by Tansel Ali
By analysing the question we can create a mind map structure for our essay:
3. Write to fill in the structure
Once you’ve established the shape of the essay it’s much easier to write the content to follow the different points that need to be made.
4. Fill in the gaps
Once you create your branches you can clearly see what you need to write about. If you get stuck, simply move on to another branch and continue. It’s not necessary for you to write chronologically, and because you’ve created the structure the pieces will all fit together. It’s a little like having a skeleton—now you need to add flesh to it.
5. Essential supporting material
Use quotes
They can help effectively support your argument and do so succinctly, and are often from experts in their field.
Use facts
Facts help bolster your argument—key discoveries and key dates are essential to give authority to an essay.
Here is the finished sample essay:
A major change that has occurred in the Western family is an increased incidence in divorce. Whereas in the past, divorce was a relatively rare occurrence, in recent times it has become quite commonplace. This change is borne out clearly in census figures. For example, thirty years ago in Australia, only one marriage in ten ended in divorce; nowadays the figure is more than one in three (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1996: p. 45). A consequence of this change has been a substantial increase in the number of single-parent families and the attendant problems that this brings (Kilmartin, 1997).
An important issue for sociologists, and indeed for all of society, is why these changes in marital patterns have occurred. In this essay I will seek to critically examine a number of sociological explanations for the ‘divorce phenomenon’ and also consider the social policy implications that each explanation carries with it. It will be argued that the best explanations are to be found within a broad socioeconomic framework.
One type of explanation for rising divorce has focused on changes in laws relating to marriage. For example, Bilton, Bonnett and Jones (1987) argue that increased rates of divorce do not necessarily indicate that families are now more unstable. It is possible, they claim, that there has always been a degree of marital instability. They suggest that changes in the law have been significant, because they have provided unhappily married couples with ‘access to a legal solution to pre-existent marital problems’ (p. 301). Bilton et al. therefore believe that changes in divorce rates can be best explained in terms of changes in the legal system. The problem with this type of explanation, however, is that it does not consider why these laws have changed in the first place. It could be argued that reforms to family law, as well as the increased rate of divorce that has accompanied them, are the product of more fundamental changes in society.
Another type of explanation is one that focuses precisely on these broad societal changes. For example, Nicky Hart (cited in Haralambos, 1995) argues that increases in divorce and marital breakdown are the result of economic changes that have affected the family. One example of these changes is the raised material aspirations of families, which Hart suggests has put pressure on both spouses to become wage earners. Women as a result have been forced to become both homemakers and economic providers. According to Hart, the contradiction of these two roles has led to conflict and this is the main cause of marital breakdown. It would appear that Hart’s explanation cannot account for all cases of divorce—for example, marital breakdown is liable to occur in families where only the husband is working. Nevertheless, her approach, which is to relate changes in family relations to broader social forces, would seem to be more probing than one that looks only at legislative change.
The two explanations described above have very different implications for social policy, especially in relation to how the problem of increasing marital instability might be dealt with. Bilton et al. (1995) offer a legal explanation and hence would see the solutions also being determined in this domain. If rises in divorce are thought to be the consequence of liberal divorce laws, the obvious way to stem this rise is to make them less obtainable. This approach, one imagines, would lead to a reduction in divorce statistics; however, it cannot really be held up as a genuine solution to the problems of marital stress and breakdown in society. Indeed it would seem to be a solution directed more at symptoms than addressing fundamental causes. Furthermore, the experience of social workers working in the area of family welfare suggests that restricting a couple’s access to divorce would in some cases serve only to exacerbate existing marital problems (Johnson, 1981). In those cases where violence is involved, the consequences could be tragic. Apart from all this, returning to more restrictive divorce laws seems to be a solution little favoured by Australians (Harrison, 1990).
Hart (cited in Haralambos, 1995), writing from a Marxist-feminist position, traces marital conflict to changes in the capitalist economic system and their resultant effect on the roles of men and women. It is difficult to know, however, how such an analysis might be translated into practical social policies. This is because the Hart program would appear to require in the first place a radical restructuring of the economic system. Whilst this may be desirable for some, it is not achievable in the present political climate. Hart is right, however, to suggest that much marital conflict can be linked in some way to the economic circumstances of families. This is borne out in many statistical surveys which show consistently that rates of divorce are higher among socially disadvantaged families (McDonald, 1993). This situation suggests then that social policies need to be geared to providing support and security for these types of families. It is little cause for optimism, however, that in recent years governments of all persuasions have shown an increasing reluctance to fund social welfare programs of this kind.
