Good morning all,
I have recently embarked on an MSc programme in CompSci, on which the first module is Critical Reading/Writing. So far, I have written two "introductory" paper assessments. As I was writing them, I found that my text read somewhat "monotonous", and I felt that not only every claim should be backed-up by a citation, but literally every instance of an assertion. For example:
"Smith writes that all Electrofuzzies are vulnerable to extreme cold[1]. Jones contests Smith's recent study on thermal vulnerability of Electrofuzzies in [2] and finds they can tolerate up to absolute zero just fine. This paper argues that it's not enough to simply test for cold-resistance; one should also test for extreme heat to obtain a more general picture"
In the above purely-fictitious text (well, perhaps Electrofuzzies actually exist - I don't really know), the first two sentences try to illustrate what I meant by "monotonous" - just fact after fact with no eloquent linkage. The last sentence "It's not enough ...", tries to illustrate that I fear that every time I wax assertive in a paper, I need to back it up.
Questions
- Would this then not just turn my paper into one large symbolic link to others' work?
- How much freedom of expression should I give myself, assuming that I'm not an authoritative source on Electrofuzzies or literally anything in CompSci at the academic level? Should I literally cite/reference at every opportunity, if not?
Thank you for any advice!
