#(rather than writing A Chapter with An Argument. it current has no intro or conclusion)

[howlsmovinglibrary]

6500 / 10000 words into the FINAL CHAPTER OF MY FUCKING THESIS and we are VIBRATING IN OUR CHAIRS LADS.

[everythingissymbolic]

A tutor’s guide to lit reviews

A while back I did a post on writing a basic academic analysis essay, prompted by repeated issues I’d seen during my work as a tutor. Based on similar concerns I’ve seen regarding other common writing projects, I’ve decided to expand this into a series. Today I’m going to tackle literature reviews.

I would like to emphasize right off the bat that all this advice is based on my experience both as a tutor and student with a humanities and social sciences background. Take what is useful to you, leave the rest, and definitely listen to your instructor over me.

First of all, what is a literature review? It’s a review of the literature – taking a look at what scholars have written about a certain topic. Literature reviews are often written before or as a component of a research paper. You want to know what other people are saying about a subject before you jump in yourself. What has been covered exhaustively? What is relatively agreed upon? What is disputed? What gaps exist – areas or angles that no one has yet investigated adequately? A literature review can help guide your own research by showing you which areas are worth probing into. When you write it, depending on exactly what your instructor is asking and whether the lit review is part of a longer paper, you may simply focus on the findings of these other scholars or do some more analysis work (what conclusions can you draw? What limitations do you notice?) Overall, it is less about making an original argument than about identifying trends or conclusions made by others, and your thesis will reflect that.  Now, if the lit rev is part of a bigger research paper, your thesis will of course have to do with the research you are conducting.

Doing the Research

Before you start writing a lit review, you’ll need to gather the research you’re going to talk about. If you’re doing a big project like a dissertation, you might exhaustively track down everything you can find. If you’re writing a smaller paper, you’ll probably be less ambitious, especially if your topic is broad. (Imagine reading every article on Hamlet!) Try to make your topic as narrow as you can, first of all. Then prioritize articles that are current (especially if you are in a field that values currency such as STEM fields) and/or highly regarded. “Important” articles can often be identified by keeping an eye out for important researchers’ names and noting how often articles have been cited. Some databases like Web of Science will show you who is citing what, and Google Scholar is moving in that direction. More citations reflect an article that is making waves and probably worth looking at.

Once you have a good selection of articles, read through them. You may decide some don’t fit and discard them. Once you have a set you want to work with, identify their main arguments and points. That’s what your literature review will discuss.

Organization

A common mistake when writing a lit review is to organize it by source. The first body paragraph describes article #1, the second paragraph describes article #2, etc. Instead, the best way to organize a lit review is by concept. You're putting different scholars into conversation with each other. (Academia is a conversation – albeit often a very insular one.) What do most of the scholars seem to agree on? What areas do they disagree on?

As you're doing this, as I said earlier, you may be identifying gaps in the literature. What haven't people talked about? What might they be overlooking or not interpreting right?

Anatomy of a Lit Review

If you’re writing a bigger paper, the lit review will probably be a small portion wedged between your introduction and methodology. This post is mainly designed to help people writing a lit review that stands alone and requires its own introduction and conclusion.

Introduction

Your intro will start out by identifying your subject and justifying why it's important. Why focus on this? It will also identify any major trends you noticed in the literature and major conclusions you can draw (your thesis). If there are any terms or concepts that might be unfamiliar, outline them here, especially if you’re using terms in a way that might not be universal. You should also be clear about your scope – which portions of the subject are you concerned about (ex: caffeine use in young middle-class adults from 18-25). Here’s an example I did for a lit review on ebooks.

The rise of technology in libraries has allowed electronic or e-books – “digital objects specifically designed to be accessible online and read on either a handheld device or a personal computer” – to become a major part of the text-based world (Bailey, Scott, and Best 7). Authors have the opportunity to self-publish their work, students can read assigned chapters on their phones, and librarians can stock texts without having to make room on the shelves. According to the Huffington Post, four out of five publishers now regularly publish e-books (Bailey, Scott, and Best 6). Certainly, e-books are not going away. Instead, they are a growing phenomenon and one that librarians must consider carefully. Librarians face many issues when considering how much to supplement or replace their collections with e-books. Some problems are universal, while others vary between types of books and libraries. For the purpose of this paper, academic libraries and academic e-books will be considered.  

