Chs 7-10 cohesively lay out what a good research argument is (a lively “conversation in which you and your imagined readers cooperatively explore an issue that you both think is important to resolve” p108), approaches to planning, elements that make up a research argument, and step through details relating to each element. I like the point that reoccurs across these chapters as we read a research paper is the question, “Can I trust you?”
The writers show that we make claims and discuss them every day, however, here they describe just how rigorous and detailed this needs to be. The laying out of the components I found useful:
- Claim: What do you want me to believe? What’s your point?
- Reasons: Why do you say that? Why should I agree?
- Evidence: How do you know? Can you back it up?
- Acknowledge and response: But what about…?
- Warrant: How does that follow? What’s your logic? Can you explain your reasoning?
Together with the diagram on p117 showing the circular connections to these steps. They caution though that this is a simplistic overview – reasons need to each be backed up by their own reasons and evidence and perhaps backed up by a warrant as well. One takeaway for me is that building an argument for what I claim is more strategically focused and detailed than I have considered upto now.
Examples of different conceptual and practical claims (p123) is useful, as is the note on precise language. Like the last week’s reading, this is laid out as a stepped process with answers to one question leading to the next to the next (e.g. 3 of the 5 elements of claims are: 1) Although I acknowledge x, 2) I claim y 3) because of reason z.) The writers stress the need to include detailed information about the evidence and its uncontested reliability from an authoritative source, along with background, definitions and explanation about the issues.
The explanation about claims - actually not starting with a claim but with a problem I want to explore and solve is an interesting approach – and acknowledging the limits of your claim. Don’t overstate, be modest - put in those modifiers – hedges. I’m struck by Crick and Watson’s “wish to suggest” claim is so carefully stated.
And again, anticipating readers’ concerns is important and makes you more credible. Each field has its experts, ways of thinking, and standards that are appropriate to that field. Look at the issue from all angles, be candid about the questions you can’t answer, and end with questions to continue the conversation.