It is difficult to offer a comprehensive explanation for the growing trend of marital breakdown; and it is even more difficult to find solutions that might ameliorate the problems created by it. clearly though, as I have argued in this essay, the most useful answers are to be found not within a narrow legal framework, but within a broader socio-economic one.
Finally, it is worth pointing out that, whilst we may appear to be living in a time of increased family instability, research suggests that, historically, instability may have been the norm rather than the exception. As Bell and Zajdow (1997) point out, in the past, single-parent and step-families were more common than is assumed—although the disruptive influence then was not divorce, but the premature death of one or both parents. This situation suggests that in studying the modern family, one needs to employ a historical perspective, including the possibility of looking to the past in searching for ways of dealing with problems in the present.
References
Australian Bureau of Statistics (1996). Divorces, Australia. canberra: Australian Government Printing Service.
Bell, R. and G. Zajdow (1997). Family and household. In R. Jureidini, S. Kenny and M. Poole (eds). Sociology: Australian Connections. St Leonards. NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Bilton, T., K. Bonnett and P. Jones (1987). Introductory Sociology, 2nd edition. London: Macmillan.
Haralambos, M. (1995). Sociology: Themes and Perspectives, 3rd edition. London: Bell & Hyman.
Harrison, M. (1995). Grounds for divorce. Family Matters. No. 42, pp. 34–35.
Johnson, V. (1981). The Last Resort: A Women’s Refuge. Ringwood: Penguin.
Kilmartin, c. (1997). children divorce and one-parent families. Family Matters. No. 48. (available online).
McDonald, P. (1993). Family Trends and Structure in Australia. Aus
tralian Family Briefings No. 3. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Sometimes it is rocket science
It should be clear by now how mind maps can really help condense many points of information to keep you focused on the sum of its parts. Just for fun I thought of creating a mind map for a chapter on rocket science taken from the NASA website, which you can find here: www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/rocket/rktfor.html.
• Make time to learn things you want to, not just need to, to free your mind from everyday routine.
• Keep at it and get others involved. Social learning makes you learn even faster.
• Use mind mapping to organise writing projects for articles, essays and reports.
• Don’t ever stop learning. It provides fuel for the soul and change in the world.
CHAPTER 8
SPEAKING TO AN AUDIENCE
‘Of all of our inventions for mass communication, pictures still speak the most universally understood language.‘—Walt Disney
Making information memorable for others is what communication is all about, and it’s the fourth and final step of the Yellow Elephant Memory Model. What is memorable for ourselves, however, may not work for others. Everyone learns differently and information can be perceived in many ways so it’s important to think not only about the information you’re providing but also how you’ll communicate that to an audience.
Making speeches memorable
Many people in the world fear public speaking, and for many different reasons. Memory techniques allow you to be confident that your information is safely stored in your head and accessible, which helps you present with conviction and hopefully settles nerves. Here are some quick tips to help you present that material with confidence.
Know your audience
This allows you to really tailor your message. Always ask ahead for as many details as you can, such as the number of people expected, their age demographic, the types of jobs they have and, if possible, what they hope to get from the presentation.
Know your key message
In one sentence determine what it is that you’re trying to say to your audience. If you struggle to do this, then you need to simplify your message.
Plan
Write down all the things you will talk about and create a mind map to quickly identify the main subject areas so you can then develop your content.
Time
Once you have mapped out your talk, work out how long the sections will take. With practice these estimates become fairly accurate.
Prepare
If you have time, practise your presentation in front of a mirror, video recorder or family and friends. This will help you evaluate your vocal projection and diction, and show if your body language needs some work and if you’re rushing things or are too slow.
Deliver
If you’ve done all your preparation this should be easy. Of course nerves, technical problems, hecklers, roadworks outside and other disruptions could still occur so your best defence is to know your message really well. Memorise your key words, themes and approach. This is better than memorising your entire talk word for word because you can present it naturally in different ways. People don’t want to see a robot talking, they want to see a human speaking. It is far more engaging and builds trust.
Get feedback
Comments—whether they are great, constructive or negative—provide opportunities for you to improve in areas that you might not even have been aware of such as mumbling or needing to ask more questions from the audience. No feedback means you only take away what you have experienced.
Reflect and improve
Not many presenters reflect on their speech once it’s over. But taking the time to review your speech provides you with ways to improve it so next time it’s even better.
Death by PowerPoint
Think of presentations where the screen is filled with text and the presenter drones on, reading out every single word, neglecting to add any images to break up the words and create some variety. How dull! These types of talks are trapped in the first step of the Yellow Elephant Memory Model: without images the presentation cannot move to the second step.
The excerpt below is from The Elements of Style by Strunk and White.