I’ve defined ebooks (although there are some obvious holes in that definition), emphasized that they’re worth considering with some statistics, and identified the scope of my paper (academic libraries and e-books). The second paragraph of my introduction goes on to explain why this is important:

The use of electronic books is a major concern for modern academic libraries and so is an area worth thorough investigation. Newer generations of students are digital natives, accustomed to being able to access information on the go. Being able to read text on their computers and screens is something they take for granted. On the professional side, pricing and space are constant issues. […] E-books both help and hinder library interests. As the digital world continues to grow, libraries must decide how to adapt. Considering e-books is part of that response. Matters of practicality and user preferences both play a part in that decision-making process. […] Taking everything into consideration, research suggests that academic librarians ought to pursue a hybridized strategy keyed to their particular situation. While this may appear non-committal, the tactic aids libraries in serving patrons to the best of their ability. 

Here, I have both justified my topic and laid out a blueprint for my literature review. What are my main topics and themes? I am going to be looking at pricing, space, practicality, and user preferences. Based on the research I looked at, I’ve drawn a conclusion.

Body Paragraphs

As I mentioned earlier, body paragraphs should be structured by idea rather than article. The topic sentence rule I talked about in the last essay post still holds true – start each paragraph with a topic sentence describing the paragraph’s focus. Ex:

Topic Sentence: The impact of e-books on access is a complicated issue. First main point: At first glance, e-books are much more accessible than print. They can be read anywhere at any time and do not need to be carted around. Many students cite accessibility as e-books' main advantage. Supporting details from various sources: In a survey done by Gilbert and Fister, "ease of access" is the top reason students say they might use e-books (474). […] Second main point (counterpoint, putting sources in conflict): However, in some ways e-books are very inaccessible. Some individuals with disabilities might have difficulty reading electronically, even while others may find it helpful to be able to zoom in on text, change its font, or manipulate it in other ways. […] Conclusion: E-book accessibility is not as simple as logging in. While the ability for a student to read an e-book in their dorm room is a draw, it becomes less of one if the screen gives them headaches or they cannot open the book on their personal e-reader.  

Discussion/Conclusion

If you’re writing a standalone lit review, hopefully throughout the body paragraphs you have been looking at themes and ideas shown in the literature. However, you might take some time in a separate discussion portion to contemplate the ramifications and draw some conclusions or make recommendations.

But wait! We’re not quite done.

Recommendations for Further Research

Scholars love identifying areas for further research. It justifies their existence. Based on what you see here, what should be investigated next? What gaps need to be filled? Are events developing so quickly this will all need to be revisited? Do you see any big changes on the horizon? If your lit rev is part of a bigger paper, you are probably going to identify a gap that you’re about to fill! Ex:

E-books, like all other parts of the digital world, are a topic that should be continually checked as attitudes and technology change. […]

An area where e-books may outpace their print counterparts is where they can stretch the medium. […] Further research into more cutting edge e-books and user response could suggest whether this is a field where e-books can gain some popularity, or whether they will continue to be seen as a distraction from the words on the page.  

This site is a good guide to reference. Looking at actual literature reviews is also a good way to get used to writing them. Some databases allow you to search for them specifically. If there isn’t that option, searching with ‘review’ as a keyword or in the title field will often net you a few. Also, just google sample literature reviews!

Again, remember this is all my perspective. I encourage you to seek as many as possible to figure out what works for you. And always follow your instructor’s recommendations.

[myquickassignment-blog]

How Do You Write Essays or Articles

Learning how to do something takes a lot of time. It may take you less time than the next person, but it will still take time. The important thing is to get a plan of action. Planning an essay is easier when you have a word count.

For example a 1m500 term essay: 250 words introduction 300 terms main point one, 300, main point two, 300 main point three, 100 words either spare or to connect these collectively before, 250 words bottom line. Simply done you break your essay down into several sections. I actually used a science project I got a good mark for as the basic structure for my essays at masters' level. The science project was written when I was 14/15 nonetheless it had a clear workable structure.

These are all different in the way that they are written as well as their objective. Each is unique in its own way. For more information related to Assignments please visit the website. Read more here - Best Essay Writing Service UK , Dissertation Help Online.

The key points you need to have for an excellent essay are an intro and conclusion and the core points/arguments.

I'll use the example of 'Who were the Normans?' as it is a subject I am currently researching.

