Dissertations 5 ref, plagiarism, own crit-analysis [handout]

An LDU short course
presentation

Dissertations & Major Project
Writing
Week 5 of 5:

Referencing, bibliographies,
plagiarism & the ‘final stages’
Robert Walsha, LDU City campus, Calcutta House, CM2-22

Dissertations & Major Project
Writing week 5
This week’s topics:
• Referencing & Bibliographies;
• Plagiarism – and how to avoid it;
• The final stages:
– Writing & focusing your introduction &
conclusion
– Critical analysis of your own work, editing
& proofreading, troubleshooting.
• Damage limitation

'bibliographies'
& 'referencing'
'references'
'references
& 'citation'

Referencing & Bibliographies

• Everything in the next 17 slides should be
a reminder of what you hopefully know
well already ~
– it’s all about good practice in bibliographies
and referencing.
– In this sense, your dissertation/project should
be no different from what you have been
trying to do with other written assignments so
far.

• A Bibliography is a listing, placed at the very end
of your work, of every source referenced in your
assignment.
– In Psychology, the Bibliography section is called
‘References’.
• Referencing is what you do within the written
sections of your work to show evidence of where
you are incorporating any thinking or other
material that is not your own. In other words, you
reference to show where you are utilising material
derived from your various sources.
– In Psychology, referencing is referred to as ‘citations’.


• Written Assignments require BOTH a
Bibliography AND Referencing
– not one or the other!!

Referencing & Bibliographies:
Your bibliography ...
• ... should provide a full listing in one place of
all the sources you have referred to in your
assignment.
• … should list sources in alphabetical order, by
author surname.
• … should not include page references - that is
the job of referencing.

• What should I include in my bibliography?
Basically, every source you have used in
working on your assignment. Only include
material you directly reference in your work.

Format of your Bibliography
• There are two basic bibliography formats,
the ‘Cambridge’ (or‘British Standard’)
and the ‘Harvard’ Systems.
• This is Harvard:
Ball, Stuart (1988), Baldwin and the
Conservative Party: The Crisis of 1929-1931,
London: Yale University Press.
Carlton, David (1969), ‘The Anglo-French
Compromise on Arms Limitation 1928’, Journal
of British Studies, 8, pp. 141-62.

Format of your Bibliography
• There are two basic bibliography formats,
the ‘Cambridge’ (or‘British Standard’)
and the ‘Harvard’ Systems.
• This is Harvard:
Cambridge:
Ball, Stuart (1988), Baldwin and the
Stuart, Baldwin and the Conservative
Party: The Crisis of The Crisis London: Yale
Conservative Party: 1929-1931,of 1929-1931,
University Press, 1988.
London: Yale University Press.
Carlton, David (1969), ‘The Anglo-French
David, ‘The Anglo-French Compromise
on Arms Limitation 1928’, Journal of British
Compromise on Arms Limitation 1928’, Journal
Studies, 1969, no.
of British Studies, 8, pp. 141-62.

Bibliographies
• You may benefit from breaking down your
bibliography into sub-sections, such as
‘Primary sources’, and ‘Secondary sources’
perhaps including sub-sub-sections such as:
‘books’, ‘journal articles’ and ‘web-based
sources’.

• What should not be included in a bibliography?
There are some things which you should not
include: for example, mentioning your lecture
notes is unnecessary, as is any general
reference materials such as dictionaries or
thesauruses.

Bibliographies
• Please note that, in some disciplines, two lists
at the end of assignments is encouraged, both
listing their respective sources in alphabetical
order by surname:
– ‘References’: sources visited and referred
to in your written sections;
– ‘Bibliography’: other sources that were
useful to you, but which you do not
reference in your work.
Consult your supervisor over his/her
preferences with regard to this.

Referencing
• Referencing provides proof of exactly where
you are taking ideas and facts from, at the
point of use of those ideas/facts in your
work.
• The italicised section above is the justification
for referencing: the reason why we must both
provide both references and a bibliography.
• There are different forms of referencing.
Certain departments favour one approach over
others, though with some departments you
may have a choice.
– Stick with department-favoured models or consult
your supervisor over your options.

Referencing
Referencing options(?)
• (the ‘Harvard system’)
• ‘British Standard’ a.k.a. ‘Cambridge’
system, which may take two forms:
– ‘footnoting’; or

– ‘endnoting’.

