11.1 Argue with people

Just because someone has spent a lifetime researching a subject and is an internationally recognised authority on a particular region or theory does not necessarily mean they are right. Feel free to challenge anything and everything that you read. In fact, when you read sociology, you should probably start with the assumption that you are going to disagree but you are prepared to be persuaded if they make a good enough case. This is called critical thinking. Students often discard any article that they do not agree with. This is like taking the springs out of a trampoline and then wondering why it does not bounce. Critical material that you can prove is missing the point is a gift. Roll your sleeves up and get to work on it. Just make sure you can back up your position with examples from other people. Sometimes pure logic will do the trick too. This is the sort of thing that makes an essay sparkle. So, be assertive with critics. They are only human after all.

11.2 Acknowledge the critic in your text

It is not enough to drop in a footnote at the end of a sentence, or name a book in the

bibliography. You must acknowledge your sources more actively than this. Make sure you

say who said what and whether you agree. For example, ‘In his study of the subject,

Alexander King argues a, which is a useful approach to interpreting this myth because of b.

However, he overlooks the issue of c, which is a vital element in the religion.’ There are good

reasons for naming the author like this:

It sounds good.

Academics all enjoy a bit of name-dropping, and like to see that you have considered an idea put forward by an important critic or literary figure. Essays are all about showing what you have read and learned. Knowing about the key players in a debate is part of this.

It helps your marker:

Remember that it is your job to make your essay accessible to the reader. Your marker may not have read all the books you refer to, so some help in sorting out who said what is often appreciated. For example, do you have any idea how many books there are in QML on culture? Alternatively, your marker may have read all your sources, in which case they will expect you to give credit to the sociologist where it is due.

It makes for clarity:

One of the hardest skills in writing about sociology is making it crystal clear which ideas come from outside sources, which are based on common knowledge (or hearsay) about a time, region etc, and which are your own thoughts on the subject. You want to sell the last category, but your marker will not know what your thoughts are, unless you make it clear where other people’s ideas stop and yours start. Do not assume you can fudge this to your advantage. Academics tend to be cynical by nature, and will assume that you have absorbed ideas from somewhere else unless you mark this out neatly.

It helps with structure:

Naming the critic makes it easier to refer back to this idea later in the essay. E.g.: ‘F. R. Leavis takes a completely different line to Hutchison on this matter. He argues x, y and z.’ This helps to hold the whole essay together and makes it look like a well balanced piece of writing.