Wednesday, February 17, 2010 - 1:16 PM
Over at the Monkey Cage, Henry Farrell has posted his guide "to write good political science essays" also available in .pdf.
I would strongly encourage undergraduates, graduate students, and more colleagues than I can mention in this blog post to amble over and read Farrell's essay. He lives up to his own principles by having a clear and concise opening:
Leo Tolstoy famously observed that “happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” Tolstoy, happily for all of us, was not a teaching political scientist. Had he been, he might have observed that undergraduate political science papers are subject to a different logic. Really good papers are unique - each has its own particular thesis, style of argumentation, body of empirical evidence and set of conclusions. Really bad papers, in contrast, tend toward a dismal uniformity. They draw on the same evidence and arguments (garbled versions of what the professor has presented in class), are organized according to similar principles of incoherence, and all wend their eventual ways towards banal conclusions that strenuously avoid making any claims or positive arguments whatsoever.
That was an excellent read, and re-confirmed some of what I learned in college on writing essays: don't muddle around in the introductory paragraph (lay it out in direct language), don't mix-mash subjects in the middle of paragraphs, and get to the bloody point.
On a side-note, the Reverse-Tolstoy seems to apply in a number of areas. I've noticed that good chinese food tends to be good in its own distinct way, varying from restaurant to restaurant, whereas bad chinese food tends to be crappy in a very uniform, butterball-y way.
Really enjoyed reading the article, and it's interesting to confirm that this sort of advice is pretty much the same everywhere, since as I was reading, I could almost hear a lecture given by Prof. Philippe Schmitter (here in Portugal) where he presented a set of basic rules for the preparation of an "Ideal Research Proposal".
Gary King : "DISSERTATION ADVICE"
http://gking.harvard.edu/files/diss.pdf
Farrell sounds peevish.
Strunk and White cover the same material and more in their table of contents. No need to use other people's theses as a whipping boy. Post the TOC above your desk if you're prone to forget.
http://j.mp/d8Fu56 (Amazon)
Weingast's CalTech Rules gives a better explanation of science writing, which differs from general essays and term papers. It explains how to write right, rather than how to write wrong.
http://www.stanford.edu/~weingast/caltech_rules.html
I can give one for free. If you want something legible then leave out the math! No one actually understands it, they just read the first and last paragraphs to get everything they actually need to know. If you want something to be published in every upper political science magazine put in every graph, every name, and every study regardless of whether or not they actually apply to your work. Basically its a choice of doing good work or selling your soul for profit.
Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.
Read More
(5)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE