[Miss Scarlett]

The myth about including lots of sources should be debunked. It's about using the right sources appropriately in order to give your own opinions more weight- lecturers can see through padding your essay with sources. I got a 72 on an essay in which I only used 4 sources (plus three comparisons to other novels).

[Aeschylus]

(Original post by Miss Scarlett)
The myth about including lots of sources should be debunked. It's about using the right sources appropriately in order to give your own opinions more weight- lecturers can see through padding your essay with sources. I got a 72 on an essay in which I only used 4 sources (plus three comparisons to other novels).

It's going to vary for each one. Some essays' I've got good marks with 3,000 words and 25 sources, one I got a good mark (similar) with 5 sources. The first essay wouldn't have got the marks without all the sources and the extra sources in the second essay would be extraneous. It depends. With 5,000 and 8,000 word essays I'm reguarly using a LOT of critical material.

[evantej]

(Original post by mel0n)
The four I'm due to hand in at the end of this month are each within the region of 4000 - 5000 words. I actually don't know how to include footnotes in the way you mentioned, with the criticism in it etc. I'm a really lazy student to be fair and at time the addition of the footnotes in the word count can really help me out. But I guess considering the way in which you write your footnotes, they would be really long! […]

SilGathien's example is just poor practice, and her lecturers are to blame for not including footnotes in the word count. I do not doubt that she has done some reading she references, but what she has presented is just a list with little or no critical thought. On the page, it is eye sore and would distract from the essay. But many lecturers are just as guilty which is why these things go unchallenged. Some disciplines are worse than others. Take a look at the first page of the following article, which you should have access to, and tell me whether you think that is good practice:

Julia Jordan's “‘A thingy world’: Iris Murdoch's Stuff” The Modern Language Review, Vol. 107, No. 2 (April 2012), pp. 364-378.

Miss Scarlett hit the nail on the head. It is 'about using the right sources appropriately in order to give your own opinions more weight'. You should have minimal footnotes. All the content should be in your essay, not at the bottom of the page. The only content in footnotes should be things that would distract from the main argument, but you still feel are relevant to the point.

I will use an example from a random essay I wrote. This is an extract from a larger paragraph discussing ideas Dostoevsky had for a journalistic article, and the essay as a whole discussed Winter Notes on Summer Impressions. The point I was making is that Dostoevsky saw Russia's relationship with Europe as problematic, and one option of solving this problem was to emphasise Russia's orientalism, but the fact that he did not publish this article shows he was not happy with this solution.

With the third article idea, Dostoevsky can be seen exploring ways to counterpoint Russia against European hegemony in order to develop a more distinct national identity by emphasising Russia's relationship with Asia; but this article was not written, and in his description of the effect of oppressive reality on the masses in London, he suggested that they 'become insensitive and acquired oriental passivity' (51, 96). This highlights that his thinking at this point is not consistent or fixed, and that he saw Russia's national identity belonging to neither Asia nor Europe.

At the end of this paragraph I included the following footnote.

18 William Leatherbarrow and Derek Offord ed., A History of Russian Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), p. 222. David Schimmelpenninck van der Oye wrote that '[i]f the Slavophiles opposed western modernity, they did not suggest that Russia was Asian. What they championed was Orthodox, Slavic Europe rather than its Romano-German variant'. What can be seen here is the tension between Dostoevsky's earlier thought seeking social change and a shift towards an unacknowledged Slavophilism through a rejection of Asian and European influence on Russia.

David Schimmelpenninck van der Oye is an authority on Russia's orientalism. What I intended to do here was to reference him in order to show that Dostoevsky's ambivalence was indicative of a wider trend in Russian thought, and to more accurately identify what people like him were seeking to do (i.e. establish a distinct Russian identity). This is why I did not just quote him and leave it at that. I referenced his more general point and made it relevant to the point I was making about Dostoevsky.

What I also did – implicitly – was acknowledge that this was the end of my secondary reading on this subject, by referencing van der Oye in a collection of essays on Russian thought. I had not read van der Oye's individual works, as that would have taken me too far away from my goal (Dostoevsky's Winter Notes on Summer Impressions is based on his travels in Europe). If you implicitly acknowledge the weaknesses in your own essay then these can draw attention away from real weaknesses (i.e. I could not read van der Oye because this was a 5000 word essay with a tight deadline, not because I simply could not be bothered to keep up to date on my field). There are always limitations to your work. The person who marked my work edited the collection of essays I referenced so he understands this.

[SilGathien]

(Original post by evantej)
SilGathien's example is just poor practice, and her lecturers are to blame for not including footnotes in the word count. I do not doubt that she has done some reading she references, but what she has presented is just a list with little or no critical thought.

While I agree with some of your post that you shouldn't use footnotes to distract form the argument, there are other uses for footnotes. The footnote I quoted was from the introduction to my essay and was used in relation to my argument about the poem. Perhaps I also posted my footnotes on here out of context. Here is the sentence from the essay:

'The Tale of Sir Thopas, however, is an oral text highly dependent on stock phrases and mnemonic devices, and it is juxtaposed against more ‘original’ literary texts through the framework of the story-collection.'

