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.
In the first paper, I do not see much about the methods and this is likely because of how it is meant to be more of a thesis-driven paper and that is what It was doing. The information in the paper is full of information that pertains to the way that Trump speaks to his loyal supporters and how the rhetoric is powerful and effective. In the second paper, the data is from stories from individuals and this type of data is anecdotal. The participants would be recruited from advocacy groups and then they would be apart of the study. There is also a chart full of the demographics of the participants and is crucial for the audience to see the information. In the third paper, we see that in the end, we have solutions to immigration issues such as increasing funding and changes to the current system which is obviously flawed. It is important to describe methods because if the information was just presented as is, there would be a void that the audience could see and not understand the point of the data which is crucial to an important paper dealing with data.
In the Thesis-driven analysis, there are sub-titles, which divide the greater topic or thesis into smaller arguments or claims. They are all connected around the main claim (rhetoric of resentment) or are supportive of each other.
In the IMRD, there is a clear structure of Introduction, Methods, Resolution (or results), and Discussion – as expected. There can be sub-titles in each of these structural pieces, especially in the Methods, results, and discussion. Where different techniques, analysis, and outcomes need to be analyzed separately and later in conjunction.
In the problem-solution analysis, the author starts with a short introduction with factual information and immediately moves on to give context. After context, they state the problem, causation, and possible consequences of this issue. By the end of the text, they start proposing solutions to the problems acknowledged.
In the intro of the thesis-driven paper, it states that “This essay contributes to and reframes the preliminary scholarly assessments of Trump’s appeals to rage, malice, and revenge by sketching the rhetorical dimensions of an underlying emotional-moral framework in which victimization, resentment, and revenge are civic virtues.
revenge are civic virtues.” This is basically a wordy statement explaining that it will analyze how Trump’s rhetoric affect his listeners. This bombardment of rhetorical writing, in my opinion, diminishes its credibility, because rhetoric aims to persuade, and the paper is composed in majority of rhetoric.
The IMRAD paper states that the method is “Guided by a feminist approach that perceives women as authoritative speakers of their own life stories (Gorelick, 1991), the present study relies on the stories of respondents to examine the factors that influence their help-seeking practices.” So this one attempts to use the scientific method in social science setting to conduct its research. In my opinion, this structure may be better suited for a natural science paper, because its use in this setting would not produce any definitely conclusion.
The problem solution paper is very clear in terms of methods and solutions. It present the problems under the “Challenges” heading, then offers solutions under the “Solutions” heading. Like the IMRAD paper, it uses headings to form its structure, but actually does it in a more readable way. Every problem/challenge is written explicitly, and same with the solutions.
*
The first document doesn’t talk much about any method or procedure, this one is using an overall analysis of the rhetoric of an individual around the concept of resentment. But the methods are not explicitly stated.
In the second document, which is in IMRD format – so it has to have explicit methodology- the method is first mentioned in the abstract where they tell us their technique to collect information was going to be on-on-one -first-hand testimony- interviews. In the method, they go into detail on how they chose a proper representative sample, what procedures were conducted, and how were the data/results analyzed.
The problem-solution document. Doesn’t explicitly state and method or technique. However, the problem-solution technique can be seen as a method on its own in which first the author states the issues and circumstances, and then a plan of action is recommended.
In the first essay of the Thesis driven paper, we see how it is organized by quoting Trump and then analyzing it. For example they introduce where Trump stands on immigration then bring in a quote and analyze it. In the IMRD essay the text is organized by sources, claims and facts. Each source is brought in to help prove an argument which is then followed by an explination. Each paragraph bring in brings in new sources that help support the authors claims and further the readers belief and trust in the writing. Then lastly we have the problem-solution source. In this source the writer states a problem in a small introduction. Each topic is split into small paragraphs that get straight to the point and address each problem. Additionally all the paragraphs have very factual and proven information leaving no room for the readers to doubt or question what they are reading. I happen to like this writing style because it is quick and to the point making it easy to understand and read.
