Incorporating Other Views Into Your Essay

Incorporating other views into your essay: how to do this fluidly

This piece is intended to be an extension of the Analysis vs description piece on Learnmore. A key part of analysis in essays will be engagement with other opinions. This piece will include examples of how to quote, paraphrase, and challenge the viewpoints in judgments and scholarship while letting your own voice shine through. The key takeaway is to not simply say ‘one viewpoint is XYZ’, but to establish whether that viewpoint is strong or weak. The best examples of this will use multiple viewpoints to come to an independent decision. You should, however, think about it on a sliding scale. You can have too little scholarship (LLB1), but you can also have too much and drown your own voice out (LLB2).

I will use real examples from my first, second, and final year on the LLB and explain what they succeed in and how they could be better. They are all missing the correct footnotes and some context. Focus on how the arguments are being framed rather than their substance. Before reading my explanation, I encourage you to think about the merits of the examples.

Introduction

It may be helpful to know how to find scholarship before establishing how to use it in an essay. Your first point of contact will be your required and further reading. If you have been good with your time, you will be familiar with them before the question is released. From those articles and books, look at what sources are in the footnotes and read the ones most relevant to your assignment. Additionally, input keywords into databases like Lexis+ and Westlaw, use your dynamic library catalogue (e.g. CityLibrary Search and Google Scholar to find relevant articles. Google Scholar is especially helpful because it includes a ‘Cited by’ link for all articles. While looking at footnotes can help you gather the seminal pieces in an area, the ‘Cited by’ articles can help you find more contemporary arguments.

LLB1 Example (Scholarship)

Constitutional Law Summative – ‘If Parliament “enacts that smoking in the streets of Paris is an offence, then it is an offence” (Sir Ivor Jennings, The Law and the Constitution (5th edn, University of London Press 1969) 170). Critically discuss this statement.’

Similarly, it seems impossible for Parliament to regain powers devolved to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, although this was sentiment mirrored with the UK’s exit from the EU being labelled as ‘very unlikely’. In reality, it is a political impossibility for devolved powers to be regained. If anything, the success of the SNP in recent times indicates the potential breakup of the Union. This is significant as it indicates that Parliament does not have the ‘right to make or unmake any law’ as to do so in some areas would lead to their own political downfall.

This example, for a first-year essay, is okay. With the foresight of three years, it is missing depth and engagement with scholarship. Although this is a section at the end of a larger paragraph, it could benefit from restructuring. Beginning with the scholarship statement would help with engagement. Understanding the exact position (parliament can make or unmake any law) will help with addressing that position. You can then establish your point. Here I am trying to say that the argument is somewhat weak as the legal position and political reality may differ. Thus, starting with the scholarship position, moving to why that position may be weak (it fails to reflect political realities of the law), and alternating between evidence and explanation of its significance would strengthen the section. This structure would also help me incorporate more views and have greater depth.

LLB2 Example (Scholarship)

Further Issues in Tort Law Summative – Decisions about liability in tort should not be made through the artificial, legal notion of causation. Instead, these decisions should be arrived at by using a notion of economic efficiency to determine who liability ought to be attached to. Discuss.

In his work, Weinrib suggests that tortious liability should be attached based on a causal link between a tortfeasor’s voluntary action and a harmed party. This view is artificial as it fails to provide an alternative to violent retaliation when used exclusively. Perry argues that, in focusing solely on causation, Weinrib fails to ascribe any obligation to compensate. This argument is convincing. From what Coleman labels a primary duty for individuals to not voluntarily act wrongfully, there is nothing to proceed logically to a secondary obligation of repairing said wrongful action. … It simply states that wrongful action has occurred. … This notion is then too artificial to serve as the sole basis for attaching liability when considering the purpose of tort law. It imposes liability without providing any justifiable recourse that would not be incoherent within its deontological framework.

This section is a significant step up from the LLB1 paragraph, even considering that it has been excerpted. It begins with the scholarship view from Weinrib. It then proceeds to advance counterarguments from, among others in the entire paragraph, Perry and Coleman. These counter arguments are used to assert that the initial position is ‘artificial’ in the scope of the essay’s definition of the purpose of tort law. This value judgment is the best way to engage with scholarship.

The only potential downside would be that my voice is not coming out as much. You can overdo scholarship and have your own view be drowned out. This example is borderline, although it redeems itself in the last two sentences. Make sure that you are consistently linking the scholarship back to the thesis statement that is your own view. Think of it as a maths equation – Scholar 1’s view + Scholar 2’s view = my own position. Additionally, I could have drawn more nuance from Perry and Coleman’s positions to still establish Weinrib’s view as artificial, but perhaps also using my own conception to strengthen the argument and reach the same conclusion.

LLB3 Example (Judgment)

Labour Law Formative - The legal division of the employment relationship into categories involving (a) employee and (b) worker allows labour law to cover and regulate new business models and new ways of working. Critically discuss.

The judgment in Uber clarified that gig economy workers are entitled to certain statutory rights over their employers where the purpose of those protections ‘is not in doubt’. … Beyond building on Autoclenz, the Court’s purposive analysis of the legislation is significant in suggesting an inclination to look beyond written agreements and consider the arrangements of working conditions to prevent the exclusion of distributive burdens through employment contracts; however, this willingness may be limited. The Court’s qualification that the purposive interpretation extends only to indisputable statutory rights indicates deference to parliamentary sovereignty rather than a political stance aimed at negating the imbalanced employment relationship. In this sense, it may fail to intentionally allow for the regulation of new business models. Alternatively, as Adams outlines, this simply frames a highly political exercise in neutral terms despite delineating interests through public policy de facto. This conception is preferred. The Court’s exercise was ultimately a political one, and subsequent cases maintaining the status quo based on purposive analysis do not necessarily indicate objectivity.

This section is efficient and mixes scholarship and judicial decision making enough to allow my voice to shine through. I have been efficient and paraphrased (rewriting in a shorter form and in your own words but still referencing back to another’s view) principles where necessary. For example, I take the general principle of Adams’ article and sum it up in a sentence, followed by a footnote to the article more generally. Use footnotes in this way to your advantage where possible to save words. I also directly quote from the judgment where the wording is important. In this section ‘not in doubt’ is a significant indicator of whether purposive analysis can apply so I have used that wording precisely.

I have also consistently linked back. The paragraph starts with a statement of the law, moves to a value judgment of the strength of that position, links that strength to the purpose of the essay, incorporates an alternative view from Adams, provides a value judgment on that view, links that strength to the purpose of the essay, and rounds off with a nuanced, pronged approach which allows for two views to be advanced in the paragraph leading to the same outcome. There is always room for improvement, but this example is the best out of the three at incorporating the views of others while allowing my voice to shine through.

Takeaways

Incorporating the views of others into essays is essential. It would be difficult (if not impossible) to have depth of analysis which is substantiated without it. Equally, you should also recognise that an essay is ultimately yours, and that your own view should shine through. It is not necessarily a literature review. Show off your further reading, but do not let it come at the expense of diluting your own critical thoughts on a topic. Practice makes progress, so I encourage you to take every possible opportunity to refine this skill through tutorial work, formative questions, and essay competitions.

Footnotes

We didn't want to clutter up the examples above with footnotes, but also don't want you to forget they are essential! We've popped them in a separate document for your perusal.

Many thanks to Nouh El-Ouaz for this guidance piece. Nouh graduated from the City Law School LLB programme in 2024 and is a Visiting Lecturer with us for the 2024/25 academic year. He is also a Master of Laws (LLM) candidate at UCL.