A Writing Tutorial
for Graduate Students
by
Cecelia Munzenmaier
Tutorial Definitions Writing Rubric & Comments Example One Example Two Example Three
[This model paper is single-spaced for easier reading online. However, APA style calls for papers to be double-spaced.]
Becoming an Academic Writer
Composition theorists compare learning academic style to being initiated, joining a conversation, and finding a personal voice. Each metaphor can provide guidance for graduate students to work from.
The initiation metaphor compares a new graduate student to someone who has gone through a ritual passage into adulthood. During graduate school students learn the specialized language of their discipline. However, learning the vocabulary does not guarantee that a student will become a productive member of the academic community. Writing coach Christine Mowat (2001, Typical writing problems, para. 6) gives this example: “I utilize, and promote, a ‘team orientated,’ participative style of management wherein delegations and concomitant accountability, in a results-orientated environment, are instrumental in attaining Departmental, and Corporate, objectives.” This sounds like what many people think of as academic prose. But, Mowat reports, “In his writing conference, the writer acknowledged that what he meant was ‘My team and I work together to achieve company and departmental goals’” (Typical writing problems, para. 6). This simple thought would have been better expressed in simple language.
There is another metaphor that applies to academic writing. The conversation metaphor suggests that judgments about writing are based on both what is said and the way in which it is said. At a university, writing takes place within the context of an academic discipline. As students learn what has already been published in their field, their writing becomes part of a ongoing “conversation” in which they acknowledge what has already been said, They are then expected to make their own contribution to the subject. Sandra Zerger (1999, Theories of Composition, para. 8) summarizes the process of joining a discourse community:
learning to know the shared assumptions of the discipline—what constitutes knowledge and how it is created within that disciplinary community; what the subjects are or explorations are appropriate. It involves knowing what resources and authorities are respected and what evidence is valid and expected and respected. It means knowing what reasoning occurs within the discipline, including knowing the conventions of the community.
The conventions of discourse determine whether a paper is judged to have substance or relevance to the ongoing discussion of issues within a field. In 1981, Charles Bazerman compared articles, published in professional journals in three different fields: biology, sociology, and literary criticism. He found a wide variation in what constitutes acceptable evidence. He found that biologists trust experimental results, sociologists rely on statistics and theoretical models; and literary critics cite evidence from a text. Zerger (2001, Language of the disciplines, para. 1) analyzed several studies of how teachers in various disciplines judged writing and found an equally wide variance: “The humanities faculty tended to describe “good” writing by the terms: clever in word play, vivacious, eloquent, aesthetically satisfying, and natural. The social scientists preferred: non-trivial, relevant, plausible, and significant. Those in the arts preferred creative, imaginative, interesting, and persuasive. The natural scientists used theory-driven and analytical.”
How does a novice learn the rules of discourse used by experts within the field? The conversation metaphor suggests “listening in” by reading works acknowledged as classics in the field, keeping up with professional journals, and observing how professors talk and what they accept as evidence.
Of course, no genuine conversation is a monologue. The metaphor of finding a voice suggests that writing is part of the process of finding a professional identity. As students join in the conversation, they learn to present themselves as experts on a topic. They begin by developing confidence in what they know, asserting that “Most experts concur” and “These studies have a high validity because….” Eventually they become critical readers, testing the validity of others’ conclusions and developing their own informed opinions. In the process, they will receive feedback about whether their thinking and writing meets the standards of their discourse community.
The idea of finding a voice also suggests a way to deal with the question of how much to quote. One way to resolve this question is to compare writing a paper to leading a discussion. Each source quoted can be considered one voice in the discussion. The author is the moderator, who determines the topic, introduces each participant, and explains the significance of each contribution. While participants’ contributions add depth and variety, the author’s voice should predominate.
The metaphor of finding one’s voice also suggests that becoming an academic writer is an ongoing process. “It takes years to become a good writer—years of writing, reading, discussing, living, and working. Like it or not, writing mirrors a writer's persona, integrity, and clarity of thought,” observes Mowat (2001, Speculations on why people in business and the professions write poorly, para. 10).
These three metaphors describe how graduate students learn to write like other members of their academic community. After being initiated, they join an ongoing conversation, to which they add their distinctive voice.
References
Bazerman, C. (1981). What written knowledge does: Three examples of academic discourse. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11, 361-387.
Mowat, C. (2001). Do universities breed illiteracy? Retrieved May 5, 2003, from http://www.wordsmithassociates.com/breed.htm
Zerger, S. Discipline-specific SI strategies for writing. (1999) Retrieved May 4, 2003, from University of Missouri—Kansas City, Supplemental Instruction Web site: http://www.umkc.edu/cad/si/sidocs/szcpap99.htm