Determining If a Source Is Sound for Academic Work
Types of sources to use in academics
The types of sources you’ll use in your academic work will vary depending on the assignment (e.g.,
a critique of popular culture or a study of the respiratory system of an ant), the academic discipline
(e.g., psychology or chemistry), and the level of scholarship at which you are working (e.g.,
freshman composition or graduate-level physics).
Ø Regardless of the assignment, all sources must be “sound,” meaning they pass the CRAAP
test (they must be current, relevant, authoritative, accurate, and written with a clear and
appropriate purpose), and they must be used in an accurate and responsible way.
Ø In addition to being sound, instructors will often ask you to use “scholarly” sources.
Scholarly sources
As you progress in college, the expectation will increase that you use “scholarly” sources to
support your assertions. Scholarly sources are also referred to as “peer-reviewed” or “refereed”
sources and are written by experts in a particular field to present the most recent research and
findings and typically defend particular conclusions they’ve drawn.
Scholarly sources are rigorously evaluated by disciplines and are therefore (often) the most
authoritative sources in a field. Scholarly sources will therefore often provide the most substantial
information for your research papers.
What is peer-review?
When a source has been peer-reviewed it has undergone the review and scrutiny of a review
board of colleagues in the author’s field. Professional peers evaluate this source as part of the
body of research for a particular discipline and make recommendations regarding its
publication in a journal, revisions prior to publication, or, in some cases, reject its publication.
Why use scholarly (peer-reviewed) sources?
The authority and credibility evident in scholarly sources will improve the quality of your paper
or research project. Use of scholarly sources is an expected attribute of most academic work.
Where can I find scholarly sources?
Scholarly Books
Scholarly books are typically published by academic presses and can be found by searching
library catalogs.
Scholarly Articles
Scholarly articles are typically published by disciplinary journals (e.g. American Philosophical
Quarterly, Journal of Popular Culture, American Journal of Emergency Medicine, American
Behavioral Scientist). You can find scholarly journals and articles in college and university library
databases. In some college library databases, you can filter to find peer-reviewed sources.
NOTE: Research universities like UC San Diego and SDSU provide access to the most databases, making
relevant, timely sources easier to find. Because two-year colleges have much more limited funding, they provide
access to fewer databases, so you have to be more diligent and modify your topics and claims to ensure they
are supported by scholarly evidence when it is required. It gets easier at the four-year level. J
1
Sound sources
Depending on your assignment, not all sources need to be scholarly but ALL sources need to be
SOUND. The CRAAP Test can help you evaluate sources. For each potential source, ask the
following critical questions to evaluate whether sources are sound and/or scholarly.
CRAAP
Criteria
Ask
o
Currency
o
o
o
Relevance
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Authority
o
o
o
o
Accuracy
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Purpose
o
o
o
o
When was the information published or posted?
Is the date of publication evident?
Has the information been revised or updated?
Does your topic require current information, or will older sources work as
well?
Are the links functional?
When was the information published or posted?
Does the information relate to your topic or answer your question?
Who is the intended audience of this source?
Is the information at an appropriate level (i.e. not too elementary or
advanced for your needs)?
Have you looked at a variety of sources before determining this is one you
will use?
Who is the author/publisher/source/sponsor? Are their names provided?
What are the author's credentials or organizational affiliations?
Is the author qualified to write on the topic?
Who is the publisher of the information? Is there contact information, such
as a publisher or email address?
Is the publisher an academic institution, scholarly, or professional
organization?
Does the URL reveal anything about the author or source (e.g., .com .edu
.gov .org .com .net)?
Is their purpose for publishing this information evident?
Would you be comfortable citing this source in your research paper?
Where does the information come from?
Are conclusions based on evidence provided?
Are research claims documented?
Are sources cited?
Are there charts, graphs, tables, and bibliographies included?
Can you verify any of the information in another source or from personal
knowledge?
Has the information been reviewed or refereed?
Does the language or tone seem unbiased and free of emotion?
Are there spelling, grammar or typographical errors?
Why is the information being provided? What is the purpose of the
information? Is it to inform, teach, sell, entertain or persuade?
Do the authors/sponsors make their intentions or purpose clear?
Is the information fact, opinion or propaganda?
Does the point of view appear objective and impartial?
Are there political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional or personal
biases?
Information provided in this table, adapted from “Evaluating Information – Applying the CRAAP Test,” CSU, Chico, Miriam
Library, https://www.csuchico.edu/lins/handouts/eval_websites.pdf
2
Sound and scholarly sources by source type
When evaluating each of the following types of sources for soundness and/or scholarship, ask the
following questions.
