This week's chapters 7–10 from The Craft of Research in the section “Making an Argument” was all about advice in making a claim and supporting it.
Chapter 7 introduces us into how to arguments in research. The authors ask to see argument as a conversation with readers, which is basically a breakdown of the logic of making an argument and compares it to the same assembly of making an argument in a research report. The authors post that for every argument, research or not, is build out of the answers to give questions in that conversation, and questions we have to ask ourselves:
What is my claim?
What reasons support my claim?
What evidence supports my reasons?
Do I acknowledge alternatives/complications/ objections, and how do I respond? What principle makes my reasons relevant to my claim? (This is called a principle warrant.)
I found this logic clear and this sort of breakdown helpful.
This chapter also showed how important it is to acknowledge and respond to anticipated questions and objections. This is tricky, because it involves the research to imagine those questions in the first place. However, they emphasize that it is crucial to your argument because "acknowledging anticipating questions helps readers trust your argument."
I found the last tip particularly helpful: "when you learn to make one kind of argument, don’t assume that you can apply it to every new claim. Seek out alternative methods, formulate not only multiple solutions but multiple ways of supporting them, ask whether others would approach your problem differently."
Chapter 8 is all about the clarity and significance of making our claim that answers our research questions and which will basically serve as the main point of our reports.
In order to assemble your argument, you must answer these 3 questions:
1. What kind of claim should I make?
2. Is it specific enough?
3. Will readers think it is significant enough to need an argument supporting it?
The reading also emphasizes the importance of clarifying the kind of argument are you making, whether its conceptual or practical. It warns not to try to “inflate the importance of a conceptual claim by tacking on a practical action, at least not early in your report.” Rather if you do want to suggest a practical application of your conceptual claim, the place to do that is in the conclusion. This is because you can offer it as an action worth considering without having to develop a case for it. The importance of evaluating your claim from the reader’s point of view is emphasized and how it should be both specific and significant and how to exactly do so.
I particularly appreciated the advice in predicting what readers might ask:"imagine your reader is someone like yourself." Then ask these questions: "What did you think before you began your research? How much has your claim changed what you now think? What do you understand now that you didn’t before"? That’s the best way to prepare for readers to answer the the questions, "But Why should I care?"
The chapter also discussed using "hedges" to limit certainty which I think is good advice.
Chapter nine is all about distinguishing two kinds of support for a claim: reasons and evidence. In addition, it discussed how to use reasons to organize our arguments and how to evaluate the quality of our evidence. It advised that "if readers think your reasons make consecutive sense, they will look for the evidence they rest on. If they don’t believe the evidence, they’ll reject the reasons, and with them the claim." The reading suggests to "storyboard out your reasons to outline the logical structure of your argument," which I find incredibly helpful. This chapter also discusses the importance of making sure you have sufficient evidence to support each reason. It warns that "readers will not accept a reason until they see it anchored in what they consider to be a bedrock of established fact."
I particularly appreciated the advice:"So as you read secondary sources, note the kind of evidence they cite, how they cite it, then do likewise. When in sociology, do as sociologists do."
Chapter 10
This chapter is all about acknowledging and responding to other points of view. The authors suggest that when you create your core argument, imagine colleagues questioning your argument more sharply than you hope your readers will. I found the following advice, harsh, but helpful: "Read your argument as someone who has a stake in a different outcome—who wants you to be wrong. "
It breaks it down into two parts:
Part 1: First, question your problem
1. Why do you think there’s a problem at all? What are the costs or consequences in this situation?
2. Why have you defined the problem as you have? Is it conceptual or pragmatic? Maybe the problem involves not the issue you raise but another one.
Part 2: Question your solution
3. What kind of solution do you propose? Does it ask me to do something or to understand something? Does it match the problem exactly? Are they both practical or both conceptual?
4. Have you stated your claim too strongly? I can think of exceptions and limitations.
5a. Why is your conceptual answer better than others? It contradicts our well- established knowledge.
5b. Why is your practical solution better than others? It will cost too much, take too much time, or create new problems.
The reading also goes into common objections to evidence and how to avoid dismissing evidence because you think it's irrelevant/unreliable. I found the advice around acknowledging questions you cannot answer tangible and helpful.