A method is how someone does something. It is a spelled out procedure for how to do carry out a task. Researchers often, but not always, describe their methods. Some macro-structures do this more than others. IMRD structures always require an explanation of a method.

Thesis-driven and problem-solution structures sometimes have space to explain methods, but they don’t always do so explicitly. That is, you kind of have to look for it. For thesis-driven papers, these are usually in the humanities. The methods of the humanities typically use concepts or “lenses” (think back to our Rhetorical Analysis unit!) to interpret texts. These are sometimes described.

In problem-solution papers, it depends. Problem-solution papers are especially malleable because they aren’t always formed in the genre of the academic journal article, but rather in genres that are analogous to the genre of the journal article (e.g., grant proposal, report, white paper). Depending on the purpose of the genre (e.g., report vs. white paper), there is a greater or lesser need to describe methods.

Go back to the three example texts from the last page:

• Thesis-driven: “Donald J. Trump and the rhetoric of ressentiment“ by Casey Ryan Kelly, published in Quarterly Journal of Speech (a journal in rhetoric)
• IMRD: “‘He said he’d deport me’: Factors influencing domestic violence help-seeking practices among Latina immigrants” by Angelica S. Reina, Brenda J. Lohman, Marta María Maldonado, published in Journal of Interpersonal Violence (cited in the Qasim article; a journal in social science studies of trauma and violence).
• Problem-solution: “Immigration White Paper” published by the Christian Community Development Association (a group that seeks to connect Christians and help under-served communities).

Think about the following questions: Does each of the articles describe the methods in which they will conduct an analysis? If so, what is the method? Where is it at? How is it written? What differences in word choice, sentence structure, or organization do you notice between them?

Why describe a method? Why describe it in the way it is described in each of the places of each article (if they have a place where they describe a method used)?

What does it do? How does it do it (look at each sentence)? What does this say about the function of talking about methods in a thesis-driven macro-structure, a IMRD macro-structure, and a problem-solution macro-structure?

In a comment below, locate areas of each paper where you think methods are described and compare the organization of those paragraphs, the sentence structure, the tone, etc. What do you notice? What does each paragraph do? How does it do that? And, finally, do these differences (or similarities) say something about how these structures call for different kinds of functions in describing methods? Consider some of these questions in a response of about 150-200 words.

After commenting below, click on the button below to continue.

Genres will always provide rules but also be somewhat unsatisfying because genre conventions are never rigid rules that tell you exactly which word to choose, how to exactly structure a sentence, how to exactly order a paragraph, and so on.

Still, different rhetorical situations can provide slightly different decisions for a specific genre.

For academic journal articles, the genre you will be writing in for your research-driven writing project, using macro-structures for organization can be helpful to drill down a bit further on what sorts of moves there are to make to help give you a template for writing.

This page and the next three pages will ask you to think about how writing in introductions, methods, analysis, and conclusion sections differ in the three macro-structures of academic writing:

• Thesis-driven
• IMRD
• Problem-solution

While they are all structured a little differently, each structure does have parts that introduce the topic, explain how an analysis of some kind will be conducted, performs some kind of analysis, and concludes in some way.

However, how this writing is done looks a bit different and is carried out in different ways.

To think about this, we are going to look at three different texts that are all on the topic that Baruch student Suhaib Qasim wrote about in the research article you read today for class: immigration.

• Thesis-driven: “Donald J. Trump and the rhetoric of ressentiment“ by Casey Ryan Kelly, published in Quarterly Journal of Speech (a journal in rhetoric)
• IMRD: “‘He said he’d deport me’: Factors influencing domestic violence help-seeking practices among Latina immigrants” by Angelica S. Reina, Brenda J. Lohman, Marta María Maldonado, published in Journal of Interpersonal Violence (cited in the Qasim article; a journal in social science studies of trauma and violence).
• Problem-solution: “Immigration White Paper” published by the Christian Community Development Association (a group that seeks to connect Christians and help under-served communities).

You’ll be asked to compare paragraphs across these texts.

What does it do? How does it do it (look at each sentence)? What does this say about the function of an introduction paragraph in a thesis-driven macro-structure, a IMRD macro-structure, and a problem-solution macro-structure?

