ENG

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds discoveries is not “Eureka!” (“I found it!”), but rather “hmm . . . that’s funny.”

—Isaac Asimov

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

1. Outline the characteristics of aca- demic research and describe some of its main qualities.

2. Describe the three key qualities of trustworthy research.

3. Understand and explain the concept of research as a “conversation.”

4. Explain the truth about common research myths.

1Introduction to Academic Research

Exactostock/SuperStock

dro85866_01_c01.indd 1 10/2/13 3:41 PM

CHAPTER 1Section 1.1 What Is Research?

This chapter introduces you to the research process you will conduct throughout your college degree program. We begin by suggesting that you already know quite a bit about research from the research you do in your personal life. We also describe the nature and purpose of academic research and debunk some commonly held myths about the chal- lenges of academic research.

1.1 What Is Research?

Before we get started, you should understand that the academic environment is not the only environment that values research. Research skills are also highly valued in policy settings, as well as in the professions and trades. According to Dr. David Jonassen (2000), director of the University of Missouri Center for the Study of Problem Solving, “Virtually everyone, in their everyday and professional lives, regularly solves problems. Few, if any, people, are rewarded in their professional lives for memorizing information and completing examinations” (p. 63). Research is primarily a problem- solving activity. When you conduct research, you must define and clarify problems, ask answerable questions, locate and evaluate resources, and use sources to make persuasive arguments and actionable recommendations. By learning to conduct research, you will get more out of your education, enhance your career, and contribute to the success of the civic and business organizations to which you belong.

You Already Do Research At the most basic level, research satisfies our need to answer questions, solve problems, make choices, or figure out what things mean. Sometimes our questions are simple or of personal consequence. In those cases, our answers depend simply on gathering information or weighing opinions and evaluating what we find in terms of our taste or preference. For example, when we browse the Internet to find restaurants for a special dinner next weekend, we are in fact conducting simple informal research. When we read everything we can find about different types of automobiles to help us make a decision about what type of car to purchase, we are seeking reli- able expert testimony to help us make sense of the vast amount of information available to us.

Critical Thinking in Everyday Research Even though the research is simple in these cases, we are still using some critical thinking skills. In fact, we are using some of the same ones that inform academic research. Professional research- ers always approach their sources of information skeptically. They know that their conclusions depend on having high-quality, reliable infor- mation to think carefully about. So they need to ensure that they are not misled by irrelevant,

Exactostock/SuperStock As a researcher, your most basic task will be to identify problems of interest and ask the right questions.

dro85866_01_c01.indd 2 10/2/13 3:41 PM

CHAPTER 1Section 1.1 What Is Research?

Criteria for Evaluating Sources

• Relevant • Credible • Timely • Representative • Appropriate motivation and controlled for bias

inaccurate, or out-of-date information, or by the arguments of sloppy or unscrupulous thinkers. The same goes for everyday researchers. In order to avoid a bad meal or being dissatisfied with our new car, we need to evaluate whether our sources are relevant, cred- ible, and timely; understand their motivation and bias; and make judgments about how representative a particular review is in light of what other reviewers write. In Chapter 4, Evaluating and Working with Sources, you will learn more about these criteria. But for now, you can draw on your experience with everyday research to understand that a review of a Chinese restaurant is irrelevant or of no use if you want to eat Thai food.

A review written by the cousin of the owner of the restaurant is not credible, or believable, because you cannot be sure that the reviewer is writing to tell the truth. Perhaps he or she means to drive more customers to the restaurant with an excellent review, and therefore overlooks significant problems in service or quality. He or she is motivated by his or her relationship with the owner, and therefore his or her evaluation is biased in favor of the restaurant. This review would not then be trustworthy. A review of the restaurant writ- ten 5 years ago may no longer accurately reflect the dining experience; in order to get a more accurate picture, you will need a more recent, or timely, review. Finally, you may have had the experience of reading one or two negative reviews of a place among a hun- dred positive reviews. Those negative reviews do not represent or stand for the general opinion of the place. To say that a review is not representative is not to say that it is untrue necessarily—merely that it is does not fall in line with the consensus. With a nonrepresen- tative source, it is good practice to ask why it dissents from the consensus. A source may be nonrepresentative because its writer has idiosyncratic or personal preferences, uses a different method of arriving at conclusions, looks at things from a different viewpoint, or perhaps has made some mistake. You will use these same criteria to evaluate sources in the research you will conduct.

