Essay writing guide

Essay writing is a di cult skill that takes practice to master. No student starts their degree
able to write a perfect essay, but by the end of the programme most can write excellently.
Its important to take formative and summative feedback on board as you go through your
course. However, here are a few tips for what we are looking for in a good essay. They are
based on the Marking Scales and Assessment Criteria document that is on the
Anthropology Student DUO site (the sub-headings listed under Qualities Assessed) be
sure to thoroughly read that document too.
1. Relevance
One of the most common ways to lose marks is to not answer the question. Read the
question, make sure you understand it, and make sure you directly answer it in your essay.
For example, if a question asks you to compare two theories, make sure you directly
compare those theories. Dont just write two separate sections one describing each theory.
Make the readers job as easy as possible by 1agging up how the di2erent points you make
in the essay relate to di2erent parts of the question, and at the end of the essay clearly say
how youve answered the question. Many excellently written and researched essays
have received poor marks because they dont answer the question that is set!
2. Knowledge and Understanding
Any statement that you make should be supported by evidence, in the form of a citation to
published work. Evidence may vary across anthropological sub-disciplines, but could
include ethnographies, lab experiments, primatology 4eld studies, or palaeoanthropological
4nds. It is not enough to simply make claims, even if they are correct you need to support
those claims with evidence. Think of yourself like a lawyer: making a case, convincing a
sceptical jury.
You need to demonstrate both breadth and depth of knowledge and understanding. By
breadth we mean not relying on just a single source: you are expected to read widely on a
topic, and cite several sources of evidence to support your answer. By depth we mean that
you can really understand the signi4cance of a piece of evidence in relation to the question
being asked, rather than just citing lots of studies with no context.
3. Analysis and Synthesis
As well as just reporting research done by others, you need to also analyse and synthesise
it. By analysis we mean that you do not take claims or evidence at face value, and you
critically evaluate it. Does a theory make sense? Are there 1aws in a studys methodology?
Does an author make unjusti4ed claims? As well as being critical, also try to be
constructive: how might the theory be improved to better 4t the evidence? How might the
study be done again, addressing the 1aws youve identi4ed?
By synthesis we mean that you link together di2erent strands of evidence, either from
across a single sub-4eld, or across di2erent sub-4elds or even disciplines. We want to see
you make novel links between ideas that no-one has made before. However, while you
should be creative and original in your synthesis, this should be grounded in the evidence
you discuss (see Knowledge and Understanding above).

4. Structure and Presentation

Essays should have a beginning, middle and end. The opening paragraph should introduce
the topic, explain why it is important (in relation to real life and/or to anthropology), and
provide a mini-summary of the rest of the essay. For example, In this essay I will 4rst
discuss theory X, then evaluate evidence from Y, then conclude that Z. This is so that the
reader can anticipate what they are about to read, making it easier to follow. Be like a
journalist: theyre taught to tell people what theyre about to be told, then tell them it, then
tell them what theyve just been told. This is good advice for essays too. The introductory
paragraph should be no more than half a page single spaced.
The main body of the essay should be divided into paragraphs. Each paragraph should
make one or two points, related back to the essay question. Try to make your essay one
long coherent argument, with each paragraph contributing to the argument and 1owing one
from the other. The best way of doing this is adding linking sentences at the end or
beginning of paragraphs. For example, after discussing a study by Smith (2005), you might
start the next paragraph with While Smith (2005) showed that X, Jones (2010)
demonstrated that this was not necessarily the case... The number of paragraphs depends
on the length of the essay.
The 4nal paragraph should brie1y summarise what you have just covered in 2-3 sentences,
then conclude and synthesise (see previous section) and explain how you have answered
the question. Here is a good place to suggest future studies, or where research should go
next. Sometimes its good to provide a strong, de4nitive answer (e.g. theory X is wrong,
theory Y is correct), sometimes its better to be more cautious (e.g. theories X and Y both
have merits in di2erent ways), but either way make sure you link it to the evidence you
discuss earlier in the essay.
Finally, make sure there are no spelling errors (use spell-checkers built in to most word
processors) and that your grammar is easy to follow. Write concisely and clearly, avoiding
over-long or complex sentences, and unnecessary jargon. Key terms and acronyms unique
to this topic should be de4ned where they are 4rst used (e.g. you do not need to de4ne
evolution in every bio anth essay, but you might need to de4ne convergent evolution). Intext citations and the bibliography should be prepared according to the document A guide
to citation and quotation (citation_guide.pdf).
The di.erence between coursework and exam essays
All of the above points apply equally to exam and coursework essays, except that unlike
coursework essays, exam essays do not need bibliographies (we do not make you
memorise journal names or page numbers). But you do need to cite sources in exam
essays, in the form of (Author, date). Do not worry in exams if you are a few years out with
the year, or spell the name slightly incorrectly, the most important thing is that you cite and
use the reference correctly, i.e. you describe the study or theory accurately.
Sample essay
On the following page is a sample model essay submitted by a former 1st year student,
which got a 1st class mark (70+). Ive annotated it, highlighting good and bad points.
Alex Mesoudi, 26 Jan 2015

