A clear sense of argument is essential to all forms of academic writing, for writing is thought made visible. Insights and ideas that occur to us when we encounter the raw material of the world—natural phenomena like the behavior of genes, or cultural phenomena, like texts, photographs and artifacts—must be ordered in some way so others can receive them and respond in turn. This give and take is at the heart of the scholarly enterprise, and makes possible that vast conversation known as civilization. Like all human ventures, the conventions of the academic essay are both logical and playful. They may vary in expression from discipline to discipline, but any good essay should show us a mind developing a thesis, supporting that thesis with evidence, deftly anticipating objections or counter-arguments, and maintaining the momentum of discovery.
1.Motive and Idea
An essay has to have a purpose or motive; the mere existence of an assignment or deadline is not sufficient.
2.Thesis and Development
The essay’s thesis is the main point you are trying to make, using the best evidence you can marshall. Your thesis will evolve during the course of writing drafts, but everything that happens in your essay is directed toward establishing its validity. A given assignment may not tell you that you need to come up with a thesis and defend it, but these are the unspoken requirements of any scholarly paper.
3.The Tension of Argument
Argument implies tension but not combative fireworks. This tension comes from the fundamental asymmetry between the one who wishes to persuade and those who must be persuaded.
4.The Structure of Argument
The heart of the academic essay is persuasion, and the structure of your argument plays a vital role in this.
In your opinion, can Russia be called a democracy or not? Explain your answer by using the lecture and the reading materials. In this essay we argue that Russia is a democracy. However, it is a limited form of democracy – something that Professor Terry Karl called a “hybrid regime” in her lecture.
In our view, Russia qualifies as a democratic regime because it has both contested elections and voter participation in politics. But its democratic character is seriously undercut by restrictions in civil and political rights, the use of “administrative resource,” manipulations of elections, inadequate checks and balances, and ineffective separation of powers. Below we explore these issues more in detail. If we had to characterize today’s Russia as either democracy or autocracy, we would put it under the first rubric. Why? In our view, the contemporary political regime of Russia suits the notion of democracy as defined by Schmitter and Karl: “Modern political democracy is a system of governance in which rulers are held accountable for their actions in the public realm by citizens, acting indirectly through the competition and cooperation of their elected representatives.” (Schmitter and Karl, p. 50). The political leaders of Russia remain accountable to the citizens through frequent elections, competing with each other by using different parties. Indirectly, the political accountability shows in the fact that all politicians pay a great deal of attention to their public approval ratings. Another argument toward the democratic nature of Russia comes from the fact that the results of its all major elections have been accepted as relatively fair by the Western observers.
On other hand, the quality of Russian democracy is quite poor. Using the term of Terry Karl from the lecture, we can call the Russian political regime a “hybrid.” It combines the features of both democracy and an autocratic regime. From the latter it borrows the following features. First, the citizens do not enjoy the same level of civil and political rights as their European counterparts do. For example, there is no free and impartial media that could provide the public with objective coverage of political news.
Second, instead of participating in fair competition with the opposition forces, the ruling elite often attempts to quench that competition by resorting to so called “administrative resources.” Such practice takes place both at the central and the regional levels. As a result, the voters do not have an opportunity to make a fair choice between the politicians they want to be in power. Third, the Russian elections are heavily influenced and sometimes outright manipulated by the government. When you read the official news from conflict-ridden Chechnya that more than ninety percent of its residents showed up at the elections casting nearly all their votes unanimously in favor of the ruling party, you can get a strong
feeling that something is fishy. The result is the deep mistrust of the public in the political institutions.
Forth, Russian democracy suffers from inadequate checks and balances between its major branches of power. The president is by far the most powerful figure in Russian politics, overshadowing the legislative and judicial branches of power. As a result, the Russian parliament (Duma) is often viewed as a “rubber stamp” of the executive initiatives, whereas the courts are perceived as corrupt and inefficient.
In sum, we argued above that Russia is a limited form of democracy, a hybrid that combines both democratic and autocratic features. It is a democracy because, in contract to autocracy, its elected officials are in general accountable to the public. Its democratic nature is weak, however, because of the following circumstances: the limits put by the Russian leaders on human rights, manipulated results of the elections, and inadequate checks and balances.
Why don’t doctoral candidates manage to get rolling on the dissertation any sooner, or KEEP rolling once they get started? Partly because the dissertation is a completely new experience that is much larger and more independent than your previous academic work.
1. Writing a dissertation is a completely new experience.
To this point, being a graduate student has been, more or less, an extension of your earlier life as a student. Many people, in fact, go to graduate school because they have always been "good at school," and want to continue with something that brings them success and self-confidence. The reading assignments, labs, papers, and tests you have been assigned as a graduate student may not have been so different from your undergraduate course work. The dissertation, on the other hand, is a new kind of academic project, unlike anything else you’ve done. It is the academic project that marks your transition from student to scholar.
2. Writing a dissertation is not only new, it’s also a very large, very independent project.
Writing a dissertation is a lot like writing a book. It is, by definition, a self-directed process. There are usually no weekly deadlines from professors, no regular discussions with classmates, no reading assignments, no one telling you what to do—you are on your own, writing something longer than you’ve ever written, and doing it without a net. This independence can make the process seem very intimidating
3. The dissertation marks the transition from student to scholar and is stressful as a result.
When you embark on this large, independent project, you may begin to ask yourself questions about your future in academia. After all, the dissertation is the beginning of the end of a graduate career. When you finish your dissertation, you have to change your life pretty dramatically —you may go on the job market, begin work as an independent scholar, develop classes, move out of a community that you have grown to love, and so on. You may also feel like your dissertation will begin to define your professional identity. You may feel like your research interests, your theoretical influences, and your skill as a writer may all be evaluated by this first piece of serious scholarship. Whether any of these points are true or not, you may find yourself questioning your commitment to your chosen profession or topic and unable to begin the dissertation.