The Differences Between Academic or Professional Research and Everyday Research This text is meant to prepare you to use research to answer more complicated questions: the kind that you will encounter in academic and workplace environments. In those set- tings, questions can be very complex, and expert testimony may not provide clear guid- ance. Answers may be partial, not definitive, or dependent on multiple variables or on the values of the researcher. Moreover, the stakes can be considerably higher than choosing a restaurant or car.

dro85866_01_c01.indd 3 10/2/13 3:41 PM

CHAPTER 1Section 1.2 The Cumulative, Ongoing, and Critical Nature of Research

Consider these questions:

• In the last 2 decades, honeybee populations have been decimated by Honeybee Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). Since Honeybees pollinate our food crops, the collapse of millions of colonies is a threat to the world food supply. What is causing this disorder? What can be done to prevent CCD and restore the Honeybee population?

• The United States continues to experience high levels of unemployment despite an uptick in the economy. Why has job growth not kept pace with the increasing gross domestic product (a standard measure of the productivity of our national economy)? What factors influence unemployment? What can the government do to help businesses create good, well-paying jobs?

• Your company wants to develop a new product or line of business. How will consumers respond to your product, service, or marketing? What variables will influence their purchasing decisions for the foreseeable future? How can you mitigate risk?

It is not just complexity that distinguishes these questions from the research questions we tend to ask and answer in our daily life. It is that they are emerging, not-yet-fully-under- stood problems. There are no simple, clear-cut, definitive answers out there waiting to be found. Reasonable people in full possession of available data might reasonably disagree as to what the data mean, or what the appropriate course of action should be.

Yet these are pressing matters. We simply cannot wait for all the information to become available, and for unclear matters to resolve themselves before taking action. That is where research—our most effective means of solving complex problems—comes in. In such cases, researchers use a systematic approach that enables them to begin to ask and answer these emerging questions. As a result, the work of research is not always to pro- vide clear and definitive solutions to problems. Research can also clarify issues, bring forward new variables or alternative perspectives for consideration, reduce uncertainty, or reveal tacit values.

1.2 The Cumulative, Ongoing, and Critical Nature of Research

Because of the nature of the problems researchers need to solve, research tends to be cumulative and ongoing, which is to say that researchers consider the results of the past and expect that future research may extend, revise, or refute their own work. That is why researchers tend to start their work by reviewing what is already known or believed to be true. They read journal articles, conference proceedings, and other forms of scholarly publication to ground themselves in the ideas and perspectives of other researchers. As they read these sources, they want to know:

• What questions other researchers have pursued, • How other researchers have framed their questions, • What data exist,

dro85866_01_c01.indd 4 10/2/13 3:41 PM

CHAPTER 1Section 1.2 The Cumulative, Ongoing, and Critical Nature of Research

• What concepts and ideas previous researchers have used or created to make sense of their data,

• What related problems, issues, or phenomenon need to be taken into account, • What false starts others have encountered, and • What remains to be understood about the problem.

The work of review is more than a simple gathering of useful information, however. Researchers look critically at earlier work to evaluate its strengths and weaknesses, as well as its utility for their own work. As they read the works of other researchers, they

• Check for errors, • Look for ideas to refute, borrow, or build on, • Browse for suggestive data, cases, or examples, • Seek out unexplored questions or unrecognized implications, • Uncover problematic assumptions or bias, and • Consider alternative explanations or perspectives.

As you start to review sources for use in your own research, you will need to approach them just as critically. To do so, it is important to have an idea of what makes sources trustworthy.

Trustworthy Research Is Selective Every research study is selective, in the sense that researchers must focus their study on a limited number of questions. As a result, researchers tend to specialize and coordinate their work. For example, because the problem of Honeybee Colony Collapse Disorder is so complex, there are several overlapping communities of researchers trying to solve it. Some teams of researchers are trying to isolate an environmental cause of CCD. Others are looking at causes in biological pathogens. Still others are trying to improve methods for gathering and analyzing relevant data. Yet even others are looking to the past to find analogous events that might help us see the problem in a more familiar light. Each of these teams comprises experts with different skills and knowledge, bringing different methods of generating and interpreting data to the work of solving the problem of CCD. Without specialization and focused studies of constituent elements of the problem, key aspects of the problem would go unstudied.