Harvard Referencing
• The Harvard System makes its references in the
main text itself, and appears within brackets.
For example:
... The consequent publicity pushed the issue of
race relations to a very high place on the political
agenda (Seymour-Ure, 1974, pp. 99-136). The...

Under this system you must include:
(i) author surname
(ii) date of publication, and
(iii) page references.

Harvard Referencing
ADVANTAGES:
• Efficient with space … cuts down a lot of repetition
between references and bibliography (in Cambridge).
For fuller information, cross-reference with the full
information located in the bibliography (title and
publication details are confined to the bibliography).

DISADVANTAGES:
• Long, difficult sentences are made longer by having
to include additional bracketed reference information
– and thus become even more confusing. For
students who struggle with grammar and written
communication, this can be a problem.

Cambridge Referencing
• The Cambridge System makes its references via a
system of number references, corresponding to
detailed references …
• … at the bottom of the page (footnoting’) or
• … at the end of each chapter, or by chapter at
the end of the written sections (endnoting).

... The consequent publicity pushed the issue of race
relations to a very high place on the political agenda.3
Another blah blah blah blah blah more text blah blah
blah blah blah more text blah blah blah blah etc. etc. ...
_________
3
Colin Seymour-Ure, The Political Impact Of The Mass Media (London:
Constable, 1974), pp. 99-136.

• To create and manage your references, use
Microsoft Word’s ‘Referencing’ function (called
‘Footnote’ in pre-Office 2003 versions of Word)
to create your references:
– when you reorder text, it will automatically re-
sequence your references in the new correct
order.

1. Click at the point at where you want to insert
a reference in your main text (e.g., the end of
a sentence).


2. Click on
‘Insert’,
then, on the
drop-down
menu,
‘Reference’,
then click
on
‘Footnote’.

3. Choose your options from
the command box (left),
then click on ‘Insert’.
A footnote number is
created, with a space to
enter the desired reference
text.
• Note: whether using Cambridge or
Harvard for your actual referencing,
you can also use footnoting to
include (small amounts of) useful
supplementary information that
would distract if in your main text.
(Larger useful additional information
should be placed in appendices).

Cambridge Referencing:
BOOKS
• First reference to book sources:
– Include full author name(s), full title (italics or underline), place of
publication, publisher, date of publication, page reference(s)
13
Stanley Cohen, Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation
of Mods and Rockers, Oxford: Blackwell, 1972, p. 137.

• Second & subsequent references to the same source
(short version):
– author surname, short version of title (italics or underline), page
reference(s).
16
Cohen, Folk Devils and Moral Panics, p. 137.

JOURNAL ARTICLES
• First reference to journal sources: include:
– full article author name(s), ‘full title of article’ (in quote-marks), in full
title of journal publication (italics or underline), place of publication,
publisher, volume, number, year of publication, page reference(s).
Richard S. Grayson, ‘Mods, Rockers and Juvenile
14

Delinquency in 1964: The Government Response’, in
Contemporary British History, London: Frank Cass,
vol. 12, no. 1, 1998, p. 33.

• Second & subsequent references to the same article in
the same source (short version):
– author surname, ‘short version of title’ (in quote-marks), page refs.
17
Grayson, ‘Mods, Rockers and Juvenile Delinquency’,
p. 33.

EDITED (ANTHOLOGY) TITLES
• First reference to edited collections: include:
– full article author name(s), ‘full title of article’ (in quote-marks), in
full editor name(s) (ed.(s)), full title of publication (italics or
underline), place of publication, publisher, date of publication,
page reference(s)
15
Gordon A. Craig, ‘Churchill and Germany’, in Robert Blake
and Wm. Roger Lewis (eds.), Churchill, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1993, p. 25.

• Second & subsequent references to the same article
in the same source (short version):
– surname article author(s), ‘short version of title’ (in quote-marks),
page reference(s).
18
Craig, ‘Churchill and Germany’, p. 25.

If these same references were in Harvard …

… they’d look like this (bracketed within the main text)!
• Books:
(Cohen, 1972, p. 137)

• Journals:
(Grayson, 1998, p. 33)

• Articles in Edited titles:
(Craig, 1993, p. 25)

(NB, with Harvard, the reader has to cross-reference with the
Bibliography to find out the nature of the source, i.e., whether it
is book, journal, other).

referencing e-based sources
• This example is for web-site referencing (Cambridge)
1. Author 2. Full title of 3. The
name, if document in title of the
known ‘ ’ quote marks. complete work, if
applicable (italics
or underline)
Richard Davis, ‘New Zealand Labour Government and the ALP, 1939-40’,
The Electronic Journal of Australian and New Zealand History, 1996.
<http://www.jcu.edu.au/aff/history/ articles/davis.htm> (5 Feb 2007).

