how should we define development

1

Essay requirements

Word limit: 3,000, not counting references.

You must provide a critical evaluation of selected arguments and evidence related to your

topic, primarily from the academic literature.

You may, optionally, also bring in evidence from a particular case, or cases. One way of thinking

about this is that you can shed light on a broad question by appealing to evidence from a

particular, narrower, situation. For example, answering the question on basic needs, you could

focus on the issue of water supplies, or of primary education; or on the provision of basic needs

generally but in a particular country, or comparing two countries. If you do this you will want to

start with the general question; make clear why your case offers a good example of the general

question; present your case; and, toward the end of your essay, reflect on how your case helps

us answer the general question. But if you do this, be sure to allow enough space for a critical

framing of views in the literature on the general question.

Your paper must make use of at least three of the readings assigned for this module. These may

not be drive-by citations: you need to show some familiarity with what’s in those readings, and

they must be appropriate to the context in which you cite them.

What do we mean by “critical”?

In supporting the answer you give, you need to

1. Make an argument. That is not the same as having an opinion – it is showing why the

reader should agree with your opinion.

2. Weigh evidence. Since you are not doing primary research, this will almost always be

second- or third hand evidence (Jones found this in her 2019 paper, Oglethorpe made a

contrary argument in 1934…). Almost always, this means weighing evidence from two or

more rival points of view.

3. When possible (not always - time and space are limited!) be specific about what a

source claims, as it applies to the point you are making. Often we come across a

sentence or paragraph that makes some point, and then at the end we find half a dozen

citations bunched together as if they all support exactly the same point. Sometimes

that’s appropriate – you may need to list the major proponents of a particular point of

view, or studies which have provided evidence for a particular thing - but other times it

just suggests ignorance about what those different authors have argued or found.

4. Use evidence critically

a. don’t lose sight of the fact that almost every source is, like your own paper, an

argument somebody wrote to make some point;

2

b. be alert to problems of internal validity (is the study you are discussing providing

a sound analysis of the situation it is studying/reporting on?) and of external

validity (to what extent can a study’s conclusions be extended to other situations

which are similar but not quite the same – in particular, the situation to which

you want to apply it?)

5. Be critical with respect to your own argument, i.e. treat the counterarguments seriously.

6. Do items 3 and 4 with a light touch so that you don’t smother items 1 and 2.

Also: always define your terms. Words that might seem to have clear and fixed meanings – e.g.

“development”, “growth”, “sustainable”, “democratic” - are actually quite slippery, and it helps

the reader to know that you have a clear idea of what they mean when you use them.

Format

Double space between lines (except reference list); 11 or 12 point type. Margins at least 2.5cm.

We’re paperless, you’re not saving trees, so make your paper easier to read.

Number your pages. That too makes it easier to read, and to give you feedback.

You do not need an abstract at the start of a paper of this sort (you do need one for your

dissertation). Nor do you need an “executive summary” (you don’t need that for your

dissertation, either).

You do need a conclusion that wraps things up.

Originality and referencing

We expect that the writing be yours, and that you have not recycled it but have written it for

this assignment. We also expect that you make use of the writings of others. Citing and quoting

other authors properly is partly about giving those authors credit for the work they’ve done,

drawing a line between their work and yours. At the same time, it is about showing that you

have done some research and have understood what you have read.

• Both the organization of your text and its actual wording must be yours.

• If you are tempted to cut-and-paste as a first step in writing a paragraph [not usually the

most effective way to put together your argument, but that’s another matter], do not

underestimate the amount of rewriting needed to make it clearly yours; even then,

you’ll need to cite the source you started with.

• Occasionally we have the misfortune to read papers that have been used before, and

then put through some paraphrasing software which changes a lot of words so that it

can get past the plagiarism detection software. The result tends to be a product which is

3

grammatically correct and uses a sophisticated vocabulary, but makes no actual sense.

An easy way to fail.

• When you use somebody else’s exact words – not a single word or term, but a phrase or

longer - use quotation marks and give the source.

• When quoting exact words, or citing something found somewhere in a book, give page

numbers (Jones 2019, p 342).

• Secondary citations: when citing a source you haven’t actually consulted but have seen

cited, always make that clear, like this: (Oglethorpe 1934, cited in Jones 2019). Let me

explain why you should go to this trouble, despite that facts that it looks awkward, and

that it seems so much more impressive for you to claim to have read the original source:

o If you don’t do this, the reader may notice that you are citing a lot of old,

obscure or highly technical material that you don’t actually seem familiar with.

This undermines your credibility with the reader.

o If you have started out by paraphrasing an argument made by somebody else

and cite the same sources, the plagiarism-detection software will often pick this

pattern up and the markers are likely to assume that you haven’t consulted any

of the cited sources but are trying to make it look as if you have.

o You don’t want to be responsible for somebody else’s incorrect interpretation.

Jones may not have read Oglethorpe, or may have read carelessly or, being in a

hurry to support a particular point, may have knowingly misrepresented what

Oglethorpe had written: all of these are far more common than you might think.

Now, if the person marking your paper does know what’s in Oglethorpe (1934),

you don’t want to be taking Jones’ incorrect interpretation of Oglethorpe and

acting as if it’s your own.

o If you find you’ve just cited five sources in a row as “cited in Jones 2019”, you

may want to back off and just cite Jones.

• Make sure that everything you cite (including secondary citations) is included in your list

of references. And, usually, there’s no reason to have anything in your list of references

that you haven’t cited in your text, so you should have a 1-1 match between what’s

cited in the text and what’s in the reference list.

• Use (author’s surname, year [page number where appropriate]) in the text; list all

sources, alphabetically by author’s surname, in some consistent standard format in a

reference list at the end of the paper. In the UK this is called “Harvard referencing”.

F Guy

2/10/2020