Trustworthy Research Tends to Be Peer Reviewed With specialization, however, comes the prospect of conflicting results. For example, one study may show that eating beef has health benefits for humans, while another study shows that eating beef is detrimental to our health in some way. For consumers look- ing for guidance, this apparent contradiction can be frustrating because they presume that one study must be right and the other wrong. Someone must have gotten the facts wrong. However, researchers know that each research study develops different research questions, studies different populations of people or different types of beef, or conducts research in a different manner. So results may vary even when a study’s facts and fact handling are correct. In the future, results and the conclusions drawn from them may vary

dro85866_01_c01.indd 5 10/2/13 3:41 PM

CHAPTER 1Section 1.3 Research as Conversation

as more data are gathered, alternative perspectives or explanations are considered, and new ways of framing questions are developed. That is why researchers’ work is subject to review by other experts in their field. Peer review certifies that the research has been car- ried out carefully and systematically and that interpretations and conclusions are reason- ably drawn. This constant, critical peer review process is one reason research is so reliable, and such a powerful tool for constructing knowledge.

Research Must Be Synthesized to Be Useful Over time, as fields of study mature, researchers start the important work of synthesizing the current state of knowledge. In synthesis, researchers assemble the diverse work on different aspects of the problem and try to create a bigger, more useful picture of what the research community knows. But syn- thesis is more than simple summary. It is the critical interpretative act of making meaning out of information. This makes research useful. As we have seen in the CCD case, it often takes multiple strands of research to help us solve complex problems. In synthesis, researchers attempt to weave these strands together into a more comprehensive explanation for the purpose of resolving conflicts or contradictions, and exploring the implication of what has been learned. Much of the work you will do in research projects will be to synthesize the current state of knowledge in your field and explore its implications for an argument you wish to make.

1.3 Research as Conversation

This text focuses on a research process that begins with a systematic review of the lit-erature produced by other researchers. In a literature review, your role is primarily to synthesize, assess, and interpret the existing research in order to increase clarity, reduce uncertainty, locate areas for further research or discussion, and possibly to make actionable recommendations. Ordinarily we think of “literature” as referring to the works of creative writers: poems, plays, stories, and novels. In research settings, “the literature” means the set of articles, books, reports, conference presentations, and other publications that contain the current state of knowledge. “Reviewing the literature” means finding and reading those publications to see what is known, what questions and issues are currently being discussed, and where you can make a contribution to the discussion.

Jason Hawkes/The Image Bank/Getty Images Synthesis is the process of taking multiple strands of research and creating a bigger, more useful picture of what the research community knows about an issue.

dro85866_01_c01.indd 6 10/2/13 3:41 PM

CHAPTER 1Section 1.3 Research as Conversation

Before we get started understanding the research process you will use in this text, it is important to make a subtle shift in the way you think about research. Most of us tend to think about research primarily in terms of information and what we do with it: We gather information, evaluate it, ana- lyze it, summarize it. However, such a view of research tends to make student researchers pas- sive conduits of information produced by others. Furthermore, it encourages them to see the pre- sentation of information itself as their chief work in writing. In professional settings, research- ers make progress by constantly exchanging and testing ideas and building on one another’s work. In order for their work to be useful to oth- ers, researchers must do more than just deliver information. One point of research is to contrib- ute to the collective work of problem solving. Researchers must demonstrate the relevance and utility of their ideas by showing how it relates to previous work, whether by adding nuance, alter- ing conclusions, or provoking reconsideration of issues once thought settled. Throughout this text, you will be expected to take a more active role in research, one that approximates what researchers

do. You will be asked to go beyond collecting and reporting facts, to formulate your own researched response to what researchers have written.

