MASARYK UNIVERSITY Dept. of Foreign Languages POSTRGRADUATE ACADEMIC WRITING COURSE SESSION 4 1. SESSION 4 PLAN 2. SESSION 1, 2 & 3 SUMMARY (Adapted from Alison Brown, 2007) 3. Work in groups of three or four and comment on your writing experience. As a group, try and agree on two or three points that caused you biggest problems; and, on the other hand, what you enjoyed most. 1. TEXT TYPES 1.1. Match the following sentences with adequate text types. TEXTBOOK JOURNAL ARTICLE MAGAZINE ARTICLE DOCTORAL THESIS a) The text is probably a quality piece of work and can be of great interest to the academic community, however, it is usually not very easy to make it publishable. b) The authors of the text are paid by the publishing company to write about what somebody else is doing in a style suitable for general but targeted audience. c) Its purpose is to distribute highly specific knowledge to experts and students. d) It is a publication produced according to the demand of educational institutions. e) Its purpose is to make money by supplying a platform to advertisers who want to reach a particular audience. f) The text is reviewed before published by a peer review board or a panel of experts that decides which submissions can be identified as trustworthy sources and are acceptable for publication. g) This is a long text where the author provides detailed evidence and justification regarding what was or was not done, or considered, in a research project in order to back up the ultimate conclusions that are offered. h) It is a publication used for the formal study of any branch of study. (Adapted from: http://jerz.setonhill.edu/writing/academic/sources/journals/index.html; Robert Q. Pollard Jr. 2005; http://jerz.setonhill.edu/writing/academic/sources/journals/vs_magazines.htm; http://gradpsych.apags.org/mar06/dissertation.html) 2. TEXT STRUCTURE 2.1. WHAT IS THE STRUCTURE OF AN ACADEMIC TEXT? 1. What are the basic/ “compulsory” parts of every academic text? 2. What parts do academic texts usually consist of? 3. What parts can academic texts consist of? 4. Why do we include these parts? 2.2. With a partner (preferably not a specialist in your field) work through the following points and try to outline a working description of the structure of your thesis. The Story of a Thesis: I work in/know of a situation where ________________________________ (background information: Chapter 1 – introduction) This is important because ________________________________ (main issue: Chapter 1 – introduction) So I intend to ________________________________ (aims: Chapter 1 – Introduction) Researchers believe/used to believe that this issue ________________________________ (Chapter 2 – literature review, or first part of subsequent parallel chapters) But I think that ________________________________ (review of aims: Chapter 3 – methodology, or second part of subsequent parallel chapters: argumentative evidence may be integrated to some extent within the literature review) So I use this method/theory to do some research ________________________________ (Chapter 3 – methodology, continuing second part of parallel chapters) And I have found that (my) argument suggests that ________________________________ (Chapter 4 – results, or 3^rd part of parallel chapters) This means that ________________________________ (Chapter 5 – discussion, or 4^th part of parallel chapters) At this stage, depending on how many chapters you plan to write, it may be useful to include an overall discussion/analysis chapter to tie together previous parallel chapters. Overall, this is important because ________________________________ (Chapter 6 – conclusion, or whatever your final chapter number is) But I would still recommend that ________________________________ (Chapter 6 – conclusion, or final chapter) (Source: Adapted from http://www2.ems.uq.edu.au/phdweb/phfaq02.html in Morgan, J., 2007) 2.3. Planning diagram (Adapted from: Brooks and Grundy, 1990:92 in Morgan, J., 2007) 2.4. Thesis planner (See: materials John Morgan) 2.5. Fill the gaps in the table below with the missing comments: Features across the IMRD section +----------------------------------------------------------+ |high (5x) inside out low (4x) outside-in| +----------------------------------------------------------+ +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Feature | I | M | R | D | |-------------------------------------+--------------+------------+------------+-------------| |Movement of information (Hill et al.)