Revision and Critical Reading in Academic Writing

Writing Scholarly Literature

The way to incorporate the lessons of Exhibit 4.1 into scholarly writing is to constantly refine your original purpose and point—to question your own argument as objectively as possible. The key in doing so is to root out your assumptions so that you are not proceeding from an inherent bias. In every article, argument, or conclusion, a point is made—and it must be justified by evidence. In scholarly writing, one must be able to support every argument with evidence. Therefore, there are steps all along the way that one can take to ensure such support is given.

For instance, when first asking a question, one should ask oneself if this is in fact the right question. Sometimes scholarly writing gets off on the wrong foot because it proceeds from a question that is too cluttered or unclear. One should consider why this question matters. One should if this question truly gets to the heart of the problem. To answer that, it is helpful to take an objective look at the problem, to read about it, and to gather as much data on it as possible before even beginning. This will help one to engage in critical thinking with regard to the problem. It is important to think critically about the problem, first, and then to try to ask the right question, second (Erstad, 2018). And, as Exhibit 4.1 points out, one should look at one’s writing the same way a reader would and constantly ask oneself along the way: “Why do you think that? How do you know?”

Another good point made in Exhibit 4.1 is to be careful about failing to connect pieces of evidence in a logical manner. There may be potential warranting that enables them to link together in your mind—but the reader is reading the text you supply, so you must be sure to explain fully what is in your mind by putting it into the text. This requires a close, careful, objective analysis of the text and being open to revision. Revision is really what allows scholarly writing to blossom the way it should. Rushed writing is prone to gaps, but revising the writing can help to close those gaps and ensure that evidence leads to a proper conclusion.

The argument should lead to the conclusion by way of sufficient evidence, whether one is writing a sentence, a paragraph, or an entire article. The logical flow of ideas must be presented. In the mind of the writer, it is easy to see this flow, but it is not always easy for the reader to make the connections that are in the writer’s mind. For that reason, the writer must take the time to read what he has written—to read it as an objective, impartial reader would. It is very important to conduct critical reading of one’s own text in this manner so that one can be sure that it presents itself in a logical and befitting manner.

Finally, one must make sure the evidence is sufficient to warrant the conclusion. A claim is just a claim until it is backed up by supporting evidence that naturally leads one to embrace a specific conclusion. If the evidence does not lead to the conclusion, one must not go ahead and embrace the conclusion anyway. One has to conclude from the evidence presented—not from the claim itself. The claim is the arrow on the signpost. The evidence provides the directions or roadmap to the final destination. If the evidence is too jumbled or leads to tangents or dead-ends, the final destination will be different from what the arrow on the signpost originally indicated. For this reason, the best scholarly writing is that which compiles the evidence, interprets it to form a conclusion, and then clarifies the claim. This requires one, in a way, to work backwards—but by revising, refining, and critically analyzing one’s text and one’s thoughts, the lessons of Exhibit 4.1 can be applied most adequately.