Research as an Evidence-Based Conversation Among People In order to take a more active approach to research, it can be helpful to think of your pur- pose in research as joining the conversation of an established community of thinkers. Here is how philosopher, critic, and researcher Kenneth Burke (1973) describes what it is like to join the conversation of other thinkers:

Imagine that you enter a parlor. You come late. When you arrive, others have long preceded you, and they are engaged in a heated discussion, a dis- cussion too heated for them to pause and tell you exactly what it is about. In fact, the discussion had already begun long before any of them got there, so that no one present is qualified to retrace for you all the steps that had gone before. You listen for a while, until you decide that you have caught the tenor of the argument; then you put in your oar. Someone answers; you answer him; another comes to your defense; another aligns himself against you, to either the embarrassment or gratification of your opponent, depending upon the quality of your ally’s assistance. However, the discus- sion is interminable. The hour grows late, you must depart. And you do depart, with the discussion still vigorously in progress. (pp. 110–111)

Stephen Simpson/Stone/Getty Images The goal of research is not to make a definitive final statement on a subject but to engage in discussion with existing research in order to pose new questions and further impel the dialogue.

dro85866_01_c01.indd 7 10/2/13 3:41 PM

CHAPTER 1Section 1.4 If the Idea of Research Sounds Scary to You, Read on

Part of what is so compelling about this passage is the way that it captures the persistent exchange of ideas and positions that is characteristic of research. It also suggests that in order to join the conversation, it is your responsibility to figure out for yourself what others are saying, why they are saying it, and what importance it has for you.

Research Articles Make Contributions to a Conversation One implication of seeing research as a conversation that preexists you, and that will continue on after you, is that you must approach a piece of researched writing with an eye toward understanding what work that piece of writing is doing in the conversation. Instead of an article standing on its own and simply reporting information, you must make an effort to see how an article fulfills a researcher’s intent to make some specific con- tribution to the conversation: to support another’s view, to resolve an open question, to add a new dimension to the problem, to correct an error or misinterpretation, or to argue that the conversation itself is based on faulty assumptions.

Another implication of this conversational view of research is that it relieves you of the pressure and responsibility of having the final word, or to base your response on origi- nal findings of your own. Your goal is simply to use other researchers’ data and ideas to make a useful contribution to the conversation, to “push it forward, to say something new, something that seems to call for further talk and writing,” as Duke University writing professor Joseph Harris puts it (2006, pp. 35–36). You bring your critical thinking skills, the interpretive act of synthesis, your ability to see implications, and your own considered perspective to the conversation of research.

This idea that the purpose of research and the writing based on research is to join in and contribute to a preexisting conversation will shape your research process. Instead of look- ing for pieces of information that support your view, you will be looking for communities of researchers actively engaged in conversation with one another. In Burke’s language, you will conduct research to “listen” in on their conversation, and then “put your oar in” to respond to some researchers in order to contribute to some specific branch of the conversation.

1.4 If the Idea of Research Sounds Scary to You, Read on

Many people approach academic research apprehensively or fearfully, thinking that it is complex, difficult, and fraught with danger. If you are one of these people, remember that you do not bear the burden of producing a “Eureka!” dis- covery in your research. Your job is to notice something unusual or interesting about your topic and contribute to the conversation others are having using reason, evidence drawn from other researchers’ work, and your own careful judicious thinking.

Even though we might not be aware of them, many of us hold anxiety-producing beliefs about research. Many of those beliefs are not founded on fact or experience. And what is worse, many of them work to our disadvantage when we actually try to do academic research. In this section of the chapter, we will debunk some of the more common myths about research, and encourage you to see yourself as well prepared to start and complete your project.

dro85866_01_c01.indd 8 10/2/13 3:41 PM

CHAPTER 1Section 1.4 If the Idea of Research Sounds Scary to You, Read on

Myth 1: Research is too time consuming to be done in a first-year writing course. It is true that some research projects take a long time to develop and complete. But we can design many worthwhile research projects to be completed in a short time. The key to designing a short research project is to define the focus of your research narrowly enough to allow it to be completed in the time allotted, while at the same time doing justice to the topic. Chapters 2 and 3 will help you go through a process of project definition that will enable you to locate a small area of interest to you, and learn enough about it to ask a small set of answerable questions.

