J. Sgard, Aug 23, 2022.
Writing a Fine Mid-Term Essay:
a Few Common Tips
Writing well on a given topic and within a limited space is an art: there are rules, but experience,
judgment and talent also matter. You’ll probably never stop learning how to convey efficiently
your ideas to others, wherever you will be working. This might be a frustrating prospect to some,
but it also means that if you have difficulties today, that’s normal. You’ll probably never write as
clearly and elegantly as Orwell, but any progress is good to take. Even if you have just no literary
talent, and no interest in acquiring some, it doesn’t mean you can’t make progress.
1. Writing: the Beaubourg/ Pompidou rule.
The most important rule perhaps is: use the minimum amount of words necessary. On many
occasions, dropping a few words from a sentence makes it clearer. This principle will also force
you to be to the point. La vérité approchée might be an interesting epistemological notion, but it’s
not a good proposition linguistically. This should apply in particular to non-native speakers when
writing in English: they should be warned against loose sentences and uncontrolled ambiguities
or understatements.
Second, your sentences, but also your paragraphs, and then your whole essay should unfold
linearly so that the reader discovers and understands step by step, word by word, your argument
as it unfolds. And at the end you should hit neatly on the conclusion, with just a clear, small impact
noise. Of course, the reader should not lose her way, but if she does, she should be able to walk
back a few steps, start again and identify where exactly she has an issue with you. She should not
have to re-read everything four times before finding where, exactly, you part ways.
Said differently you should follow the “Beaubourg/Pompidou rule”: the structure of your
construction should be plainly visible from the outside, to the visitor. It should reveal the
successive floors and terraces, the lifts and outside escalators, the pipes for hot air and dirty water,
the emergency exits. Of course, you should not be too graphic — you should guide the visitor in
the most pleasant and discrete way while being sure she reader is never lost, because in that case
she will probably not be convinced by your conclusion. In fact, she should not. That being said,
your inner Cartesian may softly suggest that, at a point, rationality and elegance can converge.
The Beaubourg/ Pompidou rule applies especially when you are on analytical or conceptual
terrain: no diversion, no forgotten loopholes, no built-in attempt to accommodate opposite views
by stealth, no argument surfacing successively at different places. Fight ambiguity to the last man.
1
The English language, especially in the US, is rather straightforward. Some even shoot from the
hip. French raises more problems because it is rather flexible (or arcane) grammatically, so that it
can accept many constructions for a given sentence (the vocabulary, then, is much less rich and
diverse than in English). Hence the temptation for some French-speaking students to take the long
and winding road just to remind the reader that they have a license to play with words. When you
used to go on holidays with Mom and Dad, this was called un itinéraire vert: not the big highways
with all the tourists, but the tiny, bucolic pathways. Just. Don’t. Take. Them. Reach destination as
directly as you can, and move on. German, with all its gothic embellishments, is a real challenge
on this point, although the basic theorem still applies: Vorschprung durch Technik.
Next, avoid metaphors at any cost! And if you really want to use one, be very careful: most of the
time, they are only an oblique admission that you are facing some unresolved conceptual issue.
What is more, metaphors often tend to have a life of their own and they might run away in the
countryside, with bits of what you wanted to say in their mouth (what a metaphor!). Note also
that similar problems may arise if you endow abstract entities with agency, hence with deliberate
intensions or explicit interests: a sentence like “the market wants an end to trade wars” is
confusing. A market is typically peopled by thousands of merchants who might have views on
trade wars, possibly diverging ones. The same applies to “big capital”, “the West”, or “Islam”. So,
you may certainly use big aggregates like these, for sure, but be careful when you endow them
anthropomorphic qualities. Say, for instance, that “most people”, or “many” or some “influential
voices”’ in the market (or in Islam) say something, or are believed to assume something.
2. Object, Question, Method
How to choose a good subject, when you start thinking about your essay? It is useful here to
differentiate between three notions. First is your object, which is the thing you want to write
about. It’s waiting for you out there. Think about primary schools in Africa, rural credit
cooperatives in nineteenth century Germany, or monetary policy in Argentina today.
Second is The Question you raise: together with your object, it makes your subject. Hence: should
governments prioritize quality (of schools and teachers) over quantity (of pupils)? Can small, local
credit cooperatives avoid being captured by their clients, with all their vested interests and all the
implied risk of mis-allocation? Did Argentina’s print too much money in the months up to its
current foreign exchange crisis, or had the crisis external causes?