5. The
4. Date
full http address 6. The date of
of publication (or
(URL) your access in
last revision) if
within < > angle ( ) brackets
known
brackets

referencing e-based sources
• … and if it was Harvard …
In your references:
(Davis, 1996)

In your bibliography:
Davis, Richard (1996), ‘New Zealand Labour
Government and the ALP, 1939-40’, The Electronic
Journal of Australian and New Zealand History. <http://
www.jcu.edu.au/aff/history/articles/davis.htm>
(5 Feb. 2007).

Other sources
• Apply the logic of conventional referencing to other
sources. For example, referencing a TV documentary
might follow this format:
7
‘Taking On The Taliban: the Soldiers’ Story’, Panorama, BBC
documentary, first broadcast 5 Nov. 2007.
• Newspapers:
8
James Bloom, ‘Power from the final frontier’, Guardian
‘Technology’ section, 1 Nov. 2007, p.1.
• Surveys, polls, etc.:
9
Gallup poll on ‘British Attitudes to Race Relations’ (following
the publication of the MacPherson Report), Apr. 1999.

Referencing primary sources
• Interviews:
– Referencing (Cambridge):
13
Interview with Gordon Brown, MP (5 Nov. 2007).
17
Interview with Matt Phillips, Communications Manager,
British Phonographic Industry (16 Apr. 2006).
– Referencing (Harvard): use footnotes as above, or in main text:
(Interview with Gordon Brown, MP, 5 Nov. 2007)
(Interview with Matt Phillips, 16 Apr. 2006).
– In the bibliography:
Interview with Gordon Brown, MP (5 Nov. 2007).
Interview with Matt Phillips, Communications Manager, British
Phonographic Industry (16 Apr. 2006).

• Private papers:
13
L.S. Amery, 14 Jul. 1918, in Barnes, John & Nicolson, David (eds.), T
he Leo Amery Diaries: vol.1, London: Hutchinson, 1980, p.226.
17
Austen Chamberlain to Ida Chamberlain, 20 Jan. 1924, AC5/1/303,
Birmingham University Library.
– Referencing (Harvard ): use footnotes as above, or in main text:
(Amery diary, 14 Jul. 1918, 226)
(A. Chamberlain to Ida Chamberlain, 20 Jan. 1924, AC5/1/303)
[name of collection] [location of source]
L.S. Amery Barnes, John & Nicolson, David (eds.), The
Leo Amery Diaries: vol.1, London: Hutchinson,
1980.
Austen Chamberlain MSS Birmingham University Library.

• Public papers (government, business, etc.):
13
Cabinet decision to go to war, CAB 23/100 folders 474-83; see also:
FO 800/317 folder 84.

17
ATOC minutes of Extraordinary General Meeting, 2 Mar. 2005.
– Referencing (Harvard ): use footnotes as above, or in main text:
(CAB 23/100 folders 474-83); FO 800/317 folder 84)
(ATOC EGM minutes, 2 Mar. 2005)
[name of collection] [location of source]
Cabinet Papers (CAB) (23 series) Public Record Office, Kew
Foreign Office (FO) (800 series) Public Record Office, Kew
Papers of the Association of Train ATOC Headquarters, London
Operating Companies (ATOC)

• Other:
13
Observations of staff interaction by author during work experience in
Waitrose Product Buying department, London, 27 Jul.-17 Aug. 2007.
– Referencing (Harvard ): use footnotes as above, or write in main
text:
… certainly no evidence of outward intimidation or bullying, during the period in
which the current author was undertaking her work experience (27 Jul.-17 Aug.
2007).

Observational studies:
The present author’s work experience at Waitrose Product Buying Department,
London (where it was agreed with line managers that log records could be
taken examining the interaction of the Asia buying team).