The introduction:

This has no references usually, well the launch can if it includes a quote or traditional date or study etc., but all in all it should be limited. The intro is where you say what you are going to be writing about. (see my opening, it's a quotation referencing the author, and then a statement of what I am going to do). Keep it short and to the point.

EXAMPLE: The Normans had been a cultural group from what is right now northern France. Many think of them as French but they came from Scandinavia. Does this make them French or Viking as an ethnic group, especially during the 1066 invasion of England?

Optional addition Background paragraph/chapter/section:

In a longer essay, or dissertation, you may want to add in some very specific background. For shorter essays this is often placed in the introduction. (that would be the bit above where I state the example I will use)

EXAMPLE: The Normans occupied the lands of Normandy in northern France. Rollo their innovator was granted this area as a duchy buy the king of the Franks.

Argument/core point 1:

This section should be a third of the main bulk of your essay (see the numbers a gave above for a rough breakdown). This is either your argument for the primary question or the main reason for its truth. Use good examples to back up your factors with references. Also, become very clear when it is your summary/idea, or an author's conclusion/idea. Try to keep on track and don't include too much dissenting opinion. This should be a fairly main stream argument for the proposal or truth of the original assertion leave the quirky stuff till later on (do mention you will be talking about it later though) that you will see in the section a little further down.

EXAMPLE: The Normans were clearly Vikings look where they originated from X, Y and Z say this in their books. They spent time fighting the Franks (French) through the Norman expansion (reference A) so how could they be considered French?

Argument/core point 2:

This is exactly the same as your last section apart from being the complete opposite perspective. Again reference works and keep the ideas fairly mainstream. You can hint at which idea you prefer but reinforce that this is the history and arguments of others rather than your ideas (although you should include some). Hint at ideas you have hit on such as the quirky suggestions that I mentioned above and will expand upon below.

EXAMPLE: The Normans had been clearly French look how long they were in France before 1066 and the amount of intermarriage with the locals (reference B). Look at their utilization of horses (picture of Bayeux tapestry) the Vikings fought on foot like the Saxons.

Argument/core point section 3:

This section is slightly different. That is almost a mini bottom line. Use this area to talk about the ideas which you have come across that are further out from the primary crowd that you need to have mentioned above. That would be those quirky ideas I have talked about. You need these to show that you have read around the subject and understand more than the mainstream points. If you throw them away to early then the marker may decide that you will be on a rant with lots of bias and that may arranged them against you causing distrust. This section should have more of your own ideas in. Whilst you will have put in opinions in the over sections this is where you should really shine. Things like picking a badly researched or thought out article and shredding it proceed in here. You should be hinting at your conclusion near the end of this section.

EXAMPLE: They were neither French nor Viking although the Brythonic settlement of northern France had remaining a different genetic make-up in the area (reference C). France is certainly often split into north and south with distinct language change between the two (reference D). They weren't French because France didn't exist and they weren't Vikings as that is a verb plus they had stopped Viking. if you appear at their genetic make-up these were actually exactly like the Saxons so it's actually a civil war (reference crazy man F).

The conclusion:

This should be a rough mirror of the introduction in size and subject. It has no references generally, well the conclusion can do if it offers a quote or historical date or research etc., but overall it must be limited. The conclusion is where you state what you have written about in the essay and what it means. (see my intro, it's a near mirror of the paragraph, and a declaration of what I am have done). Keep it short and also to the point. I've now shown you how to plan an essay.

EXAMPLE: We have seen above that there is strong evidence for both sides of this debate. A middle floor is likely the correct interpretation. The Viking raiders under Rollo had experienced a lot in common with the initial Saxon tribes due to the areas they originally migrated from. The Brithonic nature of Brittany which got a large effect upon the growing Normandy would have led to an identity French yet Brithonic in part. If we attract this together it may be suggested that they were none of the above but by the time of 1066 these were a distinct group of people.

Now structuring is only part of the battle. Spelling, punctuation and grammar are also important. The way to do this is to use a product such as http://www.Grammarly.com. Type your practise essays into there or actually throw some of your old work in there. This will highlight the areas that you should improve on. As long as you can write obviously and structure your essay well then you are almost now there.