Source
Type
Ask
Publisher
o Who is the publisher?
Books published by a university press, professional organizations, and the
US Government Printing Office are likely to be scholarly and are typically
sound.
Books
Book Reviews
o What do the book reviews say?
Book reviews published by authoritative sources can provide clues about
whether a source is sound and/or scholarly and highlight the intended
audience. Authoritative book reviews include those from Kirkus Reviews,
Publishers Weekly and from journals, for example. Amazon customer
reviews are not necessarily sound and not the type of book review referred
to here.
o
o
Articles
o
o
o
Webpages
o
o
o
o
Is the journal respected in that field?
Test: Is it included in college library databases? When googling, “Top
Disciplinary Journals” is the journal listed on a reputable website?
Who is the publisher?
Respected journals are often published by university presses or
professional organizations.
Are the author’s professional affiliations provided?
How many and what kinds of advertisements are present?
For example, is the advertising clearly geared towards readers in a
specific discipline or occupation or is does it refer to lowering
mortgages, get-rich-quick schemes, or celebrity weight gain?
What is the domain of the page (e.g., .edu, .gov, .com)?
Use websites and pages with extreme caution. Rely on .edu and .gov
sites.
Who is publishing or sponsoring the page?
Is contact information for the author/publisher provided?
How recently was the page updated?
Is the information biased?
o
TIP: Understand the reputation and bias of the site. Read the “About”
page and google the organization to learn if it is an advocacy site with a
bias. Typically, appropriate sources for academic work will not have
evidence of bias.
o
NOTE: Wikipedia is not an academic source.
Continued à
3
Unsound sources
The following sources are not sound for academic work.
Source
Problem
o
o
o
A common Wikipedia lapse in judgment:
o
Students sometimes rely on Wikipedia but don’t cite it. Your instructors can easily catch this,
as can plagiarism detection software. This is plagiarism and subject to assignment failure
and progressive discipline.
o
Sound techniques:
o
Learn a new term, definition, or theory in Wikipedia and then search for expert information
about it.
o
Look for expert sources that Wikipedia links to and then evaluate that source for soundness.
o
Advocacy sites have reached conclusions on topics and often present one-sided information that
supports only their position(s).
They typically reflect clear bias.
If they are faith-based, we can’t debate their assertions based on evidence.
While there is more to human life and experience than can be defended with evidence, in
academics, we focus on evidence-based assertions, so anyone with access to the facts can
debate their use and interpretation. There are other essential institutions and forums in which
advocacy can be pursued and questions faith can be discussed.
To determine if a site is advocacy-based or faith-based, google it. Reputable sources will likely
have commented on the group.
Wikipedia
o
o
Advocacy &
Faith-Based
Sites &
Sources
Non-Expert
Sources
o
o
EXCEPTION: You may use advocacy sources to discuss and critique existing perspectives on a
topic – in other words, to provide a sense of “What’s out there? What are people saying?” You
may agree or disagree with these perspectives, but they will only form part of your evidence. Your
primary evidence must come from sound sources. NOTE: Relying on biased sources can
undermine your credibility, so use them with caution.
o
A physicist is an expert in physics, not in family planning. A rapper is an expert in rap as may be a
professor in popular culture.
Depending on your assignment, you must assess and use the most credible sources.
Do not use non-experts to weigh in on a topic. Check their credentials and name their expertise in
your paper when introducing them.
For most topics you’ll explore in college, there will be expert, research-reliant scholars studying
your field. These, then, would be the most appropriate sources
o
o
o
Breitbart
Blogs &
Popular
Media
Wikipedia can be a useful source for gathering general information before conducting sound
research.
However, it is NOT an appropriate source to rely on because its accuracy isn’t necessarily or
consistently verified by experts.
o
Founding board member Steve Bannon is recorded as having said their website does not seek to
take multiple sides into account when arriving at conclusions or writing their articles. Instead, he
says, they opt for “swagger.” They are not, he says, like NPR [National Public Radio] which he
acknowledges works to understand and reflect both sides.* In academics, we must be truthseeking, not swagger-seeking. Our political future depends upon strong conservative, liberal, and
moderate voices. Opponents (the people we really need to persuade) will only trust us if we keep
our biases in check and are truth-seeking.
o
REPUTABLE CONSERVATIVE PUBLICATIONS: National Review, The Wall Street Journal, The
Weekly Standard, National Affairs, The Christian Science Monitor, The American Conservative,
Washington Times
o
EXCEPTION: As is true for advocacy sites, you may use Breitbart to discuss and critique existing
perspectives on a topic. You may agree or disagree with them, but they will only form part of your
evidence. Your primary evidence must come from sound sources that meet the CRAAP Test.
