Active Reading + Writing
Active Reading II: Understanding Argumentation and Reasoning
Overview of Reading and Writing
Pam Allyn Quote: "Reading is like breathing in; writing is like breathing out."
Rachel Dean Quote: "Just because a study is published doesn’t necessarily mean it is any good."
What is a Research Argument?
The nature of research arguments is not similar to everyday heated exchanges (e.g., arguments about children’s toys, music, traffic rights).
Definition: A research argument is a lively discussion or debate among colleagues, characterized by amiable or sometimes skeptical interactions.
Cooperative Exploration: The researcher and readers collaboratively address an issue perceived as important, aiming for the best resolution to a challenging question.
Objective: The argument is not about forcing agreement but about exploring perspectives to uncover the best answer.
Structure of a Research Argument
Opinions and Claims: Researchers present claims supported by good reasons and evidence to persuade readers.
Imagined Query: The researcher responds to a non-verbal, imagined question, "Why should I believe that?" to shape their argument.
Nature of Argumentation: A research argument does not impose claims on the reader but engages them in a conversation.
Components of a Research Argument
Booth, et al. (2016) Definition: In a research argument, one makes a claim, backs it with reasoning supported by evidence, acknowledges differing views, and articulates reasoning principles.
Elements of Argumentation
Evidence: Data supporting a claim, raising questions like "How do you know? Can you back it up?"
Warrant: Logic connecting the backing to the claim, answering the question "How does that follow?"
Backing/Reasons: Assertions supporting the claim, often framed with "because."
Acknowledgment and Response: Addressing counterarguments with "But what about…?"
Claim: The assertion or point one wants the audience to believe.
Argumentation Format
Claim: I assert that…
Reason: because of these reasons…
Evidence: based on this evidence…
Acknowledgment and Response: considering alternative views or objections and responding to them.
Building a Research Argument
Begin planning your argument early rather than waiting for all relevant data, as collecting all data may lead to disorganization.
Change and adapt your planned argument as research progresses.
Start with a problem to explore rather than a claim to prove.
Research Problem Identification
Introduction: Define the research context, identify knowledge gaps, or respond to existing viewpoints.
Summarization: Summarize relevant prior research to frame your argument clearly.
Focus: Identify a solvable or clarifiable issue through your research.
Presenting the Central Argument or Thesis
State your main claim as a response to previously discussed claims. The thesis must be:
Debatable and grounded in research.
Refined through multiple revisions.
Clearly developed in relation to existing claims or research problems.
Response Framework: Provide reasoning reflective of existing literature.
Evidence and Support Methods
Build your argument with relevant evidence that informs your thesis, ensuring:
Appropriateness to the discipline.
Credibility of the data or examples used.
Analysis and interpretation of evidence presented.
Guidance: Review works by Adler and Van Doren (1972) for models on using evidence effectively.
Addressing Counterarguments and Alternatives
Anticipate and respond to opposing viewpoints to demonstrate robustness in arguments:
Acknowledge potential objections or alternative interpretations.
Respond to objections, reinforcing the validity of your original claim.
Show understanding of opposing viewpoints.
Conclusion and Significance
Wrap up your argument by:
Highlighting broader implications relevant to the field.
Addressing "So What? Who Cares?" questions.
Summarizing key points to solidify the thesis.
Suggesting future research directions or contributions to the field from your work.
Making Claims: Criteria and Types
Ensure claims are sound and significant:
Ask whether the claim is specific enough and significant enough to warrant an argument.
Types of Claims:
Conceptual Claims - Require understanding over action.
Practical Claims - Call for specific actions or responses.
Classification of Claims
Claims may fall into:
Claims of Fact: E.g., "Average global temperatures have risen…"
Claims of Definition: E.g., "Birds are the direct descendants of dinosaurs."
Claims of Cause: E.g., "Exposure to asbestos is linked to lung cancer."
Claims of Appraisal: E.g., "Shakespeare’s greatest comedy is…"
Claims of Policy: E.g., "Pennsylvania should increase extraction fees…"
Making Practical Claims
Address the feasibility of your proposed solutions:
Implementation considerations, cost-effectiveness, and potential complications should be explained for clarity.
Evaluating Claims: Clarity and Precision
Specificity in claims is crucial; use precise language to avoid ambiguity.
Compare succinct vs. detailed examples of crime rates perception to highlight the impact of media.
Toulmin's Argument Structure
Example Structure:
Claim: Property managers should schedule lawn watering at night.
Warrant: Water conservation is essential during shortages.
Evidence: Lawn watering during daytime provides only 30% efficiency.
Backing: Water shortages cause significant inconveniences.
Evaluating Claims and Acknowledging Alternative Views
When acknowledging counterarguments, structure responses with “although.”
Establish significance by challenging existing beliefs, emphasizing the need for change.
Enhancing the Credibility of Claims
Acknowledge limiting conditions with precise examples, e.g., assumptions about data accuracy.
Use hedges to express uncertainty appropriately.
Reading Exercise: Critical Analysis
Select an academic paper and articulate:
The content and purpose of the paper.
The central question it addresses.
The main argument presented.
The research method used.
Key findings and conclusions.