Plagiarism – and how to
avoid it
• Plagiarism is the passing off of others’ ideas or writing
as if they were your own.
• It is a serious offence to Plagiarise. There are serious
penalties if you are found to have taken material from other
sources and failed to credit them.
• It is easy to accidentally commit plagiarism through error
or slackness, yet the penalties for being found to have
committed plagiarism are no less forgiving.
– Because of the length of time involved in producing larger projects
and dissertations, it is easier to accidentally commit plagiarism in
these than it is with most other assignments.
– This is because, if your note-taking is less than thorough, when writing
up weeks or months later, you can easily forget whether ideas or
words are your own or someone else’s.
• So how can you guard against committing plagiarism
accidentally?

avoid it
At note-taking / research stages:
• Be thorough & focused with your research note-
taking –
– always record the source details at the top of the page;
– Always record page number information by the side of
every piece of information you record – whether you are
quoting or summarising in your own words;
– For any paragraphs, sentences or even phrases that you
take word-for-word (for possible quotation in your work),
remember to place the word-for-word information in
your notes in quotation marks ‘ ’;
– Always record where the idea originates and where
your thoughts are your own.

avoid it
At the writing-up stages – referencing
• Remember, referencing is all about being
transparent with where you are obtaining source
information:
– Solid, thorough, honest referencing constitutes your
primary means of conveying where you are obtaining
material to build your argument – and therefore avoiding
accidental plagiarism.
• Get in the habit of inserting references early:
– i.e., from your first-draft onwards, or …
– … if this disrupts your written flow, then insert references
immediately after writing your first draft;
– Update your references in a similar way with each
subsequent redraft;

avoid it
At the writing-up stages – referencing (cont.)
• Be thorough, methodical & consistent with your
referencing:
– Many students under-use referencing. There’s nothing
wrong with multiple references on a single page;
– By contrast, there may be something suspicious if there
are only ever 1 or 2 references per page (sections
commenting purely on your own research are an
exception).
– Remember, you must not only reference ‘direct quotes’
(where you are using the words of others) …
– … but also reference where you summarise the ideas of
others in your own words.
– Consistency of referencing style is important and will also
help you to be sure all the required information is present.

avoid it
At the writing-up stage – ‘in-text signposting’
• Referencing is not the only means by which you can attribute
your use of evidence from other sources – and thus avoid
charge of plagiarism.
– You can also augment this with selected in-text
attributions, where helpful for the readability of the work to
do so. See ‘signposting’ the ideas of others in week 4 (Academic
Writing).
– Here is an example from Psychology, using Harvard:
As Liverant (1960) has pointed out, we may indeed
inherit an intellectual potential, but that potential will
vary depending upon the environment we encounter
during development.
E.Jerry Phares, Introduction to Personality, (3rd edn.), 1991, p.429

avoid it
At the writing-up stage – ‘in-text signposting’
– Here is another example:
It is open to question whether any real understanding had
ever existed between the two parties. Stephen Brooke
raises this doubt in his account of the Labour Party
during wartime, claiming that debates about
reconstruction within the Coalition ‘invariably fell along
party lines’ and that ‘in terms of policy and ideology Labour
retained a distinctive programme’.16
…
_________
16
Brooke, 1992, pp.9-10.
Nick Ellison, ‘Consensus Here, Consensus there …’, in Jones & Kandiah (eds.), The Myth Of
Consensus, 1996, p.19-20

avoid it
At the writing-up stage (cont.)
• If you are thorough with both referencing and
in-text signposting, then any information left
non-attributed in your work will rightly be
recognised as your own contribution to the
debate – and therefore not require referencing!
Top stuff!

avoid it
• ‘Legitimised’ Plagiarism: ‘a grey area’ of ‘virtual
plagiarism’ that can still land people in trouble
… avoid!
– Quotations of others’ work should not be an excuse to do
no thinking or writing of your own.
– Therefore, avoid overuse of over-large quotations.
Large quotes should be an exception rather than the rule,
reserved for especially important or particularly quotable
information.
– A bad assignment, with large chunks of quoted material –
properly referenced but with minimal linking sentences of
the student’s own – may not technically constitute full-
blown plagiarism, but can still land students in trouble.
This kind of ‘legitimised plagiarism’ should be avoided –
you will not get good grades for uncritically lifting others’
views, no matter how well referenced that material is.

avoid it
• ‘Legitimised’ Plagiarism (cont)
– Most of your presentation of others’ ideas should involve
summarise the point in your words, ‘flitting in and out’
of quotation as necessary. Let’s look again at the
example above, with the relevant section now highlighted.
See how this academic maintains effective written flow by
using only selected key passages from the argument of
Brooke that he is presenting in order to build his own
argument.

