Laureate Education Inc Study Notes Introduction T

2016 Laureate Education Inc Page 1 Of 4study Notes Introduction T

Analyze the provided instructional content on scholarly writing, focusing on clarity, conciseness, finding one's scholarly voice, and the appropriate use of first person in academic writing. Summarize key guidelines for effective scholarly communication, including evidence-based writing, grammar, revision, and the evolving stance on first person usage. Discuss the importance of objectivity, evidence over opinion, and the process of developing a scholarly voice, citing specific advice and examples from the text.

Paper For Above instruction

Effective scholarly writing hinges on precision, clarity, and the judicious use of language. As outlined in the provided instructional material from Laureate Education Inc., the core of good academic communication is to express ideas concisely and accurately, avoiding verbosity and unnecessary complexity that may obfuscate meaning. Instead, writers should prioritize using precise words—often short, impactful verbs—that clearly convey their messages. For example, instead of verbose phrases such as "A reunification held of the most significant leaders of the governmental body that unites various countries," a more concise and effective phrasing would be, "Key representatives from the Organization of American States (OAS) met in Panama City." Such clarity is essential for engaging scholarly discourse and facilitates understanding across diverse audiences.

In addition to language precision, reliance on solid evidence over emotional appeals is fundamental for credible academic writing. The instruction emphasizes that assertions should be supported by reputable data sources rather than personal feelings or anecdotal evidence. For instance, instead of stating, "Many people feel very, very strongly that federal limits on stem cell research have limited scientists’ ability to find new cures," a stronger, evidence-based statement would cite a reliable poll indicating that 85% of respondents believe that current laws should be repealed. This approach enhances the credibility of the argument through empirical support.

The importance of good grammar and style is also underscored. Proper spelling, sentence structure, and adherence to style guides such as APA are necessary for clarity and professionalism. The examples illustrate how informal or poorly constructed sentences diminish the authority of the writer, whereas well-constructed, grammatically correct statements bolster the argument. For instance, replacing colloquial phrases like "This website I saw" with "The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (2003) showed" reflects the formal tone expected in scholarly work.

Finding one's scholarly voice is recognized as a developmental process. It involves learning from feedback, revising drafts, and gradually gaining confidence in articulating ideas within academic conventions. The text notes that even experienced writers continually refine their voice based on constructive critique. This ongoing process is vital because an effective scholar must communicate complex ideas in a way that is comprehensible to those with limited background knowledge in the field.

The instructional material also discusses the evolving stance on the use of first person pronouns, highlighting a shift in academic conventions. Historically, social scientists favored third-person narration to maintain objectivity and a sense of detachment. Examples include sentences like "The study attempted to distinguish traits of students..." which are passive and impersonal. However, recent APA guidelines and institutional policies, such as those adopted by Walden University, permit the use of first person ("I observed," "I designed the study") when appropriate. When used correctly, first person can enhance clarity by clearly indicating the author's actions or perspectives.

Nevertheless, caution is advised against overuse or misuse of first person, as it can introduce bias or diminish objectivity. The instructional distinguishes between objective reporting and subjective opinions, emphasizing that the primary role of the scholar is to ground analysis in evidence rather than personal feelings. For example, a statement like "I feel strongly that..." is less persuasive than one backed by data or research findings—such as, "Statistics show that..."—which lends credibility and authority to the argument.

The overall message underscores that developing a scholarly voice involves balancing personal engagement with rigorous evidence-based writing. First person, when used judiciously, can make writing more direct and accessible, especially when describing observations or actions. However, the integrity of academic work depends on maintaining objectivity, supported by empirical evidence rather than subjective opinions or feelings. Practicing revision, seeking feedback, and consulting resources such as writing centers or instructors are recommended strategies for continuous improvement in scholarly communication.

In conclusion, effective scholarly writing integrates clarity, precision, solid evidence, and appropriate stylistic choices—including the prudent use of first person. It is a developmental process that demands attention to language, structure, and the core principles of objectivity and evidence. By adhering to these guidelines, scholars can produce compelling, credible work that advances knowledge within their respective fields. Relying on authoritative sources and revising consistently ensures that their voice remains scholarly and persuasive, fostering clear academic discourse and contributing thoughtfully to ongoing scholarly conversations.

References

• American Medical Association. (2005). Traffic safety and teen drivers. Journal of Adolescent Health, 37(2), 123-130.
• Bankston, C. L., III, & Caldas, S. (2006). Social capital and resilience among immigrant youth: The case of Vietnamese-American youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35(4), 561-575.
• Becker, H. S. (1986). Writing for social scientists: How to start and finish your thesis, book, or article. University of Chicago Press.
• American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.).
• Walden University. (2007). First person in scholarly writing policy.
• Walden University. (2016). Study notes on scholarly writing.
• Union for Concerned Scientists. (2004). Public opinion on stem cell research. UCS Report.
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2006). Teen driving statistics. CDC Reports.
• Laureate Education, Inc. (2016). Study notes on scholarly Voice, Evidence, and Writing.
• Gordon, S. P., & Maxfield, M. G. (2014). The importance of evidence-based practice in social science research. Social Science Review, 88(3), 472-489.