After you have identified an object and raised a question, you have to tell the reader how you
expect to provide (the beginning of) an answer, hence, thirdly, your methodology. Call this the
project (hence object + question + methodology). For instance, you may spend six months in a
small school in rural Auvergne, come back and tell all. Or, you will build a questionnaire and send
it to 200 schoolmasters in Kansas. Alternately, you may download a big World Bank database and
exploit a few variables nobody has looked at until now. Or again, you may interview the top fifteen
experts on the subject. But in all these cases, you will have to address the methodological subquestion of how to identify and select the data, the social actors or the academics. Hence, you’ll
definitely need to have a critical look at your material: they are never neutral, because they are
socially constructed.
You may use data if you want, the way you want. You may include descriptive statistics or
econometric tests in the Essay, or you may not. But, whatever you do, do it wisely. The same
applies to economic concepts or analytical tools: you are welcome to use them intensively,
marginally, or not at all. But do it wisely.
2
The distinction between object, subject and project is very general, whether you write a mid-term
essay, a PhD thesis, a research article or an expert report for a firm manager or the UN SecretaryGeneral. Today, in this class, the choice of your object is not a big issue. Just follow your interests
and tastes: it’s a free lunch! The methodology, then, is not either a big issue at this point, since
you will probably not travel to Kansas or spend weeks on econometric tests. Writing a good midterm essay will primarily ask that you fight with The Question. Your learning curve starts here.
Indeed, not all questions are born equal. A good question should support a long, rich and
substantial discussion, where plenty of fun arguments may find their place. But if you start on the
wrong footing, you may lose a lot of time. Some questions can be very stupid, like all those that
give you the answer even before you start thinking about them. Should the IMF prioritize cuts in
school financing when designing adjustment programs? Is it okay that rich countries have priority
access to vaccines? And, what about poor baby seals whose mothers were killed by big
multinationals?
Rhetorically, it is often useful to present the question as a plot, preferably with lots of implied
suspense and surprises, like a good, slightly cynical roman noir (rather than a roman à l’eau de
rose). This is why so many research papers include in their introduction words like “an intriguing
enigma” or “a striking paradox”, or why they so often mention the proverbial Agatha Christie’s
“dog who did not bark”.
Critically, a good question should also help drawing the exact perimeter of your essay or your
thesis: what is within your scope and what is beyond it. It should thus tell which arguments or
readings are critical and which ones fall beside your chosen question, perhaps in the immediate
context (which may matter) or perhaps very far away (i.e. they are off the point). There is always
indeed a temptation to throw your net too far away while writing, because you spotted a fun
argument just around the corner, or because you already explored it in a previous work and want
to make a point. That connection may be indeed fully justified, and even super-smart. But be
careful: you are not here to demonstrate how knowledgeable and well-read you are. And if you
truly want to walk around that corner, just make sure that the perimeter of your question extends
there. You may even re-draw it, if that seems justified and promising.
Bending or slightly twisting a question may suddenly make your work far easier to deliver and to
read. If you ever tried to open an oyster with a knife, you know what I mean. Professionals do it
elegantly and serve them just as on a classical painting. But it can also be gore. The challenge is
thus to find the right angle and the right knife, minimize muscular effort and present well the
delicacy to the reader. In fact, thinking about la question, and the exact angle of your knife, is an
essential part of your work. Most probably, you will keep changing its exact terms almost till the
final writing, twisting the knife forwards and backwards into your tortured mollusc. Always
remember that uncertainty and some degree of stress is a full part of climbing the learning curve.
Research work always implies some tâtonnements. This is when you make intellectual progress
and acquire know-how. This is the very core of your research work, what researchers enjoy over
all.
But if you feel at a point that you are losing your temper, if you become afraid of hurting yourself,
or if the shell resists all your efforts, this may well be the moment for a discussion with your
teacher or teaching assistant (which does not mean he does not hurt his fingers occasionally on
some nasty oysters). We are here to help !
3
3. Three different types of essays.
Now, it is also useful to distinguish three types of essays, among which you may choose. The first
one shadows the standard, academic research paper: it starts with “a theory”, though it might just
be an hypothesis, or an intuition (or perhaps a triviality wrapped in pretentious cloths); he then
goes on “testing” it in a specific case, or group of cases. This is called the “hypothetic-deductive”
approach: it has been assumed that the poorer families suffer more during high inflation, so that
these episodes tend to increase inequalities, other things equal. Does the Argentine experience of
the late 1980’s confirm the point ? Or only with qualifications? Or not at all ?
Alternately, you may also apply your sharp analytical tools to a specific subject, for its own sake.