Stephen Brooke raises this doubt in his account of the
Labour Party during wartime, claiming that debates about
reconstruction within the Coalition ‘invariably fell
along party lines’ and that ‘in terms of policy and
ideology Labour retained a distinctive programme’.16

Focusing & writing your
introduction & conclusion
Your introduction:
• When should I start writing my introduction?
• Your Introduction should be set up to be a
powerful ‘signposting’ tool, that eases the
reader into your topic & explains exactly what
will be looked at.
• Don’t forget, an Introduction should properly
‘introduce’ the topic:
– This may sound obvious, but bear in mind:
– Depending on the nature of your project, there will be
a range of things your Introduction should be
addressing in order to be properly fulfilling in Intro
function.
A checklist of things your Introduction could or
should do 

Your Int
roductio
achieved n checkl
) ist (tick
 Interp when/if
reting the
from the title. Ide
title? ntify: is
- Is the the proje
re a ct clear
nything t
the outse hat need
t, in term s defining
s of focu ,i
- Any p
ossible a s or appr n brief, from
up in rela mbiguity oach?;
tion to th that coul
be interp e title? A d be clea
reted in m nything t red
- Any t ore than hat could
echnical one way?
explanat terms req ;
ion?; uiring im
- If so, mediate
clarify.
- Is it h
elpful to
your title explain h
/ questio ow you w
n? ill interpr
et

hen/if
Your Introduction checklist (tick w
achieved) , to
ackground information
 must contain helpful b s of:
our topic. Think in term
ease the reader into y
- ‘setting the scene’;
ntext:
- p roviding necessary co history
- any helpfu l (brief) overview of the
ct;
surrounding your subje of
- perhaps an identifi cation of how this area
ontext.
investigation fits into a wider c
reader to
- What it is helpfu l and/or useful for the
ct;
know from th e start about your proje

Your Int introduction & conclusion
roducti on chec
achieved klist (tic
 must ) k when/i
identify th f
project: e overall
aims / fo
- If yo cus of th
u have a e
- Likewise hypothes
it will hel is (or hyp
which the p to iden otheses)
tify any c , identify;
 follow dissertat entral foc
ing on th ion is bu us aroun
ilt;
across ch is
, identify d
apters’ o any key t
‘underpin r which c hemes th
’ your dis an be se at ‘cut
more app sertation en to
ropriate f as a who
week 4). or Cat. A le. (This
projects, is
as define
d in
A: Issue-structured (arts-humanities model)

B: Experiment / survey / results-led (i.e., scientific-model)

n/if
n ch ecklist (tick whe
Your Introductio
achieved) of
utline why the subject is
 could usefully o ;
emands attention
interest / why it d gement – don’t ov
ur jud
erplay
- b e temperate in yo y;
the import ance of your stud to identify relative
be able
- neverth eless, you should project
s of what makes your
importance in term
on;
rthy of investigati e
wo own interest in th
 maybe say a little about your area
w yo ur interest in the
subject, perhaps ho
developed;

Your Introductio
n (continued)
 If yours is a c
at. ‘A’ project (see
strongly advised week 4), you are
to provide a chapte
breakdown of cov r-by-chapter
erage.
- It is as powerful a
‘signposting’ mech
can have, making anism as one
promises as to wh
subsequent chapte at will follow in
rs;
- You must, of
course, make sure
all these promises that you deliver on
, both in terms of s
content, in all you tructure &
r main chapters th
precisely the way at follow – in
you have indicate
Introduction. d in your



Your Introductio
n (continued)
 If yours is a c
For example: at. ‘A’ project (see
strongly advised week 4), you are
to prov the extent to
Chapter one will analyse ide a chapter-which apter the
breakdown of cov by-ch … and
e age
relationship between […] rand .[…]. It will explore how […] and
- It is as powerf
ascertaincwhether this ul a ‘sa nposting’of echaor other forces.
was igproduct m […] nism a
an have, making p
romises as to wha s one
The bsequent […] is explored in chapteriltwo.ow in
su nature ofchapte t w l foll Whether
rs;
[…] can be u must, have influenced […] will be addressed,
- Yo seen toof
course, mak
along withll[…]. eThe question of e sure tha[…] u delivefactor will be
a thes promises whether t yo was a r on
, both in terms of s
investigated, as well as the extent to whichtr[…]. re &
content, in all you uctu
r main chapters th
Chapter ly the way examine […] … at follow – in
precise three will
you have indic
Introducconcluded that […] … ated in your
It will be tion.