IV. A FEW MATTERS OF FORM
Headings. Leave a blank line, or its equivalent in space, after the title or heading of a manuscript. On succeeding pages, if using ruled paper, begin on the first line.
Numerals. Do not spell out dates or other serial numbers. Write them in figures or in Roman notation, as may be appropriate.
August 9, 1918 (9 August 1918)
Rule 3
chapter XII
352nd Infantry
Parentheses. A sentence containing an expression in parenthesis is punctuated, outside of the marks of parenthesis, exactly as if the expression in parenthesis were absent. The expression within is punctuated as if it stood by itself, except that the final stop is omitted unless it is a question mark or an exclamation point.
I went to his house yesterday (my third attempt to see him), but he had left town.
He declares (and why should we doubt his good faith?) that he is now certain of success.
(When a wholly detached expression or sentence is parenthesized, the final stop comes before the last mark of parenthesis.)
Quotations. Formal quotations, cited as documentary evidence, are introduced by a colon and enclosed in quotation marks.
The provision of the constitution is: “No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.”
Quotations grammatically in apposition or the direct objects of verbs are preceded by a comma and enclosed in quotation marks.
I recall the maxim of La Rochefoucauld, “Gratitude is a lively sense of benefits to come.”
Aristotle says, “Art is an imitation of nature.”
Quotations of an entire line, or more, of verse, are begun on a fresh line and centered, but need not be enclosed in quotation marks.
Wordsworth’s enthusiasm for the Revolution was at first unbounded:
Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive,
But to be young was very heaven!
Quotations introduced by that are regarded as in indirect discourse and not enclosed in quotation marks.
Keats declares that beauty is truth, truth beauty.
Proverbial expressions and familiar phrases of literary origin require no quotation marks.
These are the times that try men’s souls.
He lives far from the madding crowd.
The same is true of colloquialisms and slang.
References. In scholarly work requiring exact references, abbreviate titles that occur frequently, giving the full forms in an alphabetical list at the end. As a general practice, give the references in parenthesis or in footnotes, not in the body of the sentence. Omit the words act, scene, line, book, volume, page, except when referring by only one of them. Punctuate as indicated below.
In the second scene of the third act In III.ii (still better, simply insert III.ii in parenthesis at the proper place in the sentence)
After the killing of Polonius, Hamlet is placed under guard (IV.ii. 14).
2 Samuel i:17–27
Othello II.iii. 264–267, III.iii. 155–161.
Syllabication. If there is room at the end of a line for one or more syllables of a word, but not for the whole word, divide the word, unless this involves cutting off only a single letter, or cutting off only two letters of a long word. No hard and fast rule for all words can be laid down. The principles most frequently applicable are:
(a) Divide the word according to its formation:
know-ledge (not knowl-e
dge); Shake-speare (not Shakespeare); de-scribe (not des-cribe); atmo-sphere (not atmos-phere);
(b) Divide “on the vowel:”
edi-ble (not ed-ible); propo-sition; ordi-nary; espe-cial; religious; oppo-nents; regu-lar; classi-fi-ca-tion (three divisions allowable); deco-rative; presi-dent;
(c) Divide between double letters, unless they come at the end of the simple form of the word:
Apen-nines; cincin-nati; refer-ring; but tell-ing.
(d) Do not divide before final –ed if the e is silent:
treat-ed (but not roam-ed or nam-ed).
The treatment of consonants in combination is best shown from examples:
for-tune; pic-ture; sin-gle; presump-tuous; illus-tration; substan-tial (either division); indus-try; instruc-tion; sug-ges-tion; incen-diary.
The student will do well to examine the syllable-division in a number of pages of any carefully printed book.
Titles. For the titles of literary works, scholarly usage prefers italics with capitalised initials. The usage of editors and publishers varies, some using italics with capitalised initials, others using Roman with capitalised initials and with or without quotation marks. Use italics (indicated in manuscript by underscoring), except in writing for a periodical that follows a different practice. Omit initial A or The from titles when you place the possessive before them.
The Iliad; The Odyssey; As You Like It; To a Skylark; The Newcomes; ATale ofTwo Cities; Dickens’s Tale ofTwo Cities.
Now compare the text against a mind map version of the same content.
The use of narrative illustration
Just as mind maps can be used to summarise large volumes of information in an organised way, so too can illustrations. These techniques mirror the Yellow Elephant Memory Model because the abstract spoken word is transformed into images, which then tell a story. This is what you often find in comics and graphic novels but they’re increasingly being used to help presentations. Check out a few of the sites listed in the Sources page (p. 184) at the back of this book.