Academic writing skills - Essay Example

? Academic writing skills The critical comparison of two academic papers requires the presentation of their strengths and weaknesses in regard to their structure and content; at the same time it is necessary to refer to their alignment with the ethical standards of academic research – especially if there is empirical research involved. Current paper focuses on the comparison of two academic pieces of work; the first of them, entitled as ‘Earning it’ will be referred to as ‘Assignment 1’, while the second one, entitled as ‘Direct Line Reviews and System Acquisition’ will be referred to as ‘Assignment 2’; the two assignments will be compared as of their structural characteristics and content, but also as of their language and referencing. The fact that the two papers will not refer to the same subject does not set barriers to their comparison, since they are of similar type, i.e. they are both essays, and of similar length (Shampoo and Resnik, 2009, p. 8) – even if assignment 1 is of more words compared to assignment 2, a fact which will be of critical importance for evaluating the two paper’s structure/ content, as analysed below. One of the first issues that should be highlighted is the difference in the research done in regard to the issues under discussion; more specifically, the first paper has been supported by a series of studies, approximately 10, which provide critical information on the issues under discussion. Indeed, it is clear through the text of the first assignment that appropriate information has been used by the relevant literature in order to cover all issues under discussion (Brew et al., 2009, p. 72). On the other hand, in the assignment 2, the lack of resources is a clear problem; just 3 sources have been used for examining the paper’s issues. The above differentiation establishes a critical advantage for the assignment 1 in terms of its quality. However, the following facts need to be highlighted: the subject on which the assignment 2 focuses is rather narrow; moreover, relevant literature would be quite difficult to be located – since the topic is related to the information systems strategy of a particular firm. Therefore, it could be stated that the author in the second assignment made significant efforts, in terms of the nature of the paper’s subject, to cover the issues under discussion but he had limited choices in terms of literature available on the specific subject. In terms of the planning of each paper, the following comments would be made: assignment 1 is not well structured, the issues related to the paper are adequately supported in terms of references but they are not clearly presented; more specifically, it could be argued that assignment 1 is not easy to be read – providing a lot of information on the paper’s subject but the material is not appropriately categorized and cited. This difficulty in reading and understanding assignment 1 is probably caused of its presentation – sections are not clearly distinguished, instead, long paragraphs are used for presenting the material available and the author’s arguments. Moreover, in assignment 1 it is difficult for the reader to understand the coherence of information. Information from various sources is added but is not appropriately presented, as explained above. In this way, the value of the paper as an academic piece of work is reduced. On the other hand, assignment 2 is well structured; paragraphs and sub-paragraphs have been used in order to make the text easier to be read. Moreover, the sequence in the arguments regarding the issues under discussion is clearer – a fact which is proved through the appropriate (and logical) order of the paper’s sections (as they are revealed through its sub-headings). For this reason, in terms of planning, the assignment 2 has a clear advantage – taking into consideration also the fact that despite the lack of adequate references, assignment 2 is well supported in terms of the arguments involve, an issue which is also analytically discussed below where the structure of each paper is criticized. As of the theme chosen, assignment 1 focuses on the examination of the changes on pay in UK – reference is made particularly to the historical changes on pay in all industries within the particular country. The role of the recession in the reduction of pay in UK is reviewed and suggestions are made for controlling the expansion of the problem. On the other hand, the second assignment focuses on the examination of the criteria and the strategies used by Direct Line, a well-known financial services firm, for the development of its software systems; also the effects of the above initiative on the firm’s performance are critically discussed. It is clear that the topic of assignment 2 is rather narrow, referring to the practices of a particular firm regarding the management of its IS. On the contrary, the theme of assignment 1 is broader, offering the advantage of more resources available for covering the issues discussed. At this point, it would be necessary to refer to the parts of each paper, i.e. its sections, taking into consideration the common format of an academic paper of this type. At a first level, both papers have used the following format: introduction – main body – conclusion. However, the content/ size of each of these parts should be further examined and evaluated – having in mind the theme of its article – as presented above and the resources available. In terms of its size, in both papers introduction can be characterized as rather short, being approximately 3-4 lines; in assignment 1 an executive summary has been used instead for presenting the key theme of the paper. Taking into consideration the size of the papers, in terms of words, it would be argued that, in both papers, introduction should be more developed, not just referring to key issue under discussed but also to give an idea on the order of the paper’s sections and the key findings of the research done; 10-12 lines, instead of 3-4, would be more appropriate for covering the needs of the specific part of the paper – referring to both papers. In terms of the main body, as already discussed above, assignment 1 lacks of effective presentation of the material involved; headings have been used for indicating the issues discussed in each section but these heading are quite broad – sub-headings should have been also used for making clear the content of each section in assignment 1. On the other hand, in assignment 2, there is a clear advantage regarding the structure of the main body of the paper. Even if the main body of assignment 2 has been also divided in 3 sub-sections, like in assignment 1, still the text is easier to be read and understood, because of the following two facts: spacing in assignment 2 helps reader to proceed with the reading easier; moreover, indents are used for making clear the point where a new paragraph has been inserted (O’Leary, 2009, p. 35). At the next level, the order/ sequence of the issues discussed in assignment 2 is logical; the reader can follow the succession of ideas/ arguments. Also, the fact that assignment 2 is shorter, in terms of words, but it has the same sub-sections in its main body, is negative for assignment 1, which has more words and it would be expected to have more sub-sections in its main body. As for the conclusion section, the one of assignment 1 is more developed – compared to the conclusion section of assignment 2, a fact which is also explained by the difference in the number of words of the two papers, as explained above. As of the grammar and the referencing style of the two papers, it would be argued that both of them are of similar form, a few grammar errors can be identified in assignment 1, though; authors of both papers have employed the rules of referencing applied on academic pieces of work in order to present the resources used (Murray, 2009, p. 22). However, an advantage seems to exist for assignment 2 in terms of the language used for developing his ideas. In assignment 1, the use of long sentences and paragraphs, as explained above, has made the text difficult to be read, a fact that reduces the value of the specific piece of work. In accordance with the issues discussed above, assignment 2 is of higher quality compared to assignment 1 which has been found to suffer from a series of important failures – especially the coherence/ presentation of ideas and the grammar errors. On the other hand, assignment 2 would be referenced more appropriately, a fact that could significantly increase the value of the particular paper giving the impression of a more detailed research on the issues under discussion; in its current form assignment 2 does not give the impression that its theme has been adequately explored; however, its advantages regarding its other parts/ characteristics can cover the above failure at a significant level. References Al-dhaheri, Sultan. “Direct Line Reviews and System Acquisition”. Academic paper. [Assignment 2] Brew, A., Lucas, L.. (2009) Academic Research. Berkshire, UK: McGraw-Hill International Murray, R. (2009) Writing for Academic Journals. Berkshire, UK: McGraw-Hill International O’Leary, Z. (2009). The Essential Guide to Doing Your Research Project. London: SAGE Publications Shampoo, A., Resnik, D. (2009) Responsible Conduct of Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press Justin Somanathan, Ali Hasan &Thomas Adderley. “Earning IT”. Academic paper. [Assignment 1] Read More