The Science Of Scientific Writing .Course Introduction. Overview : Content and Packaging : Enriched Blueprints : Compartmentalisation : Course Mechanics |
|
OVERVIEW: The way to well-written science
PART I: Paragraphs and Sentences SET A: Paragraphs: The Maps Behind Them SET B: Paragraphs: Using Maps to Meet Readers' Expectations SET C: Paragraphs with Something Extra: Points and Tails SET D: The Generic Section: Expectations and Maps as Blueprints SET E: Scientific Sections: The Methods and Results SET F: Scientific Sections: The Discussion SET G : Scientific Sections: The Introduction SET H : Sentences SET I : The Paper as a Whole
PART II: The Paper and its Sections SET 1: Argument Parts SET 2: Indicator Words SET 4: Locating Arguments in Prose SET 5: Rationale's Essay Planner SET 6: Evidence in Arguments: Basis Boxes Synthesis 1: Position-Early Paragraphs Synthesis 2: Position-Final Paragraphs Synthesis 3: Writing a Discussion I Synthesis 4: Writing a Discussion II |
Within a branch, which items get written up first?
If we consider the entire left-hand branch, the map does not tell us whether to start or end with the main claim "Cats make better pets than dog". Each of the versions below is equally possible:
* Organising principle: degree of "concreteness" The question above is influenced by another consideration: when working within a branch, to what degree is a reason concrete and open to easy substantiation? In arguments at least, we do not need to add any further annotations to a map to make it clear which are the more concrete items. They are usually found nearer the base of a branch, e.g. "Cats wash themselves" is a more concrete and universally true item of information than "Cats require less time to maintain than dogs". Thus, once we have decided in which direction we want to work in, we can then work out the right sequencing directly from the map. Compare the evidence-first versus evidence-last versions below.
To most people the first version will sound more "cautious" because to a certain extent it lets the readers come to the conclusion themselves. It is therefore a style you might want to use in the Discussion section, if you are trying to create the impression of being a careful scientist. The more direct style of the second version might be more suited to an Abstract.
......
|