The footnote is related to my argument - that Sir Thopas deserves to be read in context with the rest of The Canterbury Tales - and it shows traditional trends in scholarship which I am distancing myself from. The first part of the footnote deals with sources and analogues (Hibbard Loomis, Charbonneau, and to a certain extent, Gaylord), before referencing another approach (Cooper) which was related to mine (i.e. reading the poem in context), but which I did not want to follow because it undermined the value of the text I was writing about.

I often use footnotes to give an overview of scholarship, and that was what I was trying to do. That essay had a 1,200 word count (without the footnotes of course), and I try to integrate and acknowledge critical material early on so I do not have to deal with it too much later in the essay. Getting scholarship out of the way means that I can foreground my own argument.

What I want to emphasise, then, is that footnotes have different functions, and I do not doubt that your way is valid as well.

[evantej]

(Original post by SilGathien)
[...] I often use footnotes to give an overview of scholarship, and that was what I was trying to do. That essay had a 1,200 word count (without the footnotes of course), and I try to integrate and acknowledge critical material early on so I do not have to deal with it too much later in the essay. Getting scholarship out of the way means that I can foreground my own argument.

What I want to emphasise, then, is that footnotes have different functions, and I do not doubt that your way is valid as well.

Given your word count, I think you have missed the point of your assessment somewhat and this has also mislead you to believe that 'footnotes have different functions' (e.g. getting 'scholarship out of the way' so you 'can foreground [your] own argument'). This is not what footnotes are for. This is not even what essays are for.

The 1600 word essay is trying to get you to think and write clearly and simply; to get you to consider what you can achieve with this word limit. You have simply abused the fact that footnotes are not included in the word count in an attempt to overcompensate for this (I know because I have done it myself).

It is bad practice for stylistic reasons. I would not like to see a footnote like yours in a journal article or book chapter never mind a 1600 word essay. But it is also bad practice for intellectual reasons. Instead of laying out your 'pre-argument argument' coherently for people to follow, you have this monstrous footnote outlining numerous sources, and a change of argument half-way through the paragraph. In a normal essay, this would have required a new paragraph so how you justify writing like this in a footnote is beyond me!

[SilGathien]

(Original post by evantej)
Given your word count, I think you have missed the point of your assessment somewhat and this has also mislead you to believe that 'footnotes have different functions' (e.g. getting 'scholarship out of the way' so you 'can foreground [your] own argument'). This is not what footnotes are for. This is not even what essays are for.

The 1600 word essay is trying to get you to think and write clearly and simply; to get you to consider what you can achieve with this word limit. You have simply abused the fact that footnotes are not included in the word count in an attempt to overcompensate for this (I know because I have done it myself).

It is bad practice for stylistic reasons. I would not like to see a footnote like yours in a journal article or book chapter never mind a 1600 word essay. But it is also bad practice for intellectual reasons. Instead of laying out your 'pre-argument argument' coherently for people to follow, you have this monstrous footnote outlining numerous sources, and a change of argument half-way through the paragraph. In a normal essay, this would have required a new paragraph so how you justify writing like this in a footnote is beyond me!

I do not mean to relegate scholarship to the background, but it's increasingly difficult to be able to outline criticism in such a word length. If you think it missed the point of assessment then fine; the marker did not. I do, to a certain extent, understand where you are coming from because, even though I do edit, cut, and revise footnotes, there is often a lot of information in them. I do feel restricted by certain word counts, especially when essays are that tight. This is not to say that I put everything in footnotes across all my work. I used almost 1,500 words of a 6,000/20 credit dissertation setting up the critical background to establish the foundations of my argument (although I did take a different approach to the critics I used). That is the sort of work I want to be able to do without too many imposed limitations or restrictions.

[evantej]

(Original post by SilGathien)
I do not mean to relegate scholarship to the background, but it's increasingly difficult to be able to outline criticism in such a word length. If you think it missed the point of assessment then fine; the marker did not. I do, to a certain extent, understand where you are coming from because, even though I do edit, cut, and revise footnotes, there is often a lot of information in them. I do feel restricted by certain word counts, especially when essays are that tight. This is not to say that I put everything in footnotes across all my work. I used almost 1,500 words of a 6,000/20 credit dissertation setting up the critical background to establish the foundations of my argument (although I did take a different approach to the critics I used). That is the sort of work I want to be able to do without too many imposed limitations or restrictions.

You are making an assumption about your marker. What seems equally likely is that you are a very capable student and someone who misuses footnotes.

Of course it is difficult to 'outline criticism in such a word length'. That is the reason they set you such small essays. It gets you to scrutinize which primary and secondary sources you use in your essay. It should also get you to consider whether or not it is useful to set 'the critical background to establishment the foundations of [your] argument'.

You are at the awkward stage where you do more reading than the average undergraduate student so you find the word limits restrictive, but you have not done enough reading to actually warrant the approach you take. The reason you are not pulled up on this is because you exceed the expectations of an undergraduate student and they do not want to knock your enthusiasm.

I found 2500 word essays really restrictive. So when I jumped up to 5000 word essays at masters level I thought it would be great. At first I struggled, then I found I was pushing the word limits on even those, wanting to write more and more (i.e. they all came in just under the absolute limit of 5500 words). It is all relative. You will get to masters level and distance yourself from the stuff you wrote and thought was good work in your second, even third year. My undergraduate extended essay (8000 words) got a good mark, but it was absolutely abysmal etc., etc..