last updated: Fri, December 28, 2018 6:53 PM
My working definition of analysis:
Analysis is the investment of time in the informed and disciplined consideration of an object(s) to develop interpretations and/or observations that are credible, useful to other readers, and hopefully interesting.
The link below navigates to an essay written by a Tulane University instructor. It is sort of ponderous but has some good things. This is mostly for me, but you can check it out if you want, especially if you are not familiar with analyzing literature: Reading strategies / advice for effective analytic reading of literature
In most of my classes, I assign literary works and secondary academic material (articles and selections from academic books). The secondary readings are selected to provide support in terms of concepts (not facts) that I believe help one understand (read richly, read with depth, interpret with some accuracy) the literary works.
For a student to read a literary work with some "care and thought" means to read it in full, thinking while doing so why things happen the way they do, why content is presented the way it is, and what the key fictional characters are feeling and thinking. In short, you need to spend some time understanding those things that flesh out the plot in terms of its emotional and artistic impact. Just knowing the plot is insufficient.
For a student to read a secondary source with some "care and thought" means to read it for its primary theses, and analysis (main observations, interpretations, and main conclusions). As for factual details, if I expect that you should capture anything beyond the most basic information, I will say so. After reading the assignment ask yourself whether you could explain, in 60 seconds and with clarity, the primary ideas. By ideas I do not mean topics! I am referring to the thesis, the main observations, the main conclusions—something among these. Some of the material is teaching material prepared by me. As a way of getting at its essence, ask yourself, "Why is this assigned? How does this contribute towards the learning objectives of the class?"
In instructions and grading rubrics, I often use the phrase "credible, useful, and interesting" or some combination of these.
"Credible" means some or all of the below, depending on the assignment:
"Useful" means that others (whomever you are writing for, that is, an imagined readership or, often, your classmates) find your work useful either in the information it provides or its insights in how to think about something.
"Interesting" means some or all of the below, depending on the assignment:
When I say "respond with a content-rich paragraph" or "give your statement more content" or such, I mean that I expect you to make substantive statements in contrast to topical, or detail-poor statements. Provide actual content rather than give labels of what the content is.
Topical (label of topic) statements pop up in many student submissions:
Submitted description of a meeting —
Topical (detail-poor): "My partner and I met and noticed we have a lot of differences in how to interpret the films." You have only said: "There were differences ...". I don't know what they are.
Content-rich: "My partner and I met. Anne felt that Himiko's jealousy was primarily the result of a difference in status between Himiko and the other woman. Jeremy thought that was possible but personally felt the jealousy was the result of an insecurity Himiko had based on an earlier relationship." (You have said both that there were differences and what those differences were.)
A student's thesis statement —
Topical (labels the topic only, that is, says what it is about only): I will explore sacrifice in two films, "My Little Sister" and "The Last Letter."
Content-rich statement: I will explore the final sacrifice that is made by the main protagonist in two films: "My Little Sister" and "The Last Letter." I plan to conclude that the sacrifice in "My Little Sister" isn't really that at all. Because of the content of her suicide note, as well as the location of that suicide, it is, instead, simply an act of anger meant to hurt her lover. However, "The Last Letter" involves a real sacrifice by the protagonist: he gives up his love to allow her to marry someone else. This is not what he wants for himself, but he realizes this is best for the person he loves. I compare these two sacrifices and suggest that, in the case of the Korean film, the movie is less about romance than plot twists and the dark nature of people, while in the case of the Japanese film, the theme is unrequited love from beginning to end. I suggest that the Korean film is fairly distant from any premodern roots but the Japanese film continues a long tradition of not being able to be with one's lover, something we saw already in The Tale of Genji.
A student's analysis appearing in an essay —
Topical (detail-poor, lacks specificity in content): "Encounters on a Dark Night" is a heavy-feeling story. (I can't be sure exactly what you mean by "heavy" — it could be many different things.)
Content-rich: "Encounters on a Dark Night" is a heavy-feeling story because of its detailed portrait of a woman entangled, if not completely entrapped, in strong, painful emotions.
Note: I have added a document to this website Dec 6, 2018. It might be helpful: Further comments on documentation
Note: My earlier page on plagiarism and footnote practices: Cross-course pages: Academic dishonesty, including plagiarism. Also, here's the link to the earlier version of this academic honesty page. It is quite long but has some interesting examples of plagiarism, ponders issues, makes extensive comments about footnotes, etc. It has a hyper-linked TOC: Academic Honesty Page Pre-2013.
Digital searches are great, but after using general websites to learn the basics of what you are researching, I expect you to do research in a scholarly environment. Google Scholar, is fine but, much better, are methods such as these two:
I use this page for all my courses and the expectations for the level of credibility is different for my film class in particular, where credible information can be difficult to locate.
So, I am creating definitions for three levels of credibility: academically credible, apparently credible, not necessarily credible. Read the below.
When developing essays and similar written analytic work, I ask that the key points of your work will have relied on academically credible sources.
