How to Write Brilliant Psychology Essays - Paul Dickerson

Скачать книгу

alt=""/>

      The introduction below is not perfect, but it is fairly good. See how bad you can make it with the fewest changes and then compare your best effort to the online version.

      For this challenge you are allowed to:

       Change the order of the sentences.

       Swap an existing sentence for one of the alternative sentences below.

       Create your own on-topic, grammatically correct but otherwise lousy alternative sentences (see the alternative sentence pool for ideas).

      If you are to make it really bad in as few changes as possible, what are you going to target and why?

      Essay title:

      ‘To what extent do Onorato and Turner (2004) critique the claim by Gaertner, Sedikes and Graetz that self-schemas are ‘‘monuments of stability’’ (1999: 5)?’

      The introduction

      The notion of self-schemas has been particularly important in social psychology, drawing on the substantial body of research into schemas to provide an empirically informed perspective on the often-illusive topic of self. This essay will start by briefly outlining some key work on self-schemas before discussing the challenge provided by Onorato and Turner’s (2004) self-categorisation approach, in particular focusing on the argument that self-perception is variable and context-dependent. The essay will also consider some of the challenges to social identity and self-categorisation approaches developed within discursive psychology, which in turn suggest that these approaches themselves have, through focusing on cognitive aspects of self and identity, failed to grasp something of the fluidity of constructions of self.

      What makes this introduction good?

      For a three-sentence introduction this is reasonably strong, especially if the material referred to really is made relevant in the body of the essay. The introduction provides an informed orientating sentence. It outlines what the essay will cover and demonstrates an understanding of the key focus (Onorato and Turner’s criticism of Gaertner, Sedikes and Graetz’s claim that ‘self-schemas are “monuments of stability”’). It further indicates an awareness of other potentially relevant material against which this criticism can be evaluated, although in addressing this it will have to keep focusing on the precise essay title, making it clear how discursive approaches are relevant for evaluating Onarato and Turner’s critique of Gaertner et al.’s claim.

      Alternative sentence pool <and why they are not so great>

       Who am I? Who are you? What is self? Philosophers and psychologists have struggled with these issues through the ages. <Admittedly this is more than one sentence, but it reveals important weaknesses. Above all, it is far too vague. Being more specific is both better in itself and also enables relevant knowledge to be drawn in more easily. As it stands, can you even tell that the author of this knows anything about the topic at all?>

       The self is a key issue in psychology and has been the focus of much empirical study. <Again, too vague and no real psychological knowledge is evident. Anyone could write a sentence like this without knowing anything about psychology.>

       Gaertner, Sedikes and Graetz (1999) proved that self-schemas are ‘‘monuments of stability’’ (1999: 5), whereas Onorato and Turner (2004) proved that this was not true. <Psychology essays are typically much more concerned with evaluating different perspectives than with identifying what has been proved. This example is deliberately bad to vividly show how limiting it is to refer to ‘proof’. How could two completely contradictory views both be ‘proved’? Views are asserted, argued and suggested, and these are challenged, questioned and contradicted.>

       Everyone has different views. Gaertner, Sedikes and Graetz (1999), Onorato and Turner (2004) and many others all disagree with each other. <This recognises that there are different perspectives but gives no sense of direction. It’s like asking for directions and being told some of the places on the way in no particular order. You are left wondering how they relate – what leads to what. This sentence also leaves you wondering who the ‘many others’ are and whether or not you’ll ever get to find out.>

       This essay will examine the claim by Gaertner, Sedikes and Graetz that self-schemas are ‘monuments of stability’ and Onorato and Turner’s critique of it. <This sentence could have been written by anyone who can even partly comprehend the essay question. There is no knowledge here that isn’t entirely contained in the essay title itself. This is like a bogus psychic practitioner repackaging information that a sitter has already revealed to them as if it was evidence of their own psychic powers. A stronger alternative would display an understanding of Gaertner et al.’s position and the critique developed by Onorato and Turner – as well as other relevant perspectives – without being limited to the words of the title itself.>

      Reflecting on the chapter: The end of the beginning

      Introductions can be tough. But they are most tough when we start our essays right there, before we really know what we are trying to introduce. Imagine you were asked to give directions to a place you only vaguely knew and had perhaps been to once when you were half asleep. How much easier, if you had another chance, would it be to give those directions after you had been there with your eyes wide open. That’s the great thing about writing essays. Although they are highly directional in terms of how they are supposed to be read, we can write them in any order we choose. Let’s stay with that thought a moment longer. We can write our essays from the middle, end or beginning, or any mixture of the above. It may well make sense, therefore, to switch off some misquoted voice that tells us to ‘start at the beginning’. Why should we? It probably makes sense, at the very least, to edit our introduction in the light of where we get to in our essay itself. That way we at least have a clearer sense of the destination and the route we took.

      Take away points from this chapter

       Your introduction conveys your thinking to the reader straight away, so it is worth making a good impression from the start.

       Finding your academic voice can take time, so read good academic writing and keep writing – don’t expect the first version to be the best that you can do.

       Drafting a good introduction encourages you to do the sort of thinking that really strengthens your essay, especially its structure.

       A strong introduction conveys a clarity of thinking to your reader.

       An appropriate orientating sentence is a real kindness to your reader, drawing them to the essay and the essay to them.

       A clear outline of your essay (a statement of intent) should convey a sense of what you will address, when you will address it and why it is relevant for the essay title.

       It is often worth editing your introduction once you have completed your essay.

      Linking to other chapters

      This chapter addresses a specific section of your essay which performs a very specific task – introducing your reader and essay to one another and outlining how your essay will address the specific essay title. A strong introduction addresses the specific essay title given and Chapter 4 provides more detail on how to keep that direct orientation to the title present throughout your essay. Crucial to our thinking about the statement of intent in this chapter was the way in which it should convey a clarity of structure. Chapter 5 outlines how you can ensure a smooth interconnection throughout your essay both between and within each

Скачать книгу