SAMPLE ESSAY

Ive removed this here to

protect anonymity of the
writer. But a surprising
number of students forget
to put their name and/or
id number on their work,
which makes it dicult for
us!
Alex Mesoudi
Today, 09:58

The most important tip is

to read the question
many excellent essays
receive poor marks
because they dont
actually answer the
question set
Alex Mesoudi
Today, 10:24

appear to be able to follow the gaze direction of human experimenters, using this form of
communication to overcome distractions and reach a desired destination (Tomasello, Hare, &
Agnetta, 1999). However, the social ability of primates has limits. Primates seem to struggle
with using gaze-following to find the hidden object in object choice tasks (Call, Hare, &

Start with a broad

statement or statements
setting up the importance
of the topic/question.
Alex Mesoudi
Today, 09:59

Statements are supported

by references to the
literature.
Alex Mesoudi
Today, 10:01

Tomasello, 1998). Yet there is a species that excel in such complex social tasks. Dogs,
colloquially dubbed mans best friend, appear to understand certain forms of human
communication at an impressive level. Two prominent animal cognition researchers, Hare
and Tomasello (2005), have even recently claimed that dogs have superior cognitive abilities

challenges of the conduct and implications of this study, before discussing the very concept
of social cognition. Finally, the essay will discuss possible implications of the results
concerning the evolution of human social cognition before concluding with a summary of the

The experiment conducted by Hare and Tomasello (1999) was inspired by an absence of
direct comparative study between primates and dogs investigating their relative social
cognitive abilities (Hare, Brown, Williamson, & Tomasello, 2002). The chosen subjects were
concealed in either one of two containers using social cues provided by the experimenter. The
experimenter used three social cues, namely leaning towards, gazing, and marking the
container with a wooden block, to indicate which container had the food concealed inside.
This provided the subjects with a conspicuous message to interpret. The results showed that
3

A clear statement about

what the aim of the essay
is, linking directly to the
question.
Alex Mesoudi
Today, 10:28

This and the following

sentences present a minisummary of the rest of the
essay, signposting for the
reader what they can
expect.
Alex Mesoudi
Today, 10:29

Good introductory
paragraph: its brief (about
half a page), sets up the
background, explains the
importance of the topic,
and outlines the rest of
the essay structure.
Alex Mesoudi
Today, 10:30

Include key details of key

studies, e.g. numbers of
subjects, basic
methodology. Should not
be too detailed: pick out
the essential aspects that
are necessary for making
your point.
Alex Mesoudi
Today, 10:33

This is the key finding

Alex Mesoudi
Today, 10:35

This is the theoretical

implication
Alex Mesoudi
Today, 10:37

Dont be overly confident

in your claims: no study
ever really proves
anything conclusively (at
least not in anthropology
physics maybe). Studies
may support particular
theories, which must be
evaluated in light of a
large body of evidence.

However, although the results do imply that dogs have a greater understanding of social cues

Alex Mesoudi
Today, 10:37

This relates the study

back to the essay
question/aim.

could have been done by rubbing the food on both containers. The dogs may have used
olfactory cues to locate the food. If this were true, the results would simply suggest that dogs
have a greater sense of smell than chimpanzees, and say nothing with regards to their social

Alex Mesoudi
Today, 10:39

Critical evaluation of
evidence: never take
studies at face value,
always think about
whether they really show
what they claim to have
shown.
Alex Mesoudi
Today, 10:39

wooden block may have served the opposite purpose here and occasionally intimidated or put

Evidence of broad
reading: the student has
found a study that
counters the criticism.

off certain chimpanzees from selecting the correct container. This idea is similar to the evil

Alex Mesoudi
Today, 12:28

9/11 chimpanzees to only score at chance levels, the social cues themselves such as the

eye hypothesis in which it was suggested that subjects may get put off by a dominant who

methodology was in fact used later on in this study when investigating differences between
dogs and wolves (Hare, et al. 2002).

