifies who did what. Passive voice often hides the actor altogether. Passive: “It was found that trust in institutions was reduced by exposure to partisan media.” Active: “Exposure to partisan media reduced trust in institutions.”