Other considerations: Your subject. Don't just read the books on the publication list. read around the topic. Use connected disciplines. Say you are authoring cafe design maybe make a point about the growing issue of back pain wand reference a medical journal to support a spot about ergonomics of seats etc. Another factor is how to create a sentence or paragraph. The framework I used above is very similar to the way in which one would write at any structure level.

[liturgyontheweekend]

When Harry Became Sally: Chapter 3

This chapter highlights the stories of a selection of detransitioners.

p49–52: INTRO

Anderson introduces the chapter, saying that voices of detransitioners deserve to be heard, and he’s going to present several of their stories. I don’t disagree that these stories should be heard, and I do think it’s sad that some trans activists have sought to silence these stories. I don’t think the media has helped, by trying to pit the two marginalized groups against each other, and I hope that the trans community can come to terms with these stories in a more inclusive way and that non-trans folks like Anderson can see these stories not in opposition to folks that are actually trans.

After reading the chapter, I’m definitely noticing that he’s only highlighting one type of detransition story, which works against his claim that he wants to showcase marginalized voices. He chooses six people, all of whom transitioned and then detransitioned because the transition didn’t feel right and didn’t address their underlying problems. He doesn’t share any stories of people who detransitioned due to social or family pressures, who may or may not still identify as transgender, and he doesn’t share any stories of people who detransitioned and then retransitioned.

And the elephant in the room is that he doesn’t share any stories of people who view their transition as successful and are living well-adjusted lives as transgender individuals. I can’t imagine his readers wouldn’t benefit from hearing those stories as well.

I’ll write very little about each of these.

p52–56: CARI

Experienced dissociative disorder. Transitioned due to gender stereotypes. She’s a lesbian.

I think it’s very clear reading this story that the medical profession fails people at times. She received poor care, and was rushed into transition.

p56–58: MAX

Transitioned due to gender stereotypes. She’s a lesbian.

Anderson did not reach out to her, and her comments when she found out her story was used included: “I’m not OK with it…I was not informed.”

She transitioned because she didn’t understand how she could live as a lesbian woman due to societal structures around her. And Anderson mentions that she’s careful to not discount stories of those who have transitioned and found it to be the answer for them.

p59–62: CRASH

Transitioned due to gender stereotypes and underlying trauma. She’s a lesbian.

Anderson did not reach out to her, and her comments when she found out her story was used included: “enraged to see my story distorted and used…would never have agreed to be included in such a book.”

She transitioned, she says, because she was harassed for being a lesbian and because her mom died by suicide. I feel like this story also highlights the need for better mental health care and perhaps a more cautious, measured approach to transition.

p62–66: TWT

Transitioned due to trauma. Experienced dissociative disorder.

Anderson did not reach out to him, and his comments when he found out his story was used included: “unaware my story was used to promote a political agenda…this happens a lot and it is not my intention.”

Another one which implicates bad doctors. No argument from me that we should have more good doctors and more comprehensive, high-quality health care.

While transitioned, he experienced much anti-trans discrimination.

p67–68: CAREY CALLAHAN

Transitioned due to trauma. Experienced dissociative disorder. Based on my reading elsewhere, I think she’s a lesbian.

Anderson did not reach out to her, and her comments when she found out her story was used included: “upset to be used as a rhetorical device by someone who does not respect me…enough to contact me.”

She questions young transition ages, since she got it wrong in her thirties. Anderson doesn’t share much of her story, but she appears to have been dissociative and hated her body. Her writings now are focused on hearing stories of detransitioners and responding to trans activists who try to shut them down.

p69–72: WALT HEYER

Transitioned due to significant childhood abuse. Experienced dissociative disorder.

Walt appeared on Christopher Cantwell’s podcast recently. Cantwell is a white supremacist who was part of the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, and said “we’ll f****** kill these people if we have to.”

I have very little to say to anyone who’s running in these circles. He should have had psychotherapy. He also shouldn't suggest that what was right for him is right for everyone.

p72–76: WRAPUP

The chapter title is “Detransitioners Tell Their Stories” but this is really Anderson telling their stories. He didn’t ask at least four of the six people if he could use their stories, and therefore they weren’t allowed to weigh in on whether his was a fair account. This is, at minimum, irresponsible journalism.

The only point he’s really made is that transitioning isn’t the solution to every problem. He admits that in the first sentence of this section, and then goes on to make an absolute claim, saying “trying to align the body with a transgender identity does not resolve the deep issues…” He needed to add “for these six people,” since there are myriad stories of people for whom it has resolved their deep issues.

