About the structure

Nonnulla pars inventionis est nosse quid quaeras.
(Augustinus, Quaest. in Hept., Prooem. 1)

 

1. Title page

The title should be informative and as concise as possible. It does not have to coincide with the presicly defined question/thesis, but can name the topic of the investigation in a more gereral form (e. g. reference text, assignment to a research field, outstanding aspect...).

2. Table of content

In principle it is dispensible - scientific journal articles can do without it - but it is common practice. A medium-length academic essay should not be too subdived, otherwise it will appear confusing and rushed. In the main part every divided section has to have a clear and - with regard to the question on investigation - necessary function, which clearly distinguishes it from the other sections.

3. Introduction

The introductions first task is to lead to the queation (or thesis) being adressed by explicating it precisely, providing objective motivation and determining its placement within a larger context. Secondly, the introduction has to inform about the method and steps of investigation, which are used to answer the question (or to prove the thesis). These investigative steps of the main part (structure of implementation) must clearly emerge from the question and should be briefly (!) presented from this perspective at the end of the introduction. The introduction does not contain bibliographic or cultural-historical descriptions.

4. Implementation (main part)

• In this part the grogram presented in the introduction is realised. Thus the question of investigation must be kept in consideration and it should only be incorporated what is directly - or if indirectly then specifically adressed how it is - taking part in answering the question (or proving the thesis).
• The steps of the investigation must build on one another (tip: formulate intermediate results), instead of simply being listed without connection to each other.
  • Parts of equal argumentative rank or based on the same ground must be determined in their position relative to one another either by referring back to the objective, superior aspect that they have in common or by clarifying their respective function for a jointly result.
• Excurses that are necessary to clarify background assumptions should be clearly marked as such.
• This does not include what was read in the process of acquiring knowledge and is linked to your question / thesis (e. g. general information from handbooks) but is not part of your investigation. Instead only the specific background theories of the statements and arguments that you primarily analysed.
• If there is already a lot of research or even a controversial bedate on your question (or on closely related questions) that you have to take into account for objective reasons, then the state of research should only be briefly indicated in the introduction and than evaluated in more detail in a separate section during the implementation. Only the basic principles of the respective thesis should be presented in terms of their importance for the question of your thesis. All discussions of individual arguments from secondary literature belong in the sections of the implementation into which they systematically fit.

5. Conclusion

It is not just a summary! In this last section of your text your results should be reviewed in a pointed way as well as the remaining or arised questions. Furthermore, the results should be determined in a larger context. It is advisable to refer to the introduction (e. g. the motivation and context of the question) and to highlight which changes the investigation has brought about compared to the initiation.

6. Bibliography

Here the used literature (not all that was read) is listed in alphabetical order by the author's names.

7. (Declaration of independence)

The independence should be self-evident, the declaration is a concession to the spirit of the time. At least as important is that at the end of your work you could make the following statement with a clear conscience: “I have thought carefully about everything that has been said here. I have not covered up any remaining factual ambiguities with imprecise formulations. I proofread the final version three times."