o
Often, blogs and popular media are not written/created by experts and should not be used. You
must research the qualifications of authors of blogs and popular media sites before using them.
o
EXCEPTION: If you are studying popular circulating ideas, they may be used, but you must
analyze them using reputable sources and your sound judgment. You must not rely on these
sources for their conclusions, but rather because they represent a particular point of view that you
will then critique. It’s okay to agree with their conclusions, but additional evidence from nonbiased sources should be emphasized and more prominent in your essays.
4
Timeliness exception
Sometimes articles or books remain significant in a given field for years or decades because –
Ø
Ø
they provide a basis for current theory or practice –orbecause they once held significant influence but are being questioned at the time of your
research.
Depending on your assignment, it is often perfectly appropriate to use these. As you learn more about
your field, you’ll come to recognize its seminal writings. If, when researching, you find other authors
frequently referencing an older work this is likely a seminal writing in your field.
What is bias?
US media (and all media globally) are influenced by spoken and unspoken assumptions and biases.
Assumptions and biases are not inherently bad. They are formed by the times in which we live, our
experiences, our socioeconomic circumstances, our education, our training, our culture(s), available
knowledge, and, in short, all significant influences in our lives. Across locations and experiences, we
share many common assumptions and biases (that we should be good to each other, for example).
So, when we question an author’s or our own assumptions, we’re not accusing them or ourselves for
doing something “bad.” In this class, I assume you want to learn and grow and my bias is that writing
classes play a big role in helping you to do that. The course reflects that assumption and bias. If I
assumed you wanted to use this information to hurt people or to, heaven forbid, steal my cat, the course
would look and feel different.
Although biases are not bad, as scholars, it is our responsibility to be critical and reflective about our
own thinking to remove as much bias as possible in our research and writing. We do this by maintaining
an open mind, questioning our own assumptions, going where the evidence leads, and being
responsible in our use of sources. In this class, we have fairly limited evidence to work from (we can only
read so much in a short time). As you advance in your field, however, the depth of evidence before you
will be great. You’ll work with more complexity and disagreement. Build the basic foundation now to be
prepared to meet those challenges in a responsible, rewarding, and professionally helpful way.
Newspapers of record
In the US, there are what we refer to as “newspapers of record.” They are recognized to be authoritative
because they work to eliminate bias by gathering facts through large newsgathering networks and to
maintain the professional standards associated with strong journalism. This is not to say that don’t
reflect bias in their editorial choices, content, and perspective, or that they don’t breach their ethical
obligations at times. When evaluating any source, again, it’s our job to step back and critically analyze
the information and go where the bulk of available evidence leads us.
Newspapers of record include –
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
The New York Times
Los Angeles Times
The Washington Post
The Wall Street Journal
Use this as a guideline when searching for journalistic sources.
5
Selecting the best information source: a menu
This table can help you determine which sources are best for finding the type of information you need for
your research project.
Source
Newspapers
General
Magazines
Professional
/
Trade
Magazines
Scholarly /
Academic
Journals
Books
Websites
Best For
o Daily local, national,
and international
news, events, and
editorial coverage
o Statistics and
photojournalism
o Record of events and
quotes from experts,
officials, and
witnesses
o Current information
o Short, easy to
understand articles
(including analysis,
interviews, and
opinions, for example)
o Photographs and
illustrations
o Current information
o Specialized articles
related to a particular
discipline or
profession (including
context and analysis)
o Recent research on a
topic
o Focused, peerreviewed articles
written by experts
o Data, statistics, charts,
and graphs
o Bibliographies of other
sources
o Comprehensive
overview of topic
o Background and
historical context
o Bibliographies of other
sources
o News
o Government
information
o Company information
o Alternate points of
view
Intended
Audience
Watch For/
Consider
Use
o Authors usually not
experts
o If a story is breaking,
corrections to initial
reports are likely
o Editorial bias of a
publication
o Newspapers of Record:
New York Times, Wall
Street Journal, LA Times,
Washington Post
General
audience or
those with
specific
interests.
o Authors usually not
experts
o Sources not always cited
o Editorial bias of a
publication
o Use with caution.
Sources like Scientific
American or Rolling
Stone are sound sources
in their fields, for
example.
