scientific writing at Universität Wien

1. Communication with colleagues and with the public

2. Written account of empirical evidence and hypothetical models

3. Development of scientific knowledge

4. Raising funds

5. Career development

6. Development of deeper understanding of the research area

1. Concrete

2. Clear

3. Compelling (convincing, persuasive)

4. Credible (trustworthy)

5. Engaging (exciting curiosity)

1. Narrow down your literature search

2. Formulate the research question

3. Justify its significance

4. Find suitable experimental approach(es)

1. Explore the contribution of various factors

2. Describe new findings

3. Propose new approaches or research directions

4. Ask novel questions or voice disagreements with the existing knowledge

1. History or development of the subject

2. Structure and composition of the subject

3. Function(s) of the subject

4. Contribution of various factors to the subject or its function

5. Speculative (what if) questions

6. Questions of (dis)similarity btw. subjects

7. Questions based on disagreement with previous studies

1. Test the prediction based on the working hypothesis (model)

2. Determine the conditions where the hypothesis (model) holds true

3. Propose alternative or improved hypotheses (models)

1. Explicitly formulate the essence of the problem

2. Explain or highlight practical or conceptual significance of your research problem

3. Align your research interests or goals with readers' knowledge and expectations

1. Inductive reasoning: reasoning based on the assumption that individual, particular instances (premises) supply strong evidence for the conclusion

2. Deductive reasoning: (top-down logic) reasoning based on combining two conditional statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion 

1. Faulty generalisation: holds true only as long as the assumption is correct

--> A turkey fed every day should live forever

2. Cherry picking,insufficient statistics or sample size

3. Confirmation boast: tendency to conform rather than deny an assumption/hypothesis

--> How can we prove our hypothesis? You don't prove then, you test them

4. False analogy

--> Eagles, sparrows and bats all have wings/ Eagles and sparrows lay eggs, while bats don't

Faulty generalisation in the major premise

--> Everyone who eats carrots is a driver. John eats carrots. Therefore, John is a driver

1. Empirical observations

2. Statistics

3. Examples

4. Expert opinions and published records

1. Accuracy: Is your evidence sufficiently accurate and precise?

2. Sufficiency: Are the observations both necessary and sufficient to support your claim?

3. Credibility: Is your evidence reliable or based on an authoritative sources?

4. Relevance: Are your reasons related and representative to your claim?