Model Ac Writing 2 tecniques for an academis writing and essays PDF

Preview

Summary

steps to write a complete essays and a good report for universities, academic writing...

Description

A Model Lit Review This is a model mini lit review, which will be especially useful for students of Academic Writing (AWRA101) at the Academy for Distance Learning,

Name: Lee Raye

Course: Academic Writing (AWRA 101)

Assignment: 2

Address: ADL, 18 Lower Bridge Street, Canterbury, Kent, CT1 2LG, UK

Email: [email protected]

Phone: +44 1227 789 649 Date Submitted: 1st November 2016

I am researching the slow worm (Anguis fragilis) in folklore. Five useful sources are: Beebee & Griffiths (2000, pp.115–123) is a wildlife guidebook which synthesises all the most influential biology and conservation research on UK amphibians and reptiles. The species have a chapter each. There is some interesting folkloric information: The old term ‘blind worm’ can be explained by the fact that slow worms, unlike snakes, blink. The dorsal stripe on female slow worms can sometimes have a zig-zag form leading some to confuse it with the (venomous) adder. Males can sometimes have blue spots, and in the past were thought to be a separate race called colchica. There is also a section on historical interest, including some folklore (pp.18-26).

There is a very short reference to the slow worm in (Owen 1887, p.352). This is a collection of Welsh folklore. Three details are recorded: (i) The reason the slow worm is called the blind worm is that it is thought to have no eyes (disagreeing with the previous source). (ii) If the slow worm did have eyes it would be very dangerous and no-one would ever be able to pass it without injury. (iii) People often chop in into pieces to kill it.

The Oxford English Dictionary collects historical references to words and discusses how words have changed in meaning. Early on, the term slow worm was used generally for all different snakes and lizards. Before the sixteenth century, the ‘slow’ part of the name was ‘sla’ which might not have meant slow at all (OED Online 2016a). I also looked at the entry on the worm (OED Online 2016b). The word worm used to be used to mean serpent, snake or dragon. Hence Beowulf fights a ‘worm’. The last usage of the term with this meaning was 1867.

Morgan (1983) is a paper on artefacts called snakestones, drawing especially on historical primary sources and oral accounts. The author’s family has a snakestone, so that is the first point of study. There are two additional parts to the paper. The first part points out that snakestones are recycled artefacts and criticises museums for presenting excavated Iron Age beads as “snakestones”. The second part speculates (less convincingly) that natural observation of the mating combat among male smooth snakes, adders and slow worms in the breeding season may have provided a background story for the amulets.

The last source (Raye 2014) is an academic blog post based on primary sources. The author suggests that the idea that earthworms will regenerate after you cut them in half comes from the medieval bestiary tradition of chopping up dragons and serpents. This post does not mention slow worms, but the idea of needing to chop up earthworms fits in with

people chopping up slow worms in folklore and the “worm” in slow worm meaning a dragon which we saw in the other sources.

REFERENCES Beebee, T.J.C. & Griffiths, R., 2000. Amphibians and reptiles, London: Collins. Morgan, P., 1983. A Welsh snakestone, its tradition and folklore. Folklore, 94(2), pp.184– 191. OED Online, 2016a. Slow worm, n. Oxford English Dictionary. Available at: http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/182187? [Accessed November 1, 2016]. OED Online, 2016b. Worm, n. Oxford English Dictionary. Available at: http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/230283? [Accessed November 1, 2016]. Owen, E., 1887. Welsh Folk-Lore, Wrexham: Woodall, Misshall, and Co. Raye, L., 2014. What happens when you cut a wyrm in half? Natural History. Available at: https://historyandnature.wordpress.com/2014/08/23/wyrms-and-worms/ [Accessed November 1, 2016].

Author qualifications & publisher reputation (Beebee & Griffiths 2000, pp.115–123) Beebee is a professor at the University of Sussex. Griffiths is a professor at the University of Kent. The New Naturalist library specialises in natural history. (Owen 1887, p.352) Owen obtained a bachelor and master’s degree and wrote often on folklore.

Author’s agenda – who profits from their writing?

(OED Online 2016a; OED Online 2016b) The Oxford English Dictionary is the biggest and most important dictionary of the English language. (Morgan 1983) Morgan is a professor at Swansea University and president of the Cymmrodorion Soc.

The dictionary is behind a paywall for most people, but can be accessed with a library card, so presumably the libraries pay a subscription fee. The project seems to be funded mainly by institutions not individuals, which means the source will not try to sell itself to you. This is the most important paper on snakestones to have been published. The publisher (Taylor and Francis) would have profited directly. Scholars are not paid for articles, but this article probably improved Morgan’s scholarly reputation and may have improved departmental funding. This is a blog post so not a serious academic article. The author appears to have invented the theory themself. Perhaps this is intended to lead to an article eventually. The post is hosted on Wordpress who profit through advertising. Raye is unlikely to have been paid for a blog post, but may be hoping to turn it into an article to improve their scholarly reputation.

(Raye 2014) Raye has a PhD and is a researcher, but the publisher is just a free online blog site, this has not been peer reviewed.

The authors and publisher will profit because this is a popular book. Because this is such a popular book, and they have such high reputations they have to make sure it is reliable.

The publishing industry was not as profitable as it is now, so direct profits were probably low. Owen’s reputation probably improved.

Author’s sources – are they trustworthy? The sources represented here are all state of the art, but the book was published in 2000 so the most up to date sources are not referenced.

Reliability rank 1=best, 5=worst 2

Even if Owen invented the folklore, this is still a good primary source given its age, but not good as a secondary source. The sources are very reliable but seem not to have been updated for decades.

4

The sources are exhaustive, provided by an academic. Occasionally the work engages in speculation, but this is kept to a minimum. The author generally only uses primary sources, so is not so engaged with the secondary literature.

1

3

5...