A source is very likely to be academically credible it if has BOTH of these qualities:
These meet the course grading standard of "academically credible sources":
These usually do not meet the course grading standard of "credible sources":
These are blogs or Wiki articles or web pages whose author you cannot identify or whose author you can identify but not independently confirm that the person is qualified to offer credible thought on the relevant topic or websites that are not definitely academic in the sponsorship but nevertheless seems well-researched, thoughtful, and academic or nearly academic in style and content. Some Wiki articles are in this category for example. (Others will be in the "not necessarily credible" category, below.) Many blogs in this category—for example, the author works as a website developer for a company but it writing on Daoism and seems to have an extended history of thinking about and reading about (including academic works) on the topic but has no publications or work history linking him to scholarly work on Daoism.
Causal blogs, most web pages that are introductory level or basic information, and social media content fall into this category as would anything where it does not seem that the author of the statement feels strongly compelled to be honest or accurate but is just sharing thoughts.
Commonsense and good judgment are involved regarding when the source needs to meet this standard.
If the information is not central to your argument (such as whether The Tale of Genji was composed in 1008 or sometime shortly after 1020) you need be less diligent although care is always welcome. Or if the information you wish to quote is widely accepted, you either do not need a source or can quote from a more casual source if there is some need to do so. So, for example, if you write "Premodern Japanese literature had a high regard for poetry" there is no need for a quote to support your claim.
But care is definitely required.
For example, in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on The Tale of Genji you can find this sentence, "While universally considered a masterpiece, its precise classification and influence in both Western and Eastern canon has been a matter of debate." This is reasonable. However, just before this, the same article asserts, "It is sometimes called the world's first novel, ..." which is an inaccuracy now perpetuated by Wiki, since the "novel" is a specific Western genre centuries away from invention and suggests a writing process and internal structure that are nothing like The Tale of Genji. Not only is this inaccurate, it tags YOU as the author as being unaware of some of the basics of the topic on which you are writing.
I ask that students use their sources with critical alertness. A source might be credible but still unconvincing or simply inaccurate in parts or in whole. In other words, just because it is published does not make it true. Proceed with a reasonable, but not paranoid, level of skepticism. You can still use questionable material but you should let the reader know that you have some reasonable level of concern about the material.
Briefly stated, what sources you choose to use is an indicator of the care and intelligence of your research process. The reader is rightly skeptical that you are using online search engines to discover short, attractive, passages that will support your claims. Your selection of material and how you use it will determine whether the reader concludes that you are causal or careful, clueless or informed, and will determine your credibility based on this plus what you actually are trying to say (and how you say it).
To convince the reader that you are not casual, your source should not only be credible but appropriate for what you are trying to say. If, for example, you want to say something simple, you do not need a Ph.D. dissertation supporting that part of your writing.
Similarly, to convince the reader that you are not casual, you should quote from sources so that the reader is likely to conclude this: "The author has looked not just at this sentence but more broadly at the argument in the source (perhaps a chapter, or an extended passage, or more sometimes) and understands those larger contexts." Again, if you quote from page 216 of a dissertation, this will look like you are simply grabbing something and have not read its content. Write in a way that should you understand the context. The concern is at a very high level, of course when Google Book previews or such are sued, so any preview beyond simple facts must be used with great care. Convince the skeptical reader that you know your source well, not just at the level of the one sentence or phrase you have found. Your reader (the grader) is very skeptical and doubtful that you are reading with care. If you were publishing in an academic journal, I have no skepticism since it is a refereed source and others have already flagged questionable work. But in the case of student submissions, most students assemble quotes, facts, and ideas rapidly so my reading posture is quite skeptical.
Critical awareness also means that you understand the context of the portion of the work with which you are working and that you are relying on it in fair and accurate ways. The "fair & accurate" standard for this class is one of the most frequent errors that affects essay grades. "Fair and accurate" or "over the shoulder" rule means that the author, if she or he could look over your shoulder as you write, would think "Yes, that is a fair and accurate representation of what I meant to say."
"Context is king" — What isn't plagiarism in one circumstance is in another. For example, let's say that I impersonate Sarah Palin as a stand up comedy routine and get paid for that. There isn't anything dishonest going on. But let's say that I impersonate Sara Palin over the phone to a reporter, letting him or her assume that I am the real person. And I say things that hurt her reputation. That's wrong. What is a laugh in one case is illegal in the other. Only the context has changed. In our case, the context is the assignment or the place in the assignment where you present an idea. If that context naturally suggests it is your idea (such as a response paragraph to a reading assignment) when it isn't, that's academic dishonesty. This can be subtle: let's say you've borrowed a couple of ideas from an author. You write two long sentences, footnoting at the end of the second sentence. Depending on how you write those sentences, the reader might assume that the footnote is meant to refer to the both or probably just the last one. If the context (how you phrased things) naturally suggests that the footnote is for one sentence only, you've plagiarized. Manage your contexts and err on the side of clarity by using phrases such as "McCullough claims .... . Later she also claims ... (footnote)." Beware of paraphrasing—it is useful but oh so easy to slip into making is sound like your thoughts. Develop self-awareness during this writing mode and avoid fooling yourself, or others, that it is your idea. Footnote it. Of course putting something in quotation marks and citing it is rock solid in terms of clarity but a lot of times direct quotes are not as effective as paraphrasing. If the reader, based on a natural and reasonable response to your context, assumes that an idea is yours when it isn't (even in cases where you sandwich between two sentences that are your ideas a third sentence that is a cut-and-paste from somewhere), you've plagiarized. Context is king. You can avoid this error by taking good notes, remembering the source of your ideas, and rereading your work from this one perspective: "Will the reader understand easily and unambiguously which ideas are mine and which come from outside sources?" Since I cannot determine whether you intentionally plagiarized or not, I act on the fact of it, not on my best guess of your intentions. Proceed with care. It isn't that hard to avoid the problem.
