Organizing Ideas (5-10 min)

On 11/5, we talked more about linking evidence to claims. In the reading for today, Blankenship talks more about the value and method for doing this in ways that will be helpful for you to consider as you keep working on your research-driven writing project.

Page 198 has a nice table that talks about linking claims to evidence, but it also notes two elements of Toulmin’s model for writing that we haven’t explored in class yet:

1. Qualifiers
2. Rebuttals

These two elements are really important in most academic writing.

Qualifying Writing

Most scholars tend to be conservative in the claims they make. Because most knowledge is difficult to ever confidently pin down with great confidence, scholars (at least they claim to believe this) try to make this apparent in their writing in how they qualify what they write. Rather than confidently asserting something in the most forceful way they can, they will write in degrees of confidence.

For example (this examples are adapted from this blog post about hedging in academic writing):

Hedged: The study’s results are likely due to chance.

Not hedged: The study’s results are due to chance.

You would never see something like the “not hedged” sentence in the above example.

The more scholarly consensus (i.e., the more that other scholars have found similar results in their own studies), the more confident most sentences will be.

For example:

Hedged: It could be that human expansion of the greenhouse effect is the cause of global warming.

Not hedged: Human expansion of the greenhouse effect is the cause of global warming.

Partially hedged: Human expansion of the greenhouse effect is considered the primary cause of global warming.

This last example is still partially hedged because it does not claim that human intervention is the only cause of global warming, but it is still a strong claim because it uses the word “is” and “primary” based on scholarly consensus by climate scientists on the many studies that have found a strong link between human interventions like fossil fuel use and factory farming to global warming.

Rebuttals

It is also helpful to consider people who disagree with the evidence you explore. However, you should not fall into the trap of false equivalence where you bring in something that disagrees with evidence you explore but that rebuttal is really weak in evidentiary strength. For instance, in a research-driven writing project on evolution, it would not make sense to bring in research on creationism. Or, in a research paper on economic standing and race, it would not make sense to bring in evidence based in eugenics and linking race to IQ.

Using rebuttals will help you think harder through your claims and will help your credibility as a writer. But, using rebuttals still means thinking hard about how you evaluate evidence and which evidence is or is not worth including.

 

Macro-Structures in Academic Writing (15-20 min)

Most writing at the university will full into three kinds macro-structures for the genre of the academic article or essay that you will find in academic journals or in assignments for class. I use the term macro-structure here instead of genre because it is more a pattern of organization within the genre of the academic article where there are conventions around research questions, citation, etc. These organizational patterns are:

1. Thesis-driven. This organizational pattern takes a more narrative form in how it is linear in nature. In other words, there is a straight line from the introduction to the conclusion in which you would have to read or skim from top to bottom to make sense of it. In literary or rhetorical analysis, thesis-driven arguments are typically thesis-first and broadcast the thesis early on in the paper (not necessarily in the first paragraph, but early on) that states what the main argument is and how the writer will go about making that argument. In historical analysis, thesis-driven arguments are typically thesis-last and accumulate historical evidence in linear fashion before stating the thesis toward the end of the paper. History values laying out all of the historical evidence first whereas literature and rhetoric value showing what the argument is first to the reader because of the complexity of interpretation of various texts so as to guide the reader a bit more. While the thesis-driven macro-structure is most common in the humanities, the sciences and social sciences also use it, too, but IMRD is more common.
   • Let’s look at a quick example of a thesis-first paper from an undergraduate research journal in rhetoric and composition. Notice how we get what the writer is looking at, the things they noticed, and what they think about the things they noticed before carrying out the analysis.
   • Let’s look at a quick example of a thesis-last paper from an undergraduate research journal in history. Notice how the writer gives us what they will be doing in the beginning but only hints at a more robust thesis. In the conclusion, there is a much more expansive explanation with a more recognizable thesis.
2. IMRD (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion). This organizational pattern privileges non-linear reading so readers can quickly get to the parts they care about. If a reader is more interested in the scholarly conversation around the topic, they might spend a lot of time in the introduction section because it reviews previous research that addresses the research question. If a reader is more interested in the applicability of the results, they might focus on the discussion question which focuses on why the results are important and what further research should be done. If a reader wants to know how to do a similar analysis, they might focus a lot on the methods section so they can try to learn about how to conduct a similar study. This pattern is used most in the sciences and social sciences. For this class, you will likely be writing something like a literature review, which would introduce the topic, then describe methods for how you searched and found information, then would explain your synthesis of what you found, then discuss the significance of this synthesis and perhaps what further research should be done. The humanities might also use IMRD where the methods section might focused on a conceptual lens, how texts were found/grouped/analyzed, etc. This handout really nicely breaks down the IMRD structure really nicely.
   • Let’s look at an example from an undergraduate research journal that conducts a social science experiment on music and anxiety.
   • Let’s look at an example from a source that Mike found that conducts a literature review–something that many of you will essentially be doing for this project.
3. Problem-solution. This macro-structure is not common in many academic journal articles, but it is common in professional writing for organizations (e.g., businesses, community organizations, government agencies) for genres that rely on academic research skills like white papers, reports, grant proposals, etc. You might also be asked to do this macro-structure in school assignments for business or engineering classes as well as other fields that are really applied (e.g., a case study of a business that has a problem with engaging younger consumers). Problem-solution organized papers usually frontload the problem and have small, easily skim-able sections that key in on the structure of the problem and the options and background for a solution. Good attention to document design (e.g. headers, bolding, spacing) is really important for this macro-structure.
   • Let’s look at an example from a white paper by the USDA.

In Learning Module 8 due on Tuesday (11/17), you will spend more time thinking about conventions for these organizational patterns and how to apply them to your first draft of your research-driven writing project due on 11/19.

For now, think about which macro-structure would fit your research question as well as your interest in the topic. You might also consider your major or what you might think your major will be. While it is likely you will use all three of these macro-structures, you might use one more than others going forward.

Let’s do a poll on what you are thinking about doing.

 

Documentation Style: Paraphrasing and Quoting (20-25 min)

In Learning Module 7, you spent some time working on paraphrasing and quoting. There are two things you’ll have to work on:

1. The rhetorical considerations of how to effectively paraphrase or quote (e.g., maintaining your voice, integrating with other text, providing information about the author, tying ideas from paraphrase/quote to other ideas you are working with).
2. The standards of the documentation style (e.g., where to place an in-text citation in a sentence, what information to include in the in-text citation, what verb tense to use).

The first consideration is the most important thing! Like way more important. I will be focusing a lot on that in my feedback to you on your first drafts.

The second consideration is just something that you will get comfortable with the more you do it.

Let’s get some real-time practice now. Let’s review our Google Doc from October 29. I’m going to put you into 4 groups again to take information from a text and to write a paraphrase and a direct quote in this Google Doc. To get help on standards, go back to the UW-Madison Writing Center page to find your documentation style and how to do in-text citations for it.

Whatever documentation style you choose (one of these 4 we spent time on or IEEE or something else), get practice googling how to cite things! (Purdue OWL or the UW-Madison Writing Center page are good resources).

 

Writing Group Check-in (5-10 min)

Check in with one another about your research-driven writing project draft due on 11/19. How will you exchange drafts? By when? How will you get feedback to one another? By when?

Group 1: Santi, Lina, Maria, Moosa

Group 2: Ming, Fede, Aurie

Group 3: Mike, Renny, Ben

Group 4: Nissim, Adam, Victor

 

Next Time (2-5 min)

-“Avoiding  Misconceptions: Immigrants Are Beneficial to Society” by Suhaib Qasim, p. 240-245 (textbook) and Reading Annotation on Slack by 3pm on November 17

-Learning Module 8 activities completed by 5pm on November 17

-Writing Groups 1 and 2 meet with Dan on November 17 at 3pm and 3:30pm

-Coordinate with your Writing Groups to check on for getting drafts of your research-driven writing project to each other and deadlines to get feedback to one another.