Accounting for idiosyncratic events like the beginning of the First World War or the election of
Trump may (should) mobilize serious social-scientific concepts. You will try to assemble them in a
way that provides a compelling explanation (not a mere description) of what exactly happened, at
that point in time, in this or that place. The general theory of wars, or a theory of how war begin,
is far beyond your horizon. This is what historian typically do: the object (a unique event) is
rhetorically in the primary position and the concepts are tools. Now, of course, a good monograph
may shed a lot of light around. Dozens of books illustrate the point, although a lot depends here
from the Question…
Lastly, you may also decide that, at this point in your studies, you want to have a comprehensive
view of what is known on micro-credit for instance, or international aid at times of pandemics. We
could call this project “cartographic”: you just want to have a map of this research field, but you
don’t want to enter it yourself and start playing ball, at least this time. That’s a perfectly legitimate
objective, though not necessarily a very challenging one: all academic papers (and thesis) include
a “literature review”, which is typically boring to read and boring to write. So, if you opt for this
model of essay, try to make it as lively as possible; try to locate all the twist and turn of the
academic discussion and explain why, at this point, this or that thesis is considered the dominant.
Again, there should be a plot ! Ask for example if the existing literature on colonialism is not only
euro-centric, but also thoroughly gendered? On the horizon, a good ‘litrev’ should be read like a
critical history of (economic, political etc) ideas.
Note lastly that, in a research paper, the ‘litrev’ it not important only for its pure knowledge
content. It should also describe how the academic conversation is structured: how (in yet another
metaphor) the football field is organized, which teams are competing, with which players, hence
against whom exactly you want to mark goals. Pelé ? Maradonna? Paul Krugman ?
But note also, by the way, that it may appear that the reasonable answer to your initial question
is: “so far, we don’t know”. You should not take it personally: this is not an own-goal. That may
happen. What is interesting (again) is how you reached that disconcerting conclusion. And there
might well be something to learn from the absence of a clear answer to a smart question.
More generally, the critical reader who will give a mark to your essay will be interested in your
final conclusions and the policy proposals you may derive – we are at SciencesPo, which is a school
of government. He/she will also definitely respect your opinions and judgments but, to be honest,
he will not put a mark on them specifically. What he is really interested in is how you defend them,
hence how you move from Question to Answer. Whether also you avoid les lieux communs, also
known as pont-aux-ânes.
4
4. Le Plan
After less than one week, new students at SciencesPo often start stressing about Le Plan. Old
hands are generally more blasé on this. The distinctive character of Le Plan SciencesPo is in its
being based on two parts: the pros and the cons, change and continuity, passion and reason, the
Red and the Black, etc. Then, each part should be divided again in two sub-parts with a similar,
ordering principle, like the pros and the cons of change and continuity.
Of course, you have already perceived the implied risk: medieval scholasticism, or rabbinic
virtuosity. Le Plan may also suggest more rationality in the outside world than there actually is –
a very old French bias. But it can also be a very powerful technique for presenting, or ordering, a
complex multi-layered problem, like policy issues for instance. It can help you being compelling,
or even brilliant, especially in an oral presentation. The key rule is that the two main parts present
together a dynamic, intriguing quality. The opposition between the Red and the Black should
propel your whole story and allow you to visit all its corners. The reader should keep balancing
between Red and Black, asking herself to the last moment which way to take: quality of teachers
or quantity of pupils? Beyond the rationality of the presentation, there should still be a plot.
A metaphoric way of describing Le Plan SciencesPo is to see it as un jardin à la française, with great
alleys, geometric lawns, symmetric fountains, naked gods and goddesses yelling at each other.
And when you have walked down to the last well-pruned grove, you suddenly turn back, look back
at the whole garden, and – how great! How stunning!! In the top best cases, Le Plan should look
indeed like the Versailles gardens. Some pyrotechnics may be de rigueur. And, do not forget either
that the jardin à la française often hides a few surprises, or even one or two folies (which was the
name given during the 18th century to small hideaway pergolas).
Alternately, you may opt for what we used to call, in the old days, Le Plan à l’Américaine: you start
by announcing that there are seventeen interesting aspects to the problem, and you walk the
reader through all of them successively. Ahaa!... So unfair for our friends. And so badly informed,
and prejudiced! While the French plan looks like the visitée guidée of a jardin, the American or the
Globish one rather works like a contract: we agreed on the design of a new garden, we agreed on
a choice of trees, on the design of the pools, and the successive stages in the construction work.
Et voilà: the Argentine experience of the 1980s fully confirms the common wisdom on the social
effects of hyperinflations. End of the paper: you turn to the reader and expects that she will be
satisfied, unless you have a dispute, in which case you will call in the lawyers. This contractual
perspective explains why all international academic articles repeat in the conclusion what they
already said in the introduction and in the abstract, sometimes with the very same words. It’s a
way of underlining that the contract has been fulfilled. So there should be no surprise, no
pyrotechnics at the end of a Globish paper: you just honestly, diligently, minutely did what you
promised to do. There is a Protestant quality to this approach, whereas the French Plan, with its
panoramic ambition, certainly has a slightly baroque or absolutist twist.