Your Introduction (continued)
(if not
 could contain a review of the literature
uction
required in own section, following the Introd
– see week 4).
 could contain a discussion of research methods
g the
(if not required in own section, followin
Introduction – see week 4).

Your introduction:
• Remember, consideration of what to include in an
introduction should always be measured by whether it is
helpful to include that information;
• If you wish, you can use an introduction to make a bold
assertion – provided you later explore and justify this in
your main body.
• That stated, don’t be sensationalist for the sake of it …
but try to make your writing engaging to the reader.
• You could open your Introduction (and, indeed, other
sections) with a well-chosen quote. Stylistically this may
be desirable, but only do so if you have a quote perfectly
suited to the purpose.

Your introduction:
• Keep your introduction to a reasonable size:
– It depends greatly on what needs to be stated, but as
a general rule, think between 1/7th and 1/10th of your
overall written sections (e.g., excluding appendices
and bibliography).
– Maybe a little bigger still if your Intro contains a
necessarily sizeable ‘literature review’ and/or
‘research methods’ aspects (i.e., not in separate
sections)
• What should I call my Introduction?
– ‘Introduction’ is fine,
– though you might wish to title it more specifically, i.e.
‘An introduction to …’, might do, or any other
variations.

Your conclusion:
• You should have a final concluding (usually fairly
short) chapter in which you ‘wrap up’ your
project in its entirety. This should:
– Summarise / bring together all the main points you
have dealt with;
– stress key findings; and:
– if appropriate, make recommendations (if not in its
own section following: ‘Recommendations’ sections
being more of a characteristic of cat. B projects) ~


Your conclusion:
• Should I use the conclusion to introduce any
new points?
– No, except perhaps if you need to briefly
contextualise what you have discussed as part of a
wider or related issue.

A checklist of things your Conclusion could or
should do 

Conclusion checklist (tick when/if ac& conclusion
introduction hieved)
f your
 should draw to gether the key findings o
main body chapters. , where
 should make ove rall concluding remarks
t
appropriate summa rising how the differen
to
themes and finding s may be seen to relate
one another;
 could benefit fro m referring back to the
w the
question / title, and pointing to ho d…
question has succ essfully been addresse
ressed:
- … or rea sonably successfully add
don’t claim more than your project
n
deserves – it’s bette r to admit its limitations (i
retend
a considered, academic way) than to p
these don’t exist;

Conclusion ch
 sh
introductionf &c conclusion
ecklist (tick w
hen/i a
ould indicate h hieved)
ow any constr
evidence ham aints on the
pered your res
 could, if re earch;
levant, comme
would make to nt on changes
your research you
the opportunity were you to ha
to research the ve
 could and topic again, an
/or point to pot d/or:
benefit further ential areas tha
investigation; t would
 could ben
efit from ‘stepp
how your findin ing back’ and s
gs fit within an peculating
(this must be re y wider conte
asonably brief xt
helpful to do so and it must be
, otherwise you
 could outli are digressing)
ne your recom ;
action. mendations fo
r further

Your conclusion:
• Should I present my own opinions in the
Conclusion?
– Yes, of course, provided …
• … you write these academically;
• … the points you are making are to ‘wrap up’
discussion of your topic(s), reminding the reader of
your findings or bringing together points previously
addressed individually;
• … that it is not opinion better placed in your main
sections, as part of your main body discussion –
remember the Conclusion is not the only place for
original thinking: it is primarily for summarising key
themes & findings established in the main body.

Critical analysis of your own work:
editing, proofreading, ‘troubleshooting’

• Weeks 1 & 2 concentrated on the critical
analytical questioning that is essential to
obtaining the best evidence to build an
effective dissertation / project ~ how to get
the best material from the work of others.
• Critical analysis questioning must also be
applied to your own work, which is as
vital as critically analysing the assertions
of others’.


– Use the following slides to routinely self-
diagnose the standard of your work from
your first draft onwards.
– In the final stages of writing, careful critical
analysis of your work is a powerful
‘troubleshooting’ tool for gauging the
effectiveness of your work on multiple fronts;
– Use the checkboxes to tick off ‘’ all the
categories only when you feel you have
reached sufficiently high standards.