In a comment below, look at the first paragraph of each paper and compare the organization of those paragraphs, the sentence structure, the tone, etc. What do you notice? What does each paragraph do? How does it do that? Skim the rest of the paragraphs (if there are other paragraphs) of the introductions, as well. And, finally, do these differences (or similarities) say something about how these structures call for different kinds of functions in introductions? Consider some of these questions in a response of about 150-200 words.

After commenting below, click on the button below to continue.

In this module, we:

• Reflected on the Rhetorical Analysis final draft
• Reviewed Unit 3 so far
• Thought about next steps for organizing sources
• Thought about summarizing, paraphrasing, and quoting
• Looked over assignment due for 11/12

Next time:

• • Read “Organizing Your Ideas” by Lisa Blankenship, p. 195-199 (textbook)
  • Reflective Annotated Bibliography Process Document by 3pm
  • Reading Annotation for Blankenship by 3pm (In our #reading-annotation Slack channel, mention one thing that stood out to you in the reading and why in about 100 words or more for each reading we do.)

On Thursday (11/12), the Reflective Annotated Bibliography is due.

You will submit 2 entries following the 6 criteria outlined in the instructions on Blackboard (see Process Documents in Assignment Prompts).

I want at least 1 of the entries to be an academic source (i.e., in an academic journal or in a book published by a university press).

Take some time to look over the instructions and my feedback on your first attempt at an entry for this (from last week).

Do you have any questions on this assignment? Comment below. If you have no questions, just write “I have no questions.”

After commenting below, click on the button below to continue the module.

Last class, we talked about documentation style as rhetorical. That is important to consider, but so is just knowing the nuts and bolts. There are two main things to consider with documentation style:

1. In-text citation
2. Having a reference list/endnotes/footnotes

There are also other formatting requirements, but these are easier to learn on your own. You can go to the UW-Madison writing center page for some of this information as well as the Purdue OWL to learn about the most popular documentation styles. It is great to consult these about more information on in-text citation and reference lists, as well (e.g., Mendeley and Zotero are both free).

I thought I’d spend a little time showing some stuff on in-text citation and then refer you to either resources like UW-Madison or Purdue OWL or to software that can help you format reference list entries like these. I’m going to use MLA and APA since these two are very commonly used, but for the assignment, you can choose any documentation style that you think would work for your research project (or one you just want to kind of learn if you think you’ll be using it a lot).

MLA Quote and Paraphrase

The MLA direct quote will look a lot like examples I used on the page on paraphrasing and quoting. It will include author either in sentence or at end of sentence in the citation. After the citation is the period. Signal words are in the present tense and never the past tense.

Example: Libertz claims that in class last week “we talked about documentation style as rhetorical. That is important to consider, but so is just knowing the nuts and bolts” (45).

The direct quote can also include the last name in the parentheses at the end, too. Typically, you never want to do this the first time you use the author in your writing, because you want to introduce the source a bit first (so you are mentioning name anyway). after that, it is clear you are using who you are using so you can put it at the end like in the below example.

Example: In class last week, “we talked about documentation style as rhetorical. That is important to consider, but so is just knowing the nuts and bolts” (Libertz 45).

The MLA paraphrase will typically have the author mentioned with the paraphrase and parentheses at the end with the page number.

Example: Libertz argues that documentation style is not just about rules but is highly reliant on rhetoric (45).

The paraphrase also can leave out the author (though, typically it makes things easier to include the author). If you do this, you move the last name of the author to the parentheses at the end.

Example: Documentation style is not just about rules but is highly reliant on rhetoric (Libertz 45).

Finally, I wanted to note two things that can happen. Sometimes there are no page numbers and sometimes there is no author. For page numbers, if there are not, then don’t worry about it. Just carry on like there are none. If there is no author, go to the works cited list and include the next option. So, if the entry is a journal article, then the next prioritized item in the entry would be the title of the journal article.

Example for both no page numbers and no author: Documentation style is not just about rules but is highly reliant on rhetoric (“Documentation Style Nuts and Bolts”).

APA Paraphrase and Quote

APA prioritizes paraphrase and really discourages direct quotes unless really necessary. This is because social sciences are more interested in the gist of findings rather than very specific language (something the humanities tends to value more). Still, direct quotes can be valuable in social science writing so it is important to know how to do it.

First, paraphrase. APA values years and puts them right next to the mention of the author’s name. Things are written in past tense this time, not present tense.

