Final Research Papers and Chapter 8

Presumably everyone in this class has written a research paper at some time. For some students, decades have passed since they were last required to write such a formal paper. For others, research papers are a regular part of their academic lives. As our class progresses into the final paper, it's important to remember that each new class means new expectations and a new level of researching, reading, and writing.

Chapter 8 of ARCS should help each student understand the heightened expectations of these papers. In a simple person-to-person debate, people often use Wikipedia as their one-stop-shop for facts and explanations. Similarly, Google has become a go-to resource for quick and easy information in order to make the world at large more readily understandable. As a result, many students come to this paper and wonder why these everyday resources are no longer acceptable. After all, Google provides a wealth of information from a wide variety of resources, so how could a limited database that only accesses a certain type of publication be better? Enter Chapter 8. Chapter focuses on the need for credibility, ethos, from any convincing resource.

Consider the section on community authorities. Community authorities are people who are considered experts in a given field. In class, we used Rush Limbaugh as an example. Rush Limbaugh is an expert in politics. He has a decades-long career in politics and a long-standing reputation for his knowledge and participation in the United States political world. If a student wanted to write a paper portraying a Republican position on the current administration, Rush Limbaugh would be a great resource. He is a community authority on politics. However, he is not the end of the argument. As the book explains, authorities can be wrong because of ignorance or because "their ideological bias compromised their accuracy" (275). Limbaugh is a great example of a community authority, but he is also known for his biased position on nearly all things political. However, he is still a credible resource. Limbaugh does not speak without doing his research, and he does not write without checking his facts. He represents bias and credibility at the same time. In other words, he is the type of authority who can be used but must be taken with the proverbial grain of salt.

The flipside is to consider when a source is no longer credible. We also talked in class about Dan Rather, a well-known news journalist whose career spanned over forty years of world events, U.S. politics, and more. In September 2004 Rather reported on what are now referred to as the Killian documents, a series of memos criticizing President Bush that were allegedly found in the desk of President Bush's former commanding officer, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian. People watching the news immediately began to question the authenticity of the documents, and, after a series of events that ultimately failed to prove the documents were real, CBSNews fired the story's producer and asked three additional producers to step down. Rather retired amid a flurry of scandal claiming his retirement was to avoid forced resignation. To many viewers, Rather had already lost his credibility.

This story is key to understanding how credibility works. Dan Rather had a career that started to grow after he covered President Kennedy's assassination, continued to grow with his in-depth coverage of the Watergate Scandal, and then came to an abrupt end over one story with questionable credibility. As researchers, we have to understand how quick and easy it is for a writer or speaker to lose all credibility and then acknowledge that we run the same risk with our papers. Each fact must be cited, and each citation must be trustworthy. To introduce information with questionable origins is to introduce holes in our own arguments.

Chapter 8 goes on to discuss how to examine credible sources, and our in-class lessons will help you learn how to find credible sources. As you progress with this paper, your goal should be to find the best, strongest, most credible sources for your paper. If you find yourself with a strong source that has only one fact you can use, this is not the best source for your paper. If you find yourself with a source that has a considerable amount of information but does not have a credible background, this is not the best source for your paper. Because we are writing in a more sophisticated style with more respectable sources than you were likely required to have in the past, we should all consider this paper an opportunity to write as we haven't written before. For those of you who have not written a research paper in a very long time, this will level our academic playing field for you. This is new material for everyone. For those of you who have already started writing research papers at the collegiate level, this is an opportunity to build on what you know in order to write better than you have in the past. Between the books we use, our in-cklass lessons, and the valuable resources provided by the university, each of you should find yourself with a new appreciation and style for researching and writing by the time we finish this paper.

Both Sides of the Issue, Part II

My previous blog showed how it is important to keep yourself involved when writing the arguments for the second paper. Although you are leaving yourself out by avoiding any first-person pronouns, you want to speak (and write) as though you are embracing the argument you are presenting. Here is an example of what you should aim for:

Position Statement: Euthanasia is an inhumane solution for dog population management.

Side A: Euthanasia is killing a dog, and it is inhumane and unjust to kill a dog simply because there are too many dogs in this country. Euthanasia is not considered an acceptable form of population management for people, so it should not be considered acceptable for dogs.

A dog should not be held responsible for poor owners because a dog cannot choose its owners, yet euthansia means any dog with owners who fail to keep their pets from shelters, fail to offer a safe home, or fail to teach the dog proper aggression management will be put to sleep. In California, a dog can legally be euthanized after living in a shelter for only seven days. This law means that dogs are given one week to have their lives saved while they wait helplessly behind the bars of a cage.

The dog population will continue to grow as long as there are breeders, puppy mills, and other pet owners who may not wish to breed but do not spay and neuter their pets. One humane solution would be to reduce the possibility of the population increasing rather than to kill the dogs that have already been given life. Before resorting to euthanasia, new laws should be in place regarding the people responsible for creating the excessive population.

Side B: Euthanasia is killing a dog, but it is a necessary method. There are currently ten cats and dogs for every one human in the United States, and it is simply not possible to provide homes or shelters for them all.

If a dog is not euthanized after it is put in a shelter, it will have to live in captivity for an unknown period of time. Dogs can also only live for so long in captivity before they start developing anger and aggression issues, and it would be inhumane to wait till a dog reaches that point before taking them to the inevitable step of euthanasia.