In the first essay of the Thesis driven paper, we see how it is organized by quoting Trump and then analyzing it. For example they introduce where Trump stands on immigration then bring in a quote and analyze it. In the IMRD essay the text is organized by sources, claims and facts. Each source is brought in to help prove an argument which is then followed by an explination. Each paragraph bring in brings in new sources that help support the authors claims and further the readers belief and trust in the writing. Then lastly we have the problem-solution source. In this source the writer states a problem in a small introduction. Each topic is split into small paragraphs that get straight to the point and address each problem. Additionally all the paragraphs have very factual and proven information leaving no room for the readers to doubt or question what they are reading.
In the thesis-driven article, there is little that shows that the author followed a particular method. However, it is evident that the author follows a pattern of stating what Trump says before analyzing how effective it is in persuading his supporters. The author backs up the claims she makes by incorporating supporting evidence. However, the second paper follows a more predictable method. As a research-based article, it starts off with an introduction and then the methodology before transitioning to findings and lastly the discussion of the findings. The third paper lastly uses a very simple method where the author presents the problem and discusses it in detail from the time it started to the present time. They then conclude by providing possible solutions and hence the name of the article as a problem-solution paper.
Although the method for the thesis-driven essay is never directly stated, the method seems to be to show what Trump says and then to analyze the effect of his speech towards the audience. The IMRD article obviously states their method since it is a required part of the genre. In this essay, they tell us that they will be conducting one-on-one interviews with Latina immigrants who were victims of domestic violence. In the porblem-solution essay, the author simply presents problems and offers solutions (this method is not explicitly stated).
In the thesis-driven paper, there are no specific methods demonstrated. What I can tell, the author introduces the paper with the speech from Trump and later analyzes the effect the speech had on the audience. The author explains sub-claims to express the claim expressed in the introduction.
In the IMRD article, the method seen is introduces sources, what the author found, and explaining their findings. They conducted interviews with these domestic violence victims to show a better understanding of the topic.
In the problem-solution paper, the method is clearly stated with titles. Introduction, challenges and solutions. That is why its called a problem-solution paper. There are problems stated and solutions found.
In the thesis driven paper I wouldn’t say a method was introduced or blatantly stated but from reading it I do know that her method for explaining the thesis is through primarily using his speeches and analyzing what Trump says and how he says it.
In the IMRD paper, the method is explained in detail in its own section. Explaining a method is a major part of a IMRD paper so it isn’t surprising to see. The section about the method is needed before doing the procedure and findings.
In the problem-solution paper I think the method is the solution part. After the details and issues of the topic are explained, the solution is basically the method the writer would take to fix those issues.
Thesis-driven: The topic itself requires rhetorical analysis so the author breaks up the sections to expand on the different components of ressentiment and how a person could convince others to attack underprivileged people. Analysis is the method so it’s not separated here.
IMRD: Two different types of studies were used because the interview responses needed outside data to lend insight. “Findings” comes after this section, which is the supplemental analysis to the studies presented.
Problem-solution: Similar to the thesis-driven one, the analysis is part of the method but there is heavy use of sources.
The first paper directly quotes President Trump and adds an opinionated view on his claims. The second paper is much more factual and supplies information/ evidence with its claims. The last paper Makes a claim and said claim lays a foundation for how the paper is written/ should be interpreted. The sentence structure of the first two papers is straightforward and discusses the direct claims made. The third paper can be dissected in a similar way, but it focuses on a singular main claim instead of branching out to answer other topics. The structure of each paper helps distinguish them from one another. The first is loose, the second is very straightforward and well-directed, and the third ventures off based on a singular idea. They are all very different but share certain similar characteristics.
The Thesis-Driven article does not specify anything specific about the methodology behind the research. However, stating that the “…essay contributes to and reframes the preliminary scholarly assessments…” alludes to the idea that different previous research papers were used as reference and research for this piece. The keywords listed on the side also indicate this. For the IMRD format, the method is obvious. It is listed under the section “Method”. The author describes the way they used Latina narratives to create the data that was used to prove the argument of the paper. Lastly, the Problem-solution article also doe not list the method for its research. The goal is not how the research was obtained but more to help simplify the claim into a problem and solution format.