Try to be constructive
rather than dismissively
critical: suggest ways that
the criticism could be
addressed in future work
Alex Mesoudi
Today, 10:43

Notwithstanding the above evaluation on whether the given explanation of Hare and
Tomasellos study is justified, a more general question must be asked on the subsequent claim

object choice paradigm an all encompassing test of social cognitive ability or is it just one
4

As well as methodological
criticisms, you can also
challenge definitions and
theoretical claims
Alex Mesoudi
Today, 10:44

category of a larger spectrum? In response, the phrase social cognitive ability means the
cognitive abilities needed to interact in a social context, mainly with conspecifics or humans.
This includes tasks such as understanding social cues, but also other activities such as the
ability to discriminate between different attentional states and even forms of competition with
conspecifics. Hare and Tomasello (1999) showed that dogs are more competent than
chimpanzees in locating hidden food in the object choice paradigm when using the social
cues of leaning towards, gazing and marking the container with a wooden block
simultaneously. Yet one social cognitive area in which chimpanzees excel is when it comes to
competition with conspecifics. One study showed that in cases where two pieces of food are
revealed to a subordinate chimpanzee and only one of those pieces is revealed to the
dominant chimpanzee, the subordinate chimpanzee will tend to decide which piece of food to
approach based on an understanding that the dominant chimpanzee could only see one of the
pieces and thus approach the other piece, even in cases where the subordinate chimpanzee is
released a few seconds before (Hare, Call, Agnetta, & Tomasello, 2000). This study
demonstrates that chimpanzees have a high social cognitive ability in the context of

A critique of the scope of

the claim, based on the
evidence reviewed

Despite the fact that it does not seem to be justified to claim that dogs have superior social

Alex Mesoudi
Today, 10:49

cognitive abilities than chimpanzees based on the results of this study alone, the evidence
Hare and Tomasellos investigation showed that dogs have evolved noteworthy skills in

This part directly

addresses the second
part of the question.

understanding and acting upon social cues. A thought provoking question asked by Hare and

Alex Mesoudi
Today, 10:51

Tomasello is where did this skill come from? Three possible explanations are provided. First,
the canid generalisation hypothesis suggests that this unique social cognition is found

human exposure hypothesis posits that dogs astute social cognitive abilities are derived from
human exposure. This hypothesis could be confirmed if young dogs are shown to have
relatively poor social skills when compared to adult dogs that have been raised in close
5

Note that each hypothesis

is associated with a
specific claim, so it can be
tested
Alex Mesoudi
Today, 10:52

contact with human beings. Finally, the domestication hypothesis suggests that somehow,
during the process of dog domestication, there was a selective pressure in favour of dogs with
the most advanced social cognitive skills. If this were true, dogs from a young age, with little
exposure to human beings, should still considerably outperform their wolf counterparts as
their social cognitive abilities have been delicately nurtured to the point where they are now
innately present. Yet strikingly, Hare and Tomasellos subsequent studies showed that indeed
then demonstrated that puppies lacking human exposure performed equally as well at locating
the hidden food using social cues in the object choice paradigm as puppies that had
experienced human exposure. This rejected the human exposure hypothesis, leaving only the
domestication hypothesis. With this new innovation looking increasingly more convincing,

This is a weak point of this

essay. Never write
Studies show or
Researchers argue
without providing
references.
Alex Mesoudi
Today, 10:53

the obvious question must be asked of what actually was the selection pressure that caused
the domestication of dogs to result in them having such impressive social cognitive abilities.
One suggested answer, is a selection pressure against fear and violent behaviour towards

Human infants are also known to have similar social cognitive abilities from a young age
with children around the age of 14 months able to perform well in the same task of using
social cues to locate hidden objects in the object-choice paradigm (Behne, Carpenter, &
Tomasello, 2005). As previously claimed, the results described above may have serious

This is another weakness:

do entire human societies
really have natural
wants? A more plausible
answer in terms of
unguided artificial
selection would be more
convincing.
Alex Mesoudi
Today, 10:55

implications for understanding the evolution of human social cognition. One exciting
suggestion put forward is that convergent evolution has occurred between both human beings
and dogs (Ha
dissimilar species share a common trait, where the common trait developed independently

Define key, important

terms, in this case
convergent evolution

due to similar evolutionary processes. Therefore, it has been suggested that the evolution of

Alex Mesoudi
Today, 10:56

human social cognition occurred in a similar way to that of domestication in dogs. It is

possible that the evolution of human social cognition occurred due to almost a selfdomestication process. Only those people with a respectable temperament would have been
selected whilst members of the society who were overly violent or aggressive would have
been either exiled or possible even killed (Leach, 2003). This theoretical hypothesis, based on
an explanation of what was the driving force of domestication of dogs, would provide a
6

mechanism of how, over time, advanced social cognitive abilities would have evolved. Some,