Professional
organizations
or
professionals /
scholars with
similar
interests
o Articles vary between
short and easy to lengthy
and highly specific
o Sources not always cited
o Has characteristics in
common with both
popular magazines and
scholarly journals
General
audience
Scholars,
researchers,
professionals,
and university
students in a
particular field
Varies,
general
audience
through
scholars
Varies,
general
audience
through
scholars
o Terminology and/or data
may be difficult for
novices to understand
o Authoritative, current
professional sources
o Use whenever possible
o Dated information
o Bias (dependent on
author, publisher, etc.)
o Authoritative, current
sources
o Credibility and accuracy
cannot always be
assured
o Bias (dependent on
author, publisher, etc.)
o Sources not always cited
o Use with extreme
caution. Rely on .edu and
.gov sites.
o Understand the
reputation and bias of the
site.
o Read the “About” page
and google the organization to learn if it is an
advocacy site with a bias.
o Wikipedia is not an
academic source.
Except as noted, document adapted from “Determine if a Source is Scholarly” and “Select the Best Information Source”
U of Illinois Urbana-Champaign http://www.library.illinois.edu/ugl/howdoi/scholarly/
* For the Steve Bannon interview, see “The Beginning of Now.” This American Life. Natl. Public Radio. WNYC, New York.
28 April 2017. Radio. https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/615/the-beginning-of-now
6
“Consider the Source”
A Resource Guide to Liberal, Conservative and Nonpartisan
Periodicals
30 East Lake Street ∙ Chicago, IL 60601
HWC Library – Room 501
312.553.5760
E
ver heard the saying “consider the source” in response to something that was questioned? Well, the
same advice applies to what you read – consider the source. When conducting research, bear in mind
that periodicals (journals, magazines, newspapers) may have varying points-of-view, biases, and/or
political leanings. Here are some questions to ask when considering using a periodical source:
Is there a bias in the publication or is it non-partisan?
Who is the sponsor (publisher or benefactor) of the publication?
What is the agenda of the sponsor – to simply share information or to influence social or
political change?
Some publications have specific political perspectives and outright state what they are, as in Dissent
Magazine (self-described as “a magazine of the left”) or National Review’s boost of, “we give you the
right view and back it up.” Still, there are other publications that do not clearly state their political
leanings; but over time have been deemed as left- or right-leaning based on such factors as the pointsof-view of their opinion columnists, the make-up of their editorial staff, and/or their endorsements of
politicians. Many newspapers fall into this rather opaque category.
A good rule of thumb to use in determining whether a publication is liberal or conservative has been
provided by Media Research Center’s L. Brent Bozell III: “if the paper never met a conservative cause it
didn’t like, it’s conservative, and if it never met a liberal cause it didn’t like, it’s liberal.”
Outlined in the following pages is an annotated listing of publications that have been categorized as
conservative, liberal, non-partisan and religious. Some of the terms used to describe these publications
will contain the following:
Magazine – a periodical for general reading containing articles, photographs and stories on a
variety of subjects.
Peer Reviewed – this descriptor indicates that manuscripts submitted to a magazine or articles
submitted to a journal publication are examined by the editor and one or more specialists
(peers) in the specific field before approval is given to publish the information. The term
“refereed” is used interchangeably with “peer reviewed.”
Scholarly Journal – a periodical (usually academic) containing articles or research information
written by scholars and/or experts in a particular subject field.
As always, if you have questions or need assistance with your research projects, please ask a librarian.
Prepared by HWC Reference Librarians
Last Updated: January 2011
1
JOURNALS
Left
Right
(Liberal)
(Conservative)
Non-Partisan
Religious
Perspective
Economy and Society
Cato Journal
Foreign Affairs
Al-Tawhid
A scholarly, peer-reviewed journal
focused on progressive political,
economic, and social issues in
Europe, North America, Australia
and the Pacific.
This libertarian-leaning journal
covers public policy issues on Social
Security, monetary, natural
resources, and military spending.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/
A refereed scholarly journal
published by the Council on
Foreign Relations (a nonprofit,
nonpartisan organization)
provides serious discussion of
American foreign policy and
international affairs.
(Islamic)
A quarterly journal of Islamic
thought and culture published by
The Foundation of Islamic
Thought.
http://www.al-islam.org/altawhid/
The National Interest (TNI)
Public Opinion Quarterly
New Politics
A 200-page semi-annual that is an
independent socialist forum for
dialogue and debate on the left,
which “insists on the centrality of
democracy to socialism and on the
need to rely on mass movements
from below for progressive social
transformation.”
www.newpolitics.mayfirst.org
Politics and Society
Through a Marxist/ post-Marxist
perspective, this journal focuses on
issues of state, class analysis,
politics of gender, and the future of
capitalism and socialism.
http://pas.sagepub.com/
Science and Society
The longest continuously published
Marxist scholarly journal in the
world, Science and Society focuses
on social and political theory,
economics, philosophy, and the
serious analysis of con-temporary
societies.