| ….. | narrow | narrow | ….. | |-------------------------------------+--------------+------------+------------+-------------| | Present tense (Hesolt) | ….. | low | ….. | high | |-------------------------------------+--------------+------------+------------+-------------| | Past tense (Hesolt) | fairly low | very ….. | very high | fairly low | |-------------------------------------+--------------+------------+------------+-------------| | Passive voice (Hesolt) | ….. | ….. | variable | variable | |-------------------------------------+--------------+------------+------------+-------------| | Authorial comments (Adam Smith) | ….. | very ….. | very ….. | ….. | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ (Adapted from: Swales, J.M. 1990. Genre Analysis. CUP.) 2.6. Think of the differences between PhD thesis writing and journal article writing. Look at the contents of the following academic texts and identify which are structures of theses and which of articles. 1. Visual-motor performance and its association with minor neurological dysfunction in children born preterm +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Abstract |Empirical part | | | | |Introduction |6. Goals of the study | | | | |Overview of the dissertation |7. Method | | | | |1. What is prematurity |7.1. Participants | | | | |1.1. Long-term sequelae of preterm birth |7.2. Procedure | | | | |1.1.1. Motor development and its association |8. Results | |with cognitive abilities | | | |8.1. Quantitative measures | |Visual development | | | |8.2. Qualitative measures | |Behavioural development | | | |8.2.1. Guidance of movement | |2. Minor Neurological Dysfunction | | | |8.2.2. Type of grip | |3. Bases of observed dysfunctions | | | |8.2.3. Finger configurations | |3.1. Impact of early injury/exposure on later | | |development |8.2.4. Quality of the lift and block movement| | | | |4. Theories of different visual subsystems |8.2.5. Analysis with respect to the | | |presence/absence of MND | |4.1. Underleider and Mishkin’s distinction | | |(‘what’ and ‘where’) |9. Interpretation of the findings | | | | |4.2. Goodale and Milner’s theory (‘where’ vs. |10. Discussion | |‘how’) | | | |Conclusion | |4.3. Semantic vs. pragmatic | | | |Appendix | |4.4. Different susceptibility of the two | | |streams …? | References | | | | |5. Object-oriented movements - grasping | | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ 2. The Czechoslovak Policy led by Edvard Beneš and the first Restoration Attempt of Charles Habsburg in Hungary in the Spring 1921 +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |1.Abstract | | | |2.The Royal Question as a Reactionary Factor of the Interior- and Foreign Political | |Consolidation of | | | | Hungary and its Position in Czechoslovak-Hungarian Relations (A Brief Introduction to | |the Problem) | | | |3. The Course of the First Restoration Attempt of Charles Habsburg and Czechoslovak | |Anti-Habsburg | | | | Diplomatic Offensive | | | |4. Notes | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ 3. Access to justice: a deconstructionist approach to horizontal direct effect +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Summary |6 - The Legal Position of HDE – Is A Change | | |Possible? | |1 - Introduction | | | |7- Evidence from Workers | |2 - Access to Justice | | | | 7.1 - Awareness of Employment Rights | |3 - Arguments for HDE | | | | 7.2 - Perception of Protection From | |4 - Practical Need for HDE |Rights | | | | |5 - Arguments For Non-Application of HDE | 7.3 - Awareness of EC Based Laws | | 5.1 - Argument 1 – The Wording of the EC | | |Treaty (Article 249 EC) | 7.4 - Membership of Trades Unions | | | | | 5.1.1 - Counter Argument 1 – The | 7.5 - Workers’ Confidence in The Advice| |Wording of the EC Treaty (Article 249 EC) |Provided | | | | | 5.2 - Argument 2 - Unfair Burden on | 7.6 - The Issue of Costs in Pursuing A | |Non-Legislators |Remedy | | | | | 5.2.1 - Counter Argument 2 - Unfair | 7.7 - Workers’ Claims Based on Their | |Burden on Non-Legislators |Employment Rights | | | | | 5.3 - Argument 3 - Uncertainty of Which Law | 7.8 - Necessity for HDE Derived From | |To Follow |Workers’ Evidence | | | | | 5.3.1 - Counter Argument 3 - |8 - HDE’s Effect on Access to Justice | |Uncertainty of Which Law To Follow | | | |9 - ECJ Movement Towards HDE | | 5.4 - Argument 4 - The Distinction Between | | |Directives and Regulations Would Become Blurred|10 - Need for HDE - The Advocates-General’s | | |Views | | 5.4.1 - Counter Argument 4 - The | | |Distinction Between Directives and Regulations |11 - Conclusions | |Would Become Blurred | | | |Bibliography | | 5.5 - Argument 5 - The Individual Has Other | | |Remedies Available | | | | | | 5.5.1 - Counter Argument 5 - The | | |Individual Has Other Remedies Available | | | | | | | | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ 4. Lessons from the Sam Hinga Norman Decision of the Special Court for Sierra Leone: How Trials and Truth Commissions can Co-exist +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |A. Introduction | | | |B. Purposes of Trials and TRCs: A theoretical perspective | | | |I. The TRC Process | | | |II. The Trial Process | | | |III. Synergies between the Trial and TRC Processes: Their overlapping