"Over the shoulder (fair & accurate) rule" — If the author you are paraphrasing could look over your shoulder and comment, "Yes, that is a good representation of what I was trying to say" then you have been fair and accurate. To not meet this standard usually isn't dishonest, it is just sloppy work or weak reading that hurts your credibility. If your assignment were a public document it might also hurt the reputation of the author and s/he could rightly take action against you. But that isn't our situation. Our situation is me trying to evaluate your work. When you misrepresent someone your credibility crashes through the floor since now I will wonder if you understood anything that you read for your assignment. Quoting out of context is a favorite rhetorical move of students, to support their arguments. It doesn't meet the "over the shoulder rule" standard, obviously. I encounter this now and then but mostly I encounter a large percentage of students who have not read their secondary sources carefully enough. Either they read a limited area of text or they read more fully but didn't understand what they were reading.
Document your source (add a footnote or in-text citation) when:
The usual location of the footnote marker is at the end of the sentence or at the end of the clause if putting it at the end of the sentence will reduce readability or introduce confusion as to whether all or only part of the idea is from the cite and part from you. In such cases it is often better to rewrite to reduce ambiguity. Sometimes directly after the word or phrase quoted is better. Again, clarity and readability are the guiding factors.
The first footnote is labeled "1," the next "2," and so on. Do not start with "1" on each new page. Just keep adding upwards.
Footnotes go outside quote and after punctuation so "....completed." <fn> not "....completed<fn>."
In-text citations follow the same rules as above but it is more likely that its use at the end of the sentence has greater clarity that putting it in the middle of the sentence.
I require that students use Chicago Manual Style, Notes and Bibliography (Chicago Style-NB, CMOS-NB, etc) (not Author-Date). Preferably, this should be the 17th edition. If it is not, say so please at the very top of your submission. You can find the Manual online. The Manual's quick reference page is open to everyone. Access to the full Chicago Manual Style, 17th edition, is possible with a CalNet login.
Use footnotes or shortened in-text (parenthetical) citation for within the text, and proper bibliographic style for the bibliography at the end. Shortened citations means the author's last name, a title should be shortened (if the title is longer than four words), and a page number, when available—for example a JSTOR, HathiTrust.org or Google Books result is likely to have the page number since these are scans of printed material. Examples:
I don't ask for you to solve the minor issues of citation but I do ask that you are more capable than what online generators will produce:
1) Know and use the difference between a citation in a parenthetical citation, footnote, and bibliography list.
2) Be able to manage these types of secondary sources:
3) I request these modifications to Chicago Manual Style, to manage citing sources that are not in English:
For example:
If the translation is a hard-copy of a book:
If the translation is online then:
That's enough. For other things you can get it more or less right.
Warning (a repeat): You can't just use a citation generator to produce a correct citation. In the case of the type of material we work with, they are usually wrong in one way or another, especially translators and the word order of authors, translators and editors. You need to do a manual check. You are responsible for the correct form.
Using this style matters. It is a grade negative to not do so. Using a different style or using Chicago Manual Author-Date will NOT qualify for partial credit. Take some time with this. I believe knowing these principles is important not because I think you should be expert at generating citations but rather that you be fully aware of what material you are working with. An accurate citation shows that you know the nature of the material at hand. Errors suggest you have only a casual relationship with that information.
While there are many different citations styles, even within the fields of humanities, and perhaps you already are good at managing one of them, I require Chicago Manual Style for three simple reasons:
In general, I prefer intelligent paraphrasing over direct quotation. This allows me to think about whether you really understand what you are quoting. Also, this continues to put the burden on you to offer your analysis rather than fill up word count requirements with the words of others.
However, there are times when direct quotes are the best choice and when you realize this and do this, it shows real writing skill.
So, give it your best judgment realizing that I will ALWAYS ask when I see a quote "Was this necessary or would paraphrasing have been better?" and grade accordingly.
Requiring that you deploy your judgment as to what is or is not a credible source, what credibility means in a given situation, and whether credibility is required, is obviously meant to generate better analysis. However, there is a grading point involved: I am evaluating your judgment as well. Working with great sources, avoiding cherry-picking quotes and citing hurriedly for decoration are all good ways to prevent creating these weaknesses in your essay argument.