Example: Libertz (2020) argued that documentation style is not just about rules but is highly reliant on rhetoric.

If the paraphrase is really specific to an idea on a specific page, you could include the page number:

Example: Libertz (2020) argued that documentation style is not just about rules but is highly reliant on rhetoric (p. 45).

You can also load the author name into the parentheses.

Example: Documentation style is not just about rules but is highly reliant on rhetoric (Libertz, 2020, p. 45).

For short quotations, the year follows the author and the page number follows the quote like in the paraphrase. It follows same logic overall (e.g., putting author/year with page number if author not mentioned in sentence)

Example: Libertz (2020) claimed that in class last week “we talked about documentation style as rhetorical. That is important to consider, but so is just knowing the nuts and bolts” (p. 45).

If no page numbers, you offer the paragraph number.

Example: Libertz (2020) claimed that in class last week “we talked about documentation style as rhetorical. That is important to consider, but so is just knowing the nuts and bolts” (para. 1).

Odds and Ends

Lots of stuff is just searching the internet for answers to format things correctly. It is easier to just find answers that way rather than trying to learn it all at once.

-If using a quote longer than 4 lines in MLA or more than 40 words in APA, there are different rules for quoting. Look on Purdue OWL or UW Madison WC for more information or find somewhere else.

-Depending on the type of source, it will be cited in the text and listed in the reference list differently. Look on Purdue OWL or UW Madison WC for more information or find somewhere else.

-If you aren’t familiar with using documentation styles, don’t stress. Lots of it is just getting used to it. I’ll guide you along with this first draft.

In a comment below, take about 50-100 words to explain which documentation style you think you will use and why for your research-driven writing project.

After commenting, click on the button below to continue the module.

It can be helpful to think about the range of purposes for paraphrasing and quoting.

Establish Context. Use a source to be an example of some sort of context for your writing to matter, to be interesting, to be relevant to your audience.

Review the research on your subject. Who else has written about what you are saying and what can you quickly tell me about it?

Introduce a term or define a concept. Any term that might be central or highly important to your argument should be defined, and using a quote from an expert can be helpful to do that work. When doing this, make sure you connect the definition back to your argument.

Repeating something from an expert to support or amplify what you argue. You can use a paraphrase or direct quote from an expert to echo or further support what you say to enhance your own credibility. So, perhaps not much in the way of new information, but you amplify your point and make it last a bit longer for a reader while also showing that other people agree with you.

Highlight differences or counterarguments. It can be valuable to highlight counterarguments or people who see things a little differently. It shows that you are aware of other arguments and you have thought about them. Make sure to build in how these counterarguments either enhance your own position or provide evidence for how they don’t quite support the argument you are making.

In a comment below, spend about 100 words explaining how the paraphrase/quote might fill one of the above uses (even if it doesn’t do that yet, you could speculate how you could further develop it for one of these purposes).

After commenting, click on the button below to continue the module:

How do you make your voice the strongest? By connecting sources and saying something a bit newer even if not completely new, you start to develop a strong voice that can help address your research question in a robust fashion.

Here are the three main tools to do that:

Summary:

Summary can be helpful for you to understand the source, so could be good to write on your own (as you’ve done with Reflective Annotated Bibliography entries). They can sometimes be useful within your draft, but only if an extended version of contextual information about the source is necessary. In your Rhetorical Analysis, this was sometimes true because your audience was the class and you can’t assume everyone had read/heard/viewed the same text you were analyzing.

For academic arguments, you’ll want to key in on:

• what the main argument (i.e., thesis) is
• background on the author (e.g., academic discipline
• some sort of comment about how this source (and, thus, summary) is relevant to your own argument

Paraphrase:

Paraphrase can be helpful to capture a point from one of your sources (say, a good sentence or paragraph related to your argument) but positioning in your own voice to make for better writing or to better fit it, structurally, into the organization of your writing:

• Identify source and comment on source
• Cover main points in same order author does
• Have page number noted
• Put paraphrase in your own words and sentence structures. If you want to keep something in its original form, use quotation marks.
• Keep your own comments, elaborations, reactions separate from paraphrase
• Have information you need to make in-text citation
• have a note after about where you intend to use it
• Recheck to make sure it reflects your own words and the source’s words accurately

Direct Quotes:

Good to use direct quotes when the author puts something really well that you using paraphrase instead would not put so well. To quote:

• Always, always, always introduce the quote with who it is from. E.g., Susan Sontag argues that; Theorist and critic Susan Sontag explains that…; Sontag has noted that…
• Don’t quote a lot. In MLA, it is no more than 4 lines of text. In APA, it is 40 words or less. But the general rhetorical idea here is that it is easy for a reader to get lost and stop paying attention. Too much of a quote can be hard to follow in its connection to YOUR writing.
• Always, always, always use either no punctuation or punctuation that makes sense in the context of the sentence. Follow the grammar, don’t just drop it in.