Good criticism, but the

specific mechanisms
could have been
suggested

however, question the reliability of making a comparison between dogs and humans beings in

Alex Mesoudi
Today, 10:58

regards to social cognitive abilities (Povinelli, & Giambrone, 1999). They allege that the

Begin the final paragraph

with a mini-summary of
what you have covered in
the essay.

argument of analogy should not be used to compare the cognitive abilities of dogs and human

Alex Mesoudi
Today, 10:59

similar social skill.

superior social cognitive abilities. However, a major problem with such a claim is that being

This student is hedging

their bets. Thats fine, but
sometimes its better to
take a strong position.
The key is whether you
can support your position
with the evidence that you
discuss.

able to understand social cues is not the only function that falls under the heading of social

Alex Mesoudi
Today, 11:08

dogs have a greater understanding of

certain social cues than chimpanzees supporting the suggestion that overall, dogs have

cognitive ability and therefore, it was suggested that to make the claim that dogs have
superior social cognitive abilities than chimpanzees based on this one study alone is not
evolution of human social cognition, given that dogs have similar social cognitive skills to
humans. A suggested explanation of social cognitive similarities between dogs and humans
was convergent evolution, with both dogs and humans subject to the same domestication

At the end suggest

specific directions for
future research. This
student suggests a review
article, but it would be
better to suggest specific
studies that could be
done. For example,
looking at some other
aspect of social cognition
in dogs and children.
Alex Mesoudi
Today, 11:06

major studies testing the social cognitive abilities of dogs and chimpanzees with a conclusion

A bit vague: try to be

more specific.
Alex Mesoudi
Today, 11:07

preceded by the evolution of temperament (Hare, et al., 2005).

The bibliography or
reference list contains all
of the studies cited in the
essay, and no additional
studies not mentioned in
the essay (even if you
read them if they were
important then you should
reference them in the
essay explicitly)
Alex Mesoudi
Today, 11:09

Call, J., Hare, B. & Tomasello, M. (1998). Chimpanzee gaze following in an object choice
task. Animal Cognition, 1, 8999.
Cheney, D. L., Seyfarth, R. M. & Smuts, B. B. (1986). Social relationships and social
cognition in nonhuman primates. Science, 234, 13611366.
7

Note the consistent

format of the references
(this is American
Psychological
Association, or APA). You
can use any popular style,
e.g. Harvard, APA or ASA,
but be consistent: use the
same style throughout the
list. Endnote, Mendelay
and Zotero are all useful
bibliographic programs
that will produce these
automatically for you
Alex Mesoudi
Today, 11:10

Hare, B., Brown, M., Williamson, C., & Tomasello, M. (2002). The domestication of social
cognition in dogs. Science 298, 16341636.
Hare, B., Call, J., Agnetta, B., & Tomasello, M. (2000). Chimpanzees know what
conspecifics do and do not see. Animal Behaviour, 59, 771785.
Hare, B., Plyusnina, I., Ignacio, N., Schepina, O., Stepika, A., Wrangham, R., & Trut, L.
(2005). Social cognitive evolution in captive foxes is a correlated by-product of experimental
domestication. Current Biology, 15, 226230.
Hare, B. & Tomasello, M. (1999). Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) use human and
conspecific social cues to locate hidden food. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 113, 15.
Hare, B. & Tomasello, M. (2005). Human-like social skills in dogs? Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 9, 439 44.
Humphrey, N. K. (1976). The social function of intellect. Growing Points in Ethology, 303
317.
Kaminski, J., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Chimpanzees know what others know, but not
what they believe. Cognition, 109(2), 224234.
Leach, H.M. (2003) Human domestication reconsidered. Current Anthropology, 44(3,) 349368.
McKinley, J. & Sambrook, T. D. (2000). Use of human-given cues by domestic dogs (Canis
familiaris) and horses (Equus caballus). Animal Cognition, 3, 1322.
Povinelli, D. J., & Giambrone, S. (1999). Inferring other minds: failure of the argument by
analogy, Philosophical Topics, 27, 167201.
Soproni, K., Miklosi, A., Topal, J. & Csanyi, V. (2001). Comprehension of human
communicative signs in pet dogs (Canis familiaris). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 115,
122126.
Tomasello, M., Hare, B., & Agnetta, B. (1999). Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)
follow gaze direction geometrically. Animal Behaviour, 58, 769777.