When I am stuck on writing essays for a deadline I start by reading one or two new articles on the particular topic I want to write about. Then I take relativly

When I am stuck on writing essays for a deadline I start by reading one or two new articles on the particular topic I want to write about. Then I take relativly detailed notes on the best article I read. I then spin those notes out into exposition of the topic considered. At that point there will be bits of the topic that I don't think any of the articles captured completly or parts where I agree with one and not others. An original point of view comes out of the synthesis. If I am struggling at the stage where I spin the notes out into exposition I follow a relativly simple framework that forces me to keep writing. I learned it for exams but I think it is pretty versatile and adds clarty where otherwise you would be waffeling: DICE >>Define: Define the view / theory / idea / term under consideration. Sometimes this will be pretty involved and amount to the meat of your exposition. If it is getting too long though then you should break the concept up and DICE individual parts as well as the bigger picture. >>Ilustrate: Give an example of the thing under consideration in non abstract terms. >>Contrast: Define the contrasting ways of understanding or a competing theory or an example of something that isn't covered by the theory. >>Explain: Explain what motivates the theory you are considering and why it is different from alternatives. After doing that for all the parts involved in the topic I usually have some areas that the original articles I considered didn't touch on. Then I get into evaluating. People imagine that originality is blue sky thinking. Occasionally it is. But usually it is adding clarity or going further than someone already has on a particular topic or presenting old ideas in a new light. Often times a good reading of existing views adds light where a radical new approach just adds heat.