Myth 2: I have to have extensive knowledge of a subject to do research. Actually all you need is the desire to know more about a subject. Using the exploratory research techniques provided in Chapter 2, you will quickly learn enough to know what questions need answers. After that, it only takes curiosity, persistence, and a few relatively simple search and reading strategies to pursue the answer.

Myth 3: The experts who conduct research and write research articles are beyond criticism, so what can a newcomer to the field possibly think or write about their findings? Because most of us think that research is done by experts with advanced degrees and using sophisticated techniques, most of us are reluctant to consider that published pro- fessional research might by unreli- able, or even simply wrong. But since professional researchers are work- ing to solve complex problems—like Honeybee Colony Collapse Disor- der—even experts make mistakes, draw conclusions that their evidence does not support, or produce find- ings that conflict with other studies. Researchers working at all levels— from professional to student—expect their work to be subject to scrutiny. For many topics, student researchers have more than enough knowledge, experience, and perspective to pose questions, extend thoughts, and oth- erwise respond to the works of pro- fessional researchers.

iStockphoto/Thinkstock While research may seem daunting, as a student researcher, you have plenty of knowledge and experience that will enable you to pose questions and enter the conversation surrounding many topics.

dro85866_01_c01.indd 9 10/2/13 3:41 PM

CHAPTER 1Section 1.4 If the Idea of Research Sounds Scary to You, Read on

Myth 4: Research always produces big insights and new knowledge. The vast majority of research being done is small scale. Most researchers aim to add small insights or nuances to existing knowledge. One form of really useful research—synthesis— looks at other researchers’ findings and combines them in innovative ways to produce new insights. Other forms of research aim to improve clarity, reduce uncertainty, or justify posi- tions or beliefs. Still others seek to find other uses for ideas or processes, or to reevaluate an issue from a new perspective. For college purposes, research can be what writing specialist Ken Macrorie (1988) calls “I-search,” a search for ideas, insights, and information that enables you to create knowledge and perspectives that are new to you.

Myth 5: Research is super-systematic and analytical; logical, linear thinkers are better at it than intuitive or “messy” thinkers. It is true that once researchers have a clear idea of the questions they are asking and the data they need, they tend to work systematically, analytically, and in a disciplined manner. However, in order to arrive at those questions, and in order to understand the implica- tions of their findings, researchers must think creatively and be open to new perspec- tives. Researchers depend as much on associative thinking, serendipity, and other forms of messy-but-productive creative thinking as they do on rigorous systematic thinking.

Myth 6: Research has to be totally fact based and objective; there is no room in my project for my ideas or values. While researchers do tend to privilege reason over emotion, and try to ensure that their strictly personal beliefs do not unduly influence their work, most of the potential research topics you will encounter will be researchable from a wide range of perspectives. You will need to be open minded in your research to prevent yourself from introducing bias, but your ideas and values will influence your choice of topic, the set of questions you pursue, your selection of evidence, and your response to the ideas and findings of other researchers.

If you can put these myths aside and embrace the truth about academic research, you can be more confident in your ability to start and complete a research project. Remember Joseph Harris’s advice:

The goal of [academic] writing is not to have the final word on a subject, to bring the discussion to a close, but to push it forward, to say something new, something that seems to call for further talk and writing. . . . A dia- logue is not a debate. You don’t win a conversation, you add to it, push it ahead, keep it going, “put your oar in,” and maybe even sometimes redi- rect or divert the flow of talk. (2006, pp. 35–36)

When you think of conducting research to join a preexisting conversation, you realize that you are not alone. Other researchers have gone before you and have shared the paths they followed. They have dropped “breadcrumbs” along the way, in the form of sources and ideas for you to follow. As you pick up these breadcrumbs and examine them, you

dro85866_01_c01.indd 10 10/2/13 3:41 PM

CHAPTER 1Section 1.4 If the Idea of Research Sounds Scary to You, Read on

will encounter many surprises and learn something fascinating about yourself and about your world.

At times, making your way through a thick forest of ideas without getting lost, or side- tracked, can be challenging. It can also be frustrating when you struggle to find the right direction or learn you are on a dead-end trail. However, you have your instructor and many other resources—including this text—to help you find your way and show you how to forge ahead again. Figure 1.1 represents the approach to research that this text takes, including the steps of the research process.