If these dogs are not taken to shelters, they will be living on the streets. Many breeds are not meant to be feral, so these dogs will still be reliant on people for food, water, and medicine. If the dogs are not taken care of and do not have regular interaction with people, they will likely develop more aggression problems out of fear and hunger. Wild dogs will result in unsafe streets, but euthanasia is one way to minimize the number of homeless dogs in our neighborhoods.

*******************
Notice the change in this position paper. Each side appears as though it is the position of the writer. Additionally, each side is broken down into paragraphs to separate the catagories of the arguments. The position statement is separate from each side, and the entire paper is free of introductions and conclusions. PLEASE NOTE: You should use these examples as tips for your own paper. You should also note that although some paragraphs in thes examples only include one or two sentences, they are only here as a small version of your completed paper. In other words, you must still follow the standard rule of at least three sentences per paragraph.

Both Sides of the Issue

One of the biggest problems related to arguing both sides of the issue appears to be removing yourself on each side of the argument. We all have a tendency to write in a forceful tone on the side with which we agree, but when the time comes to argue the other side, we take on a more detached tone. Here is my example of what NOT to do:

Position Statement: Euthanasia is an inexcusable solution for dog population management in the United States.

Side A: Euthanasia is cruel because it relies on killing dogs in order to maintain the population. It also means that dogs who were not given a fair chance with a good owner lose the possibility to have a fair chance with a second owner. Euthanasia is not unlike capital punishment, but unlike capital punishment, euthanasia happens to dogs who have often done nothing wrong. The world is also over-crowded as a result of people overpopulating the planet, but we are not using euthanasia on people.

Side B: People who are in favor of euthanasia argue that it would be more inhumane to allow too many dogs to stay cooped up in shelters. They also say that euthanasia is so often necessary for dogs who can't be kept in residences as a result of biting, running, and other aggression-related problems. This side also states that sometimes unpleasant solutions must be used to solve unpleasant problems. Euthanasia may be unpleasant, but this side shows how it would be more unpleasant to have countless dogs roaming free because there are not enough homes available.

Notice how the first side is spoken as though it is the opinion of the writer. This paragraph shows no separation from the argument stated and the person making the argument. It also does not get caught up in the idea of "I think" or "we should" because, as an educated audience, we know that we are likely reading the opinion of the person doing the writing. More importantly, a good research paper means the sources of the writer are more important than the writer himself.

In the second paragraph, the writer has separated himself. Repeated statements such as "this side" and "people say" establish a distinction between the person speaking, in this case the writer, and the sentiments the writer holds. A good example of objectivity means the writer can present both opinions as though they are his own. See my next blog for examples of what you SHOULD do.

Chapter 5: Encomiums and Invectives

Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students identifies encomiums as discourse that praises someone. Invectives, on the other hand, are defined as discourse that casts blame on someone else. In modern society, mass media produces countless invectives and very few encomiums in response to the world at large. While encomiums are more pleasant to read and more encouraging to examine, it would seem that invectives are what truly sell. As a result, invectives have become the routine articles in newspapers and magazines.

Invectives are first beneficial because of how well they sell issues. This is a basic aspect of marketing. The New York Times frequently shows headlines of people murdered, robbed, and worse, but when was the last time it stated, "Nineteen Million People Unharmed in Daily Life"? It hasn't. Newspapers serve the purpose of spreading useful information, and it isn't helpful to know who didn't get hurt. Readers need to know where it is dangerous, how these attacks happen, and who/where/what to avoid. Does this mean that invectives are not only better for business but also more useful than the uplifting alternative?

Invectives are particularly useful when election time comes, but it's important to consider to whom they serve a purpose. After all, an article casting aspersions on a candidate is not likely to be objective, nor is it likely to be written by someone who does not have an ulterior motive. Despite all of these considerations, people continue to read the invectives and allow them to color our perspective on candidates. If a person is buying a new car, they are unlikely to rely solely on the manufacturer's information in order to determine what to buy and how much to pay. The consumer needs information from someone who does not stand to benefit from the decision they make. The same is true for an election, yet consumers rarely research individual writers and reporters in order to seek out a truly objective report.

The result is that invectives are better for business, better for personal motives, and better for keeping people informed, but the dangers remain strong. An invective has already convicted the person in question. An invective is unlikely to present information that does not serve the purpose of convicting the person in question, which leads back to the age-old proverb, "A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing." As a result, each person who reads an invective also has the responsibility of reading additional material in order to obtain a fair and honest perspective of the person in question. Unfortunately, this rarely happens.

Society is busy, and people as individuals are busy. Few people have time to read report after report, and many people rely almost entirely on headlines to keep them informed. Does this mean society is irresponsible? Is this a mistake on the parts of each individual who does not take the time to get more information? These questions are not truly fair. If a newspaper produces more invectives because it's better for business, a person needs to read invectives in order to protect themselves, and the reader is taking the time to read something, even an invective, in order to gain information, then perhaps invectives are not overly critical or biased. Instead, invectives are a necessary and important part of daily information and communication.

Welcome to College Writing II

Welcome to College Writing II. The purpose of this class is to teach you new strategies for examining writing, formulating responses, and creating cohesive, effective academic arguments. As part of your daily course work, you will create a blog to help you respond to reading assignments, reflect on class discussions, and draft for your final papers. At this time you should use your blog handout for a better understanding of the blog requirements.