In Musicological Paper Structures 101, I introduced the
idea of a paper template that I find helpful for my undergraduates.
The first model could be summarized as the three-types-of-evidence
model, with one section per evidence type.
There are several
other approaches to writing with a template which can be useful, depending on topic. Most
frequently, students respond to the problem driven outline, where
defining the problem and resolving it is the story arc for the paper
as a whole.
In this kind of paper, the intro
sets out the problem and its
significance, leading
up to the presentation of the thesis.
That’s a format that fits with a lot of pre-college writing
instruction, and students seem comforted by its familiarity.
Next
comes the lit review section.
This, as I’ve said before, needs to demonstrate actual familiarity
with what’s been done. In this context, I stress to students that
they need to beware the temptation to rely over-much on the kind of
wikipedia-like info dump in neutral voice. I’m looking for what
threads they found compelling and which were troubling, provocative,
or a complete snore.
I
encourage judgment as they go: this article is radically over-reading
the evidence; this is so boring that I could hardly keep my eyes
open; that just never needs to see the light of day ever again. One
doesn’t SAY that, at least not directly, but those underpinnings
inform a lively assessment. “Scholar X argues that … Basing the
entire premise on a short snippet from the documentary literature,
however, distorts and and
oversimplifies the broader interpretive
context for…” Students love digging into what is great writing
and what is just a pitiful excuse for ink. I’ve seen some truly
lovely 19th-century style slams on the scholarship over the years of
reading drafts.
In
the problem-based paper, I find the recurring drumbeat model of
writing to be helpful. Each paragraph (or at least every two) needs
to tie explicitly back to the working premise.
As I tell them, hand-hold the reader through your argument.
Over-explain. We can always soften the argument if it’s overdone,
but chances are, your quick-and-dirty reader will be grateful for the
interpretive apparatus being so transparent!
If
a student is interested, developing a counterargument and
addressing it in the late stages of the paper can be helpful. “Some
would argue… the evidence, however, suggests…” can be a nice
way of tying a bow on the package, pinning down the validity of the
thesis and bringing the argument into closure.
And
then the conclusion, as I said last time, can address the so
what, so what, now what of the argument.
The so
what underscores why
the thesis/argument
matters in its immediate context. The second so
what situates the claim
in a wider scholarly or cultural frame, showing its implications
beyond the narrow case. The now
what invites the reader
to apply those
insights elsewhere, whether
by reconsidering related evidence, rethinking assumptions, or
extending the method to a
different repertoire or cultural context.
OTHER
APPROACHES TO CONSIDER
If
the thesis-driven structure appeals to students because of its
familiarity, they may also be interested in other familiar but
less-frequently prescribed approaches to their paper-writing. I have
some examples which we sometimes riff on in class, what I can the
rhetorical tricks of organization:
CAUSATIVE STORY: cause – manifestation –
consequence
Lay out
what sets things in motion, show how it appears in practice, then
track the consequences that follow. This can be particularly
effective for biographical or musical-analytical papers.
HISTORICAL STORY: origins – crisis – outcome
Start
at the beginning, follow the disruption that shakes things up, and
trace the resolution or transformation that results. This one, I
find, is more risky. It’s tempting to default to assumptions of
unproblematic linearity, where the author is invisible. Great for
wikipedia; bad for situating oneself in the context of the
scholarship. Still, carefully used, it has reader appeal.
ANALYTICAL STORY: structure – agency – interaction –
result
Explain the framework (the how), identify the
players (the who), analyze how they interact, and spell out what
emerges. I like the way this invites the writer’s assessment of the
material; it moves away from a temporal organization of first this,
then that, then the next thing, and toward one that capitalizes on
the author’s own interest in the material.
PARADIGM SHIFT: we thought – but now – that
shows…
Highlight what everyone assumed, present the
evidence that unsettles it, and show how the new perspective changes
the conversation. Love these when they come together. It can be some
of the hardest pre-writing work to do, but is often the simplest to
turn into prose. This is inspired writing at its finest.
I INVENTED A THING:
Unveil your new model,
show how it fits the data, and point to the fresh insights it
unlocks. This has some overlap with the “paradigm shift”
approach, in that the sense of ownership can be deeply satisfying.
CONCLUSION
There are, of course, plenty of
other writing templates, but the idea of sharing these out loud is
that each one acts like a container into which the writer can pour
their writing. The goal is to provide a structure that fits the
evidence and insights that come from personal (but research-informed)
reflection, and to steer everyone, EVERYONE, away from the
step-by-step account so familiar from Wikipedia. A template like
those mentioned above isn’t meant to box the writer in. Instead,
the framework actually gives creativity room in which to flourish.
In the end, paper structure is
about helping prose flow out smoothly for the writer, unfolding is
steady stages rather than one mad writing rush. At the same time, and
equally importantly, such structures allow the story to land clearly
for the reader, letting them follow an argument and discover what
about it matters most.
RELATED POSTS