Examples

Here are some examples of direct quoting and paraphrasing (we covered summary a bit already in the Rhetorical Analysis, so check that out for review in past lesson plans and Learning Modules):

• • NO: Susan Sontag wrote extensively about photography. “And, contrary to what Weston asserts, the habit of photographic seeing–of looking at reality as an array of potential photographs–creates estrangement from, rather than union with, nature” (97). Photography is about seeing the world. [No introduction to quote, just dropped in there]
  • YES: Susan Sontag argues that “the habit of photographic seeing–of looking at reality as an array of potential photographs–creates estrangement from, rather than union with, nature” (97). In this paper, I want to examine a productive form of “estrangement” produced by a series of professional photographs that attempt to capture elements of global warming.
  • YES: Susan Sontag writes that professional photography is reliant on “photographic seeing,” which is a habit of “looking at reality as an array of potential photographs” (97). The history of landscape photography is a history of people who had to do research to find opportune places and times to take photographs; they had to use “photographic seeing” in many ways to find the right moment (a convergence of place and time) to do their work.
  • YES: Sontag writes about this phenomenon of the photographer being divorced from the scene: “the habit of photographic seeing–of looking at reality as an array of potential photographs–creates estrangement from, rather than union with, nature” (97). Photographers need to acknowledge how their perspective will always color how a photograph is created in a way that is necessarily unnatural.
  • YES: According to Susan Sontag, to see photographically, or to “loo[k] at reality as an array of potential photographs,” is the essential ethos of the photographer (97). This way of seeing necessarily produces “estrangement from, rather than union with, nature” (97). This estrangement can be highly productive from an artistic standpoint.
  • NO: Susan Sontag (1977) said that photography is really about reality but it is hard to get reality. [this does not really represent what is said in the original–it is way too broad]
  • YES: Susan Sontag (1977) has argued that seeing photographically is seeing the world as filled with unrealized photographs.
  • YES: Unlike other theorists of photography before her, Susan Sontag claims that photography creates a necessary divide from nature for photographers (97).

Signal Words

In the above examples, you will note some “signal words” or words that help let your readers know that you are gesturing toward another writer. I used words like “writes,” “argues,” and “claims” to do this. But, there is a really great word bank on page 175 in our textbook that has other examples.

In a below comment, choose something from one of your sources for your paper so far. Do three things:

• Paste the full quote
• Write a paraphrase of that quote
• Write a direct quote where the quote is introduced and commented on (like in examples above).

After commenting below, click on the button to continue the module:

So you have some sources and you have some writing to do. Naturally, you will toggle back and forth here a bit (you might have some sources, then you do some writing, then you find a need for more sources, and then you do more writing).

Now what? Get organized.

First, you have to keep your research question at the forefront of what you want to do here. Let it manage your attention and keep your focus on what you want to prioritize in reading through sources.

Second, you will want to immerse yourself in your sources so you know them really well. It will be clear in your writing if you have not done this, because you will just drop a quote here or there and write in a way that would leave an impression that you did not need the source at all. Don’t do that! Getting really deep into the sources you have will help you learn in impactful ways and it will help produce better writing.

Lean on your reading annotation skills! Take notes on things that jump out to you, note where you pause, look over your notes and compare notes against notes on other sources. What patterns or themes do you see? What are the connections among your sources? Mark those connections.

Third, evaluate the sources you have (another layer of evaluation after evaluating to include them in your project to begin with). Page 169 in our textbook has some great questions to ask to start doing this.

In a comment below, use one of three steps above to formulate a response. Choose one of the following tasks below to do in the comment below:

• Talk about how a source you have can help you address your research question in about 100 words.
• Share a reading annotation you made on one of your sources in about 100 words (e.g., you could share the quote and your note about that quote).
• Answer one of the questions on page 169 in the textbook about one of your sources in about 100 words.