Figure 1.1: The process of writing a researched essay

Those writing a researched essay can consider themselves in dialogue with the current body of research on the topic. Allow sufficient time in your writing process to move through each of these phases, from planning to drafting to refining your paper.

You will encounter pitfalls along the way. Nonetheless, as you work your way through the thick brush, you will eventually come to a clearing, where ideas begin to take form

and conclusions begin to suggest themselves.

The treasure at the end of this journey is a new perspective or an answer to the question you asked when you started your quest, the satisfaction of adding to your own knowledge and the knowledge of others about this subject, and the reward of develop- ing a valuable set of research skills that will serve you well in future areas of your personal and profes- sional life. But the most important outcome of this process is that you will have learned what it takes to add your voice to the research work of others in the community of scholars.

Phase I—Design: Project Definition, Grounding Research, & Topic Development

Phase V—Finish: Polish, Present, Publish

Phase II—Review the Literature: Construct a Model of the Existing Conversation. Discover Your Stance

Phase IV—Reconsider: Review, Revisit, Rethink, Rewrite

Phase III—Draft: Join the Conversation

iStockphoto/Thinkstock A thesis must be situated among the arguments of other researchers. Good arguments gain their strength by responding to and acknowledging existing ideas.

dro85866_01_c01.indd 11 10/2/13 3:41 PM

CHAPTER 1Key Terms

Chapter Summary In this chapter, you learned that academic or professional research is simply a more systematic and rigorous version of the research process you use to answer questions in everyday life. Because academic research is a cumulative, ongoing conversation among skeptical participants, it can answer complex questions. Because it is selective and peer reviewed, it tends to be highly reliable.

You have also learned that some of the beliefs about research that some students hold can hinder their ability to complete their research projects well. It is important to believe that you can complete your project in the time allotted with the resources available to you. Remember, most research deals with the particulars of a small set of questions. You should also believe that newcomers to a field (or even to research itself) can contribute valuable insights. While the ability to think analytically and systematically can be use- ful to researchers, so too is the ability to think creatively and intuitively. Finally, every researcher’s work is informed by his or her values. While it is important to seek the truth in research, many questions (especially in the humanities and social sciences) demand that researchers make value judgments. The key to integrating your values into your research is to be sure to remain open to new data, ideas, and perspectives.

Key Terms bias Assumptions, attitudes or disposi- tions that cause a researcher to be closed to new evidence, ideas, or perspectives.

credible Sources that are written by certi- fied experts writing in their field of exper- tise; they offer reasons and evidence to support claims, consider all available and relevant information, and fairly and accu- rately represent the views of other writers.

literature review A critical summary and evaluation of sources relevant to the ques- tions a researcher is seeking to answer.

motivation The needs or purposes that inspire a researcher to conduct research and write about it.

peer review The process by which new research is certified as reliable, rigorous, and worthy of consideration. During peer review, experts anonymously evaluate pieces of research for errors of fact, logic, judgment, or omission. They also evaluate the significance and value of the research.

relevant Sources that provide resources to answer your research questions and share concepts, vocabulary, cases, and methods with other researchers in the field.

representative Sources that illustrate a view or position in a field of study, or a significant earlier view that is still relevant.

selective Research that seeks to answer a limited set of questions on the basis of available evidence.

synthesis The evaluative and interpretive process of combining diverse strands of research conducted by different research- ers into a coherent argument.

timely Sources that take into account a field’s most recent information, ideas, and theories.

dro85866_01_c01.indd 12 10/2/13 3:41 PM

CHAPTER 1Web Sites for Further Reference

Web Sites for Further Reference http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bByHhUa5_A Jamie McKenzie discusses how to approach research when, like most researchers, you begin your project “not knowing what you don’t know.” The key is to take a cyclical approach to research in which you “muck about” with ideas for a while, then sort and sift through them to develop essential questions of your own.

http://fno.org/dec99/rcycle.html An article by McKenzie detailing the research cycle.

dro85866_01_c01.indd 13 10/2/13 3:41 PM

dro85866_01_c01.indd 14 10/2/13 3:41 PM