is thought about by individuals in conjunctions. In qualitative research across three cultures – the United Kingdom, Hong Kong and Beijing – Wong and Goodwin (2009) discovered that there was a stress on the salience of ‘a stable relationship with the spouse’, ‘spousal support’, ‘partnership with the spouse’ and ‘stable family finance’. The cultural divergences that emanated comprised ‘companionship’ being more important for UK participants and ‘harmonious marital relations’ being more important for Hong Kong respondents. Taken concurrently, these matters might, indeed, be construable as ingredients that inform equity based computations, but some of them are evocative of something slightly divergent – perhaps a concern with a supreme ‘characterisation of the relationship’ rather than a calculation of the values and detriments of its individual constituent features in the light of yield or fairness apprehensions.
Attempt two: Making it your own
This second sample, below, is much better. The author has made it their own. It is shorter, but contains several key ideas contained in the original passage. To create this passage took a little bit longer, but not as much as you might think. The original passage was read for detail and argument, in the way a detective might read for evidence and motive. The detail included ‘qualitative’, ‘cross-cultural’ and some of the quotes that summarised findings, such as ‘a stable relationship with the spouse’. The argument identified that there were findings common to both cultures as well as those which indicated cross-cultural differences and that both could suggest (according to Wong and Goodwin) that participants were principally concerned with the overall characterisation of the relationship, rather than separable ‘costs’ and ‘benefits’.
Wong and Goodwin’s (2009) cross-cultural, qualitative study poses a challenge for the Equity Theory understanding of relationships. Across the UK, Hong Kong and Beijing, participants appeared particularly concerned with the quality of the relationship, for example ‘a stable relationship with the spouse’. Even where cultural differences were identified – such as ‘companionship’ being rated as more important for UK participants and ‘harmonious marital relations’ for Hong Kong participants – the emphasis was still on the overall relationship, rather than discrete costs and benefits to the individual.
This second attempt is much stronger than the first. You might notice how it is selective in the detail that it uses – who says we have to use all of the information in the sources that we consult? Often it’s just a key idea, argument or detail that we take up. If you get a clearer sense of what you want to use it for, it is much easier to be in control of the target passages that you draw on, rather than weighed down by them.
To define or not define?
In many forms of writing there is an expectation that terms referred to will be defined. This is particularly the case in technical manuals – mixing up your engine nozzle, docking tunnel and sensing probe could prove really awkward if you are trying to fly your space rocket back to earth. Sometimes – rightly or wrongly – we are encouraged to start essays by defining our terms. This can work well in some cases, for certain types of essays, but it can leave our essay on the launchpad (to stay with the space metaphor), unable to really take off.
One way in which sources are frequently misused is to provide a clumsy, simplistic definition, often right at the start of an essay. Perhaps a textbook is referred to, or worse, a dictionary or a mediocre website, and the definition is given as a truth that cannot be questioned. And that is the problem. The reason to be cautious about turning to sources for simplistic definitions is that it takes that whole area out of what can be debated, discussed, thought about.
Imagine you have this as an essay title:
‘Critically evaluate empirical evidence of the idea that aggression is best thought of in terms of intrapsychic processes?’
Now, imagine that after an introduction you launch into your definition of aggression:
Aggression has been defined as: ‘feelings of anger or antipathy resulting in hostile or violent behaviour; readiness to attack or confront’ (www.dictionary.com).
Quite apart from the clumsy, ‘lifted from the dictionary without thought’ way in which this is written, this presents as unnecessary for further consideration what is actually at the very heart of this essay, which asks us to critically evaluate how aggression has been conceptualised. This illustrates that defining terms sometimes takes them off the table as something to be discussed or debated. If that is required for the specific assessment – an a priori definition may be just what is needed – but often it isn’t. Our essays might be stronger if we discuss the intricacies of definitions or debate different perspectives concerning how we think about them, rather than treat it as a matter of common agreement right at the start of our essay.
Integrating different sources
A particular issue about trying to make ideas your own can arise when you need to integrate many different sources. It is important to avoid simply noting what lots of different psychologists have said about the topic of your essay. Instead, you should aim to bring a sense of evaluation and debate to your note-taking itself, as this will inform a genuinely evaluative essay and avoid a passive replication of the material that you have found.
Example three
Let’s look at a third example. Imagine that this is your essay title:
‘Critically evaluate the ways in which attitudes have been understood within social psychology.’
Attempt one
This is how your notes and perhaps your essay plan could look if you are passively noting all of the psychologists that could be relevant.
Billig (1987, 1991, 1996) argued that attitudes are shaped or designed for argument addressing just those issues that are up for debate within a specific culture at a particular period of time.
Wiggins and Potter (2003) show how displays of food preferences can be examined in terms of what the talk might do or accomplish, for example in terms of giving and receiving compliments appropriately.
Greenwald, McGee and Schwartz (1998) developed the implicit attitude measure to address the fact that people might attempt to conceal their ‘real’ attitudes.
Elliott, Armitage and Baughan (2007) found that self-reported behaviour could be found to differ from observations of the person’s behaviour.
Wicker (1969) questioned whether attitudes were in fact a useful construct.
These notes do actually assemble the details to some extent, and provide some basis for overcoming certain forms of plagiarism, but they don’t interrogate the argument. Notes of this nature and the essay plans they inform don’t quite make it your own, and they clearly underplay issues concerning structure and critical evaluation (these topics are further developed in Chapters 5 and 6).
Attempt two
The previous attempt could be a useful stepping stone for something stronger – something that interrogates arguments as well as detailing facts. Attempt two asks questions