objectives | | | |C. Case Study: Sierra Leone and the Hinga Norman Decision | | | |I. The Country Context | | | |II. The Truth Commission | | | |III. The Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) | | | |IV. The Relationship between the SCSL and the TRC: Pre-planning and coordination | | | |V. The Relationship between the SCSL and the TRC: the Sam Hinga Norman Decision | | | |1. How the conflict arose between the SCSL and TRC | | | |2. The Trial Chamber decision | | | |3. The Appeals Chamber decision | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ 5. Welfare threat and exclusionism of immigrants: Perception of immigrants in different European welfare states +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |List of Tables and Figures | | | |Acknowledgements | | | |Executive summary | | | |1. Immigration, welfare state and xenophobia | | | | 1.1. Welfare state types | | | | 1.2. Theories of ethnic relations | | | | 1.3 Welfare state and attitudes towards immigrants: hypotheses and | |expectations | | | |1.4. Overview of existing research | | | |2. Research design and measurement instruments | | | | 2.1 Data collection | | | |2.2 Sampling strategy and weighting | | | |2.3 Non-response and missing values treatment | | | |2.4. Measurement instruments, variables and methods of analysis | | | |2.5. Comparability | | | |3. Results | | | | 3.1. Perceived threat to welfare and the exclusionism of immigrants in | |different welfare regimes | | | | 3.2. Individual socio-economic characteristics, perceived welfare threat and| |the exclusionism of | | | | immigrants | | | |4. Discussion and conclusion | | | |A1. Annex 1: Tables | | | |A2: Annex 2: Items measuring the key concepts (ESS 2002/2003 questionnaire) | | | |References | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ 6. Capture of Extra nuclear DNA at Fission Yeast Double-Strand Breaks +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |ABSTRACT | | | |MATERIALS AND METHODS | | | |Fission yeast strains and methods: | |DNA for yeast transformation: | |Identification of ura4^+ circular DNA junctions: | |Observation of mitochondria in living cells: | |DNA sequence comparison: | |RESULTS | | | |Extra chromosomal DSB repair assay: | |High frequency of mtDNA insertion at extra chromosomal DSBs: | |Intermolecular ligation deficiency of rad50{Delta} cells: | |Increased capture of mtDNA fragments in stationary phase: | |Screen for higher eukaryotic DNA sequences captured at DSBs: | |MMEJ-mediated intermolecular ligation in NHEJ-deficient cells: | | | |DISCUSSION | |New assay to monitor extra chromosomal DSB repair in S. pombe: | |Insertion of mtDNA at EC DSBs: | |Microsatellite DNA is a good substrate for NHEJ in fission yeast: | |MMEJ-dependent intermolecular ligation: | |ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS | |LITERATURE CITED | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ 7. The dynamics of AIDS risk and gender relations among intravenous drug users in Northern Vietnam +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Acknowledgments | | | |Abstract | | | |Abbreviations and Some IDUs’ Argots Used in the Analysis | | | |CHAPTER 1 Introduction | | | |A Story of a 32 Year Old Injecting Woman | | | |CHAPTER 2 The Socio-cultural Context of the Aids Epidemic | | | |Drug Abuse | | | |Prostitution | | | |CHAPTER 3 Methodology | | | |CHAPTER 4 The Drug Scene as the Context of Sexual Relationships | | | |Drugs and Money | | | |Syringe Sharing: Patterns in Context | | | |Drugs, Sex work and Condom Use | | | |The Interplay of Drugs and Sex | | | |CHAPTER 5 Different Patterns of Intimate Relationships among IDUs | | | |Characteristics of IDU-IDU Relationships | | | |Characteristics of IDU- Smoker Relationships | | | |Characteristics of IDU- Non addict Relationships | | | |CHAPTER 6 Two Extended Case Studies | | | |Case Study 1 | | | |Case Study 2 | | | |CHAPTER 7 Discussion | | | |Syringe Sharing | | | |Sexual Partnerships | | | |IDU-IDU Relationships | | | |IDU- Smoker Relationships | | | |IDU- Non addict Relationships | | | |The Meaning of AIDS Risk and Intimate Relationships | | | |CHAPTER 8 Implications for HIV Prevention | | | |CHAPTER 9 Conclusion | | | |Literature | | | |Appendices | | | |Appendix 1- Questions Guidelines | | | |Appendix 2- Characteristics of the Sample | | | |Appendix 3- HIV Sentinel Surveillance among Target Groups 1994-2000 | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ (Adapted from: Czéekoóvá, K.(2005), unpublished dissertation; Tóth, A. (2007), unpublished article; http://www.terrorismcentral.com/Newsletters/2007/022507.html; http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/2004/issue4/marson4.html; Klvaňová,R.(2005), unpublished Master thesis; http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/abstract/171/4/1535; Nguyen Tran Lam (2003), unpublished Master thesis)