Academic Writing Cheatsheet

This exercise is adapted from book They Say/I Say by Graff and Birkenstein.

At some point in your writing, hopefully toward the beginning, you need to explain why the thing you are studying is important. And if you are in academia, this often involves situating your work among other conversations in the field. To do this well, you need to clearly describe the state of the field, in a way that helps you build on the conversation.

This exercise introduces templates adapted from the book They Say/I Say. The point is less about the style of writing – that is, while the type of argumentative rhetoric offered by the book is one way to write, it’s not the only way or the way you should choose. Instead, these templates are meant to encourage you to think about the “blank spaces” embedded within - what ideas and arguments are at the core of your work? What is the structure of your argument, in what ways are you speaking to, against, or alongside others? Once you figure these things out, you can edit the text surrounding the “blank spaces” in a way that finds your own voice.

Try this to get started: Use the templates below to work on identifying the substance of your work and how you’ll talk about it in your writeup by filling in the “blank spaces”. Play around with productively and honestly describing your own and others’ findings.

They Say: Introducing “standard views”/existing literature

Mainstream scientific communities have long argued that [–].
Conventional wisdom suggests that [–].
Many people assume [–].

I Say: Introducing your own view/previewing your study and findings

Given this evidence, I always assumed [–].
These [–] led me to wonder whether [–].
X’s work leads to the question of [–]. Therefore, I investigated [–].
To see whether these findings apply to [–], we propose to [–].

State of the Field: Reviewing empirical findings from the literature

Studies showing [–] and [–] have led scientists to propose [–].
Although most scientists attribute [–] to [–], X’s result leads to the possibility that [–].
Jimenez and colleagues evaluated [–] to determine whether [–].

State of the Field: Introducing an ongoing debate

In discussions of X, one controversial issue has been [–]. On one hand, [–] argues [–]. On the other hand, [–] contends [–]. Others even maintain [–]. In this paper, I explore the possibility that [–].
When it comes to the topic of [–], most researchers agree that [–]. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of [–]. Whereas some are convinced that [–], others maintain that [–].

Describing Methods

Because [–] does not account for [–], we instead used [–].
To test the hypothesis that [–], we measured and found that [–]. Therefore, we concluded [–].
While the dataset [–], it is still useful because [–].

Reporting Data and Results

We analyzed [–] datasets, and found a mean of [–] with a range of (lower) to (upper).
We found [–] demonstrated a consistent upward/downward trend relative to [–].
The graph shows a weak/strong positive/negative relationship between X and Y; given the relative strength/consistency, this relationship is/is not strong evidence for [–].

Interpreting Results

Our data support / confirm / verify the work of X by showing that [–].
By demonstrating [–], X’s work extends the findings of Y.
The results of X contradict / refute Y’s conclusion that [–].
X’s findings call into question the widely accepted theory that [–].
Our data are consistent with X’s hypothesis that [–].
One explanation for X’s finding of is that [–].
An alternative explanation is [–].
The difference between ____ and [–] is likely due to [–].

Concluding

While X’s work clearly demonstrates [–], [–] will be required before we can determine whether [–].
Although Y and Z present firm evidence for [–], their data should not be relied on to argue that [–].
In summary, our studies show that [–], but the issue of [–] remains unresolved.

Back to the Syllabus…