After commenting below, click on the button to continue the module:

Starting with the Mermin reading on writing about physics from 10/8, we have been talking about research as a way to think about making knowledge. The literacy narrative and rhetorical analysis also make knowledge–you examined personal experience and a text to learn more about those things and the world. However, research is usually more systematic–at the very least, it will typically incorporate (more formally, anyway) other voices and expertise besides yourself.

Below is a quick gloss on where we’ve been so far:

Writing can make knowledge. Taking the time to look at what you know and what other people know, and trying to put that together with language in the form of writing, can give you a chance to look at what you know as you read it over. You start to learn things as writing can be a medium to think and refine thinking. It also provides limits–there is only so much you can access through talkin and writing. Yet, in those limits, we are forced to be creative to have something to say; the constraint itself can create pressure to exert something new.

Finding and Evaluating Sources. We talked about methods for finding information: where to go (e.g., popular search engines, library databases), how to search places for information (e.g., using keywords, Boolean operators), using reverse citation (e.g., looking at a reference list of a source for more sources, looking at Wikipedia for more sources, using Google Scholar to click on “cited by”). We also talked about questions to ask yourself as you evaluate sources, with the Reflective Annotated Bibliography entry we did in the Process Document due at the end of October as practice for this (e.g., who wrote it, what measures does the publication do to ensure quality, what is the reputation of the publisher).

Developing a Research Question. We talked about how Stasis Theory can help us think about the kind of question we want to ask. We also talked about making direct, focused, concise, complex, and arguable questions that can generate sophisticated research and response.

Disciplinary Home and Documentation Style. Related to Finding and Evaluating Sources and Developing a Research Question, we also talked about the range of evidence and disciplinary approaches that can be useful for addressing a research question as well as how to standardize it with a documentation style. That standardization is importantly rhetorical and can help you think through the priorities of making knowledge in any disciplinary way of knowing.

Claims, Evidence, and Linking Claims to Evidence. As an extension from the Rhetorical Analysis unit, we again returned to the importance of making direct and arguable claims, providing evidence to support those claims, and commenting on that evidence to make it apparent how and why the claim is linked to that evidence. In research-driven writing, the kinds of evidence you look at will need a clear and direct linking to claims so readers can quickly ascertain (as quickly as possible, at least) how your argument does or does not relate to larger conversations in your discipline.

In a comment below, spend about 100 words or so applying one of the topics above to something specific you are currently working on for your Research-Driven Writing Project. Provide as many specifics as possible (e.g., a recent source you found that you are looking at and some explanation of how it could relate to addressing your research question).

After commenting, click the button below to continue:

You did it! You submitted a revised draft of a major writing project for this course (or, you are at least most of the way there). Feel good about it.

Hopefully, you changed quite a bit to align with what you wanted to do better in the piece compared to what you did in the first draft.  I hope you also consulted the Revision Plan Guidelines (Learning Module 6 cover this in the revision plan and in considering online and blog writing) and feedback you got on the first draft.

Now that it is done, though, let’s take a moment to think about what you did and where you are going next.

There are two tasks to do on this page.

First, comment below on what you were trying to do in your revision:

• Where did you focus your energy most? What were you trying to differently in the most drastic way of all the changes you made? Why? How did you do that? How did you feel about it?
• What do you love most about this revision? What are you most proud of?
• What helped you the most when revising? (e.g., models of blogs, examples from class, feedback from your Writing Group, a realization you had, how you structured a Writing Session). Be specific! (e.g., mention a specific comment from a person in your Writing Group)

Second, go to our Slack workspace and in the #writing-practice-and-process channel, post about the following:

• Talk about 2-3 goals that you would like to work on for your writing. Interpret this however you’d like. It can be related to anything about writing–style level concerns, organization, argument, using examples, your writing process, your writing practice, etc. Be specific!!!!!!!!! (say more than just picking 2-3 of the things I just listed and copy/pasting them)
• Respond to others! Read previous posts before you write your own post. If you notice someone has a similar post, comment directly to them and expand on their points if you had similar goals. Prioritize talking about your goals that way rather than formally listing all of your goals.

Once you have completed these two tasks, click on the “Click here to continue” button below.