In fact, the two approaches are supposed to tease, and guide and comfort the reader, so that she
remains with you and hopefully share your conclusion. The difference between them is ultimately
about rhetoric, in the good sense of the world, i.e. trying to convey rational arguments and gain
adhesion. The choice between the two should thus be pragmatic: a rather academic paper will
most probably adopt an international plan, though a policy paper or literature review paper may
benefit from a more inventive approach.
As for this course, you should feel free to choose your plan as you want. So, go back to the first
point – the Question - and think about how you will take your reader to an effective, compelling,
articulate Answer. The cat should catch the mouse. Preferably with elegance, as do all real-world
cats.
5
5. A few more points on your Mid-Term Essay.
- It is widely accepted today in English that the passive voice should be avoided. Microsoft even
asks you to correct when they see it. It’s clearly less the case in French although there is a bias
against it. The good point with active voice is the action in it: this gives dynamism to the text
and suggests that there are actors in your story, with projects, designs, emotions or
conceptions, and with instruments. This is important in the social sciences were individual
actors co-exist with loose aggregates. And, as said, you may also want to tell a story. Like: “That
night, under heavy bombing, Churchill made a fateful decision…” But when you are not sure
about agency or intentionality, the passive voice is useful: “the financial markets were bombed
out…”
- Many students take the journalists’ typical way of starting a paper with an anecdote,
presumably a “telling” one. Why not? But do not forget that you are expected to deliver an
analytical text, and the risk is that the anecdote behaves like a metaphor, i.e. a diversion. A
minimal test here is to ask whether the anecdote contributes to your argument or whether it
only illustrates the object, or justifies your essay.
- When making reference to a given author, be careful not using the verb “suggest” out of
purpose, like for instance in: “Karl Marx suggested that class struggle is the engine of human
history”. Well, the guy wrote hundreds of pages to defend the point. Use the verb “suggest”
only when you want to actually suggest that the author is not straightforward, or perhaps not
fully convinced, hence that you may criticize him for his lack of clarity.
- About punctuation: room for discretion vs. mandatory rules is larger in French than in English.
But think for instance about the semi-colon (;) of which I am a great fan. In both languages, this
ultimate discretionary sign is an endangered specie. It is much lighter than a full point, while
allowing for a pause, a respiration in a long sentence or a long proposition, which the
ubiquitous comma rarely offers. The semi-colon does not cut sharply the flow of your
argument; but it may underline an inflexion point or make an enumeration lighter to read. Still,
do not use too many of them! Certainly no more than one per paragraph.
- As for the bibliography, be comprehensive and candid. Mention all the sources and references
you used, and no more. An article you list should have been read, at least in part. In other
words, you should be able to justify why you referenced it and how you used it. All
bibliographical sources should be mentioned in an appendix, with a consistent standard of
referencing, which you may choose. The first practical test is that the reader should be able to
easily identify, locate and access each reference you mention.
- As for the volume of the Essay, the target is 5000 words (bibliography excluded). This target is
an order of magnitude, meaning that if you think you are done with 4500 words and that you
have nothing significant to add — then do not add anything. Do not dilute, do not repeat.
Equally, if you feel you need 5500 words to bring your point home, do not cut — but do not
believe either that you’ll get a better mark because you added 500 words. Exercise your
judgment and good sense.
6
5. About plagiarism
Your essay, in this class as in all others at SciencesPo, will be subjected to the lie-detector. If the
Central Bank of Paraguay posted a working paper, some fifteen years ago, and you copy-pasted
parts of it without referencing and quotation marks, we’ll know it. And be sure: it is not okay to
do this.
Of course, we all know that it is not your intention to take that road. But, for instance, be very
careful when taking reading notes to clearly differentiate between what the author wrote and
what you think, or add, or interpret. You should thus be extremely cautious in maintaining clear
graphic differences here. To start with, this will limit the risk that, in the last rush hours before
submitting, you copy-paste lines or paragraphs you assume being yours, when they are not. This
has happened more than once.
Yet, it also happens that you fully mismanage0 your time-schedule and that you just can’t submit
on time all the essays that are expected from you while preparing this or that exposé. The
workload at SciencePo is actually substantial. Or you may have been sick. Even home-sickness can
become an issue. The first order advice is: don’t do the silly thing. If you can’t deliver on time,
come and talk with us: the administration and the teachers are here to help you finding a fair,
constructive solution.
7