Critical analysis is all about YOU
being YOUR severest critic!! (you will
get constructive feedback from your
supervisor, but only you can be your best
critic …).


1. ‘Structural / focus / coverage
considerations’;
2. ‘The academic nature of my work’;
3. ‘Bibliography and referencing: technical’;
4. ‘Constructive use of sources to “build an
argument”’;
5. ‘Readability’ & effective written
communication’;
6. ‘Stats and figures’;
7. ‘The importance of consistency’.


1. ‘Structural / focus / coverage
considerations’
 Is the structure sensible … overall?
 Is the structure sensible … within each
individual chapter / section?
 Is everything covered relevant … and in
the right place?
 Is there appropriate fullness of coverage?
 Is there a sensible, logical progression
through each component theme?


2. ‘The academic nature of my work’
 Have I written in the ‘third person’
consistently throughout?
 To the best of my ability, does my work
aspire to sound academic writing
practices – i.e., attempt to be balanced,
unbiased, impartial in observation &
accurate in reflecting the research /
views of others’?


2. ‘… academic nature …’ (cont)
 Have opportunities to introduce ‘original
thinking’ have been seized upon, with
arguments based on prior discussion
(i.e., the literature) and defended well?
 Is there sufficient analytical depth to my
investigation?


3. ‘Bibliography and referencing: technical’
 Is my referencing OK:
– Accurate?
– Thorough?
– Consistent in style throughout?
… including page number or full web
pathway information?
 Is my bibliography accurate, thorough,
consistent, complete, etc..

4. ‘Constructive use of sources to “build an
argument”’
 Am I using others’ material (in my words
or theirs) effectively, i.e., in order:
 to build / progress my arguments?, or:
 to compare & contrast with
information/views from elsewhere?, or:
 to let me convey information useful to get me
to a point where I can satisfy 1. or 2.; or:
 help me wrap up & move to the next point?
 … all fully credited by accurate, honest
referencing?

4. ‘Constructive use of sources …’ (cont)
 Have I presented all the information &
arguments correctly, fairly & accurately –
with no misrepresenting of others’ ideas?
 Have I analysed & evaluated the source
evidence fairly & with sufficient depth? Is
there anything more I need to say? Have
I said too much?
 Have I identified strengths? …
weaknesses? … flaws in thinking?
 (If required) is my primary research well
interpreted & effectively presented?


5. ‘Readability’ & effective written
communication
 Have all necessary technical terms been
explained (and checked for accuracy)?
 Have all unnecessary technical terms &
jargon been replaced?
 Does my Introduction properly introduce?
 Do my main sections deliver on promises
signposted in my Introduction?


5. ‘Readability’ & ... communication’ (cont)
 Is my ‘signposting’ - linking - use of
connectives present and effective …
within and across chapters?
 Does my Conclusion emphasise and
draw together all my key findings from
my main sections?
 Is there sufficient clarity throughout in
terms of remembering periodically to
‘refer the reader back to the question /
title’)?

5. ‘Readability’ & … communication’ (cont)
 Is there sufficient descriptive material to
ensure good linking and flow between
all the points I raise?;
 Is my paragraphing sensible (1 ‘topic
sentence’ + thereafter only ‘support
sentences’, per single paragraph)?;
 Have I achieved effective clarity of written
expression: proper identification &
tackling of difficult points, sentences
worked & reworked to ensure any
possible ambiguities or potential
misunderstandings have been
removed?

6. ‘Presenting stats and figures’
 Is the chosen data always relevant?
 Is my diagram-based information clearly
presented?
 Have I sufficiently commented upon (in
writing) my findings, & is my analysis
of the data solid/ interpretation correct?
 Have I presented my findings well, with
no hint of ambiguity?
 Have I introduced appropriate
cautionary / qualifying remarks?

7. ‘The importance of Consistency’
Consistency of referencing & bibliography
has been emphasised. What about:
 consistency of written expression /
communication (throughout and within
individual sections)?
 consistency of argument (throughout and
within individual sections)?
 consistency of presentational style
(throughout and within individual
sections)?

Dissertations 5 ref, plagiarism, own crit-analysis [handout]

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Dissertations 5 ref, plagiarism, own crit-analysis [handout] (20)

More from Study Hub (17)

Recently uploaded (20)

Dissertations 5 ref, plagiarism, own crit-analysis [handout]