On page 73, he again misrepresents the Swedish study which doesn’t say what he wants it to say. This time, it’s tough to say it’s not just a blatant lie. The study found that for those who transitioned post-1989, their rates of mortality, suicide, and crime are in line with the general population. I already talked about this in the Introduction email.

If we know that transgender people overall have a higher suicide rate than the general population, and there’s a Swedish study that Anderson seems to like which says that those who transitioned post-1989 have a rate in line with the general population, the only reasonable conclusion is that transitioning was helpful to these people, not harmful. Why does he keep saying the opposite?

He ends the chapter by quoting most of an open letter from Crash, who detransitioned and is lesbian, to Julia Serano, a transgender activist who she believes has misrepresented and been unfair to detransitioners. This is a heartfelt letter, and I did go read it in its entirety.

At the end of her letter, she openly acknowledges trans people, and also that she is not. She notes of those who eventually detransition: “so many of them are lesbian [and it’s] common for them to question whether they are really female.”

Anderson could start by working for an world in which folks like Crash feel validated and accepted for who they are, with full recognition and human rights, which would keep many lesbians like Crash from wondering whether they are really female and whether transitioning is the solution to their problems.

POSTSCRIPT

Finally, I took a look at the 2015 Transgender Survey, to find out more about detransitioning. 8% of over 27,000 respondents had detransitioned at some point in their lives, but 62% of those were currently living in a gender other than that assigned at birth. So we're in the 3–4% range for permanent detransitioning, since many detransition temporarily for some other societal reason. Only 5% of those who detransitioned did it because it wasn't right for them. 36% detransitioned because of pressure from a parent, 26% because of pressure from other family members, 18% due to pressure from a partner, 31% because of harassment, and 29% because of having trouble getting a job. (Respondents could cite multiple reasons, so the totals are greater than 100%). So a total of 0.4% of respondents to the survey detransitioned because transition wasn't right for them.

https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS-Full-Report-Dec17.pdf

The small number of folks (less than half a percent) who actually detransition because they made a mistake DOES NOT invalidate or lessen the importance of their stories. They should be heard, and transgender folks need to engage with them. We should also do more to ensure that we create a safe world for gender-nonconforming and LGB people such that fewer people like Crash transition for the wrong reasons.

Folks like Anderson also shouldn't appropriate detransitioners' stories to attempt to build a case that nobody should ever transition; clearly there are lots of stories he's not telling from the remaining 99.6%.

FOLLOW-UP

I received a response which I then responded to; I can’t print the response but I’ll print my follow-up:

My overall point was that his selection of people to profile is limited. These weren't transgender people; they were people with psychological issues who tried to solve them in a misguided way and for a time believed themselves to be transgender. You can't select a non-representative sample of people (non-transgender people who transitioned), note their psychological problems, and then post-rationalize your conclusions onto another group of people (actual transgender people). Your comment about whether or not those issues "exist within the larger community" is exactly my point -- Anderson doesn't know because he doesn't bother to ask. Probably because he knows what that would do to his argument. Obviously, then, we disagree about his political purposes. Minor point, also, but nobody ever claims that transitioning will alter chromosomal makeup, so I think we all agree there. Anderson, to this point in the book, has not spoken with a single transgender person! I'll eat my hat if he does anywhere in the book; my guess is he'll continue his current trajectory. If he were truly trying to engage the subject rather than pushing a preconceived position, he'd spend some time with folks in the community he's writing about.

I also don't see any evidence based on what you sent over that R.B. is transgender. Unless you've got data to the contrary, you're pushing the same strawman argument that Anderson is. She may fall into that 80% percent of Zucker's research, people who show some nonconformity in childhood but aren't transgender, and end up settling into a straight or LGB+ identity. People who are straight/gay living lives as straight/gay people do not invalidate people who are transgender, and my issue here is that Anderson doesn't interview or profile any of the large number of actual transgender people who do not regret their transitions.

I know some of them, and can assure you they are nothing like the detransitioners that Anderson highlights.

SUMMARY OF MY POINT: Profiling non-transgender people to make claims about transgender people is a strawman. Detransitioners' stories are important for their own sake, not for the sake of an argument that doesn't make sense and that they don't want to be a part of.