Telos: A Quarterly Journal of
Critical Thoughts
A journal of international
discussions on political, social,
academic, religious and cultural
change in Europe and the U. S., and
the state of US-European relations.
http://journal.telospress.com/
This journal contains strong
conservative and libertarian
writings on American foreign policy
and politics.
http://www.nationalinterest.org/
Policy Review
This journal presents articles of
serious thinking on the American
condition, the workings of
government, and political and
economic systems.
http://www.hoover.org/publication
s/policyreview
The Public Interest (PI)
A self-described neoconservative
journal that spotlights articles on
domestic policy regarding
education, welfare, housing,
poverty, politics and culture.
Publication ceased in April, 2005,
however, it’s complete archives are
available online via this website:
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/arc
hive /public_interest/default.asp
A peer-reviewed academic
journal that is among the most
frequently cited journals of its
kind. Most beneficial to
academicians and all social
science researchers, it provides
articles analyzing trends and
problems in public opinion
research.
The Washington Quarterly
(TWQ)
Worldwide contributors to this
journal reflect diverse political,
regional, and professional
perspectives on topics of the U.S.
role in the world, reducing
terrorism, emerging great powers
and the implications of global
political change.
http://www.twq.com/
Wilson Quarterly (WQ)
Though self-described as a
magazine, this publication has
the tone and characteristics of a
journal that provides a nonpartisan, non-ideological focus on
issues in politics and policy,
culture, religion, science, and
other fields that impact public
life.
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/ind
ex.cfm?fuseaction=wq.welcome
Prepared by HWC Reference Librarians
Last Updated: January 2011
Commonweal
(Catholic)
Self-described as, “the oldest
independent lay Catholic journal
of opinion in the United States,”
Commonweal covers issues on
religion, politics, public affairs,
literature, the arts, and social and
cultural issues.
http://www.commonwealmagazi
ne.org/
Modern Judaism
(Jewish)
Published by Oxford University
Press, topics pertinent to the
understanding of Jewish life
today are discussed through
distinctive, interdisciplinary
forums.
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/mo
dern_judaism/
2
MAGAZINES
Left
Right
(Liberal)
(Conservative)
Non-Partisan
News & Opinion
Religious
Perspective
The American Prospect
The American Conservative (TAC)
Business Week
America
A magazine for the general reader,
that presents a moderate left-wing
view on liberal philosophy, politics
and public life.
www.prospect.org
This monthly right-wing opinion
magazine, founded in part by
Patrick J. Buchanan, represents a
paleoconservative (traditionalist,
anti-federalism, religious) and at
times libertarian voice on domestic
and international political issues.
http://www.amconmag.com/
Considered a market leader, this
news magazine focuses on
industries, companies, political
issues, legal issues, information
technology and international
business.
www.businessweek.com
(Catholic)
A weekly magazine intended “for
thinking Catholics and those who
want to know what Catholics are
thinking,” covers religious,
political, ethical and social issues
from the Jesuit Catholic
perspective.
www.americamagazine.org
The Economist (British)
Christianity Today
An easy-to-read, British
perspective weekly news-paper
(that looks like a magazine), The
Economist contains wellrespected and authoritative
information on 16 news
categories, including world
politics, global business, finance
and economics, science and
technology, and the arts.
www.economist.com
(Christian)
A monthly magazine that
provides insight and analysis from
a Christian perspective, on
relevant news, trends, and events
of the day.
www.christianitytoday.com
Dissent
A quarterly magazine of the left that
covers politics and culture, Dissent
contains well-written articles of leftliberal and social-democratic
opinions. It is a magazine of
independent minds and strong
opinions.
www.dissentmagazine.org
Monthly Review
This scholarly, independent socialist
magazine covers issues against U.S.
imperialism, including workers and
labor organizers against class
exploitation and racial and sexual
oppressions.
www.monthlyreview.org
The American Spectator
This libertarian-conservative
magazine provides articles on
current issues regarding politics, the
government, the economy and
military activities.
www.spectator.org
Chronicles: A Magazine of
American Culture
This monthly, ultra-conservative
opinion magazine makes defending
Western Christian civilization, local
sovereignty and political, cultural,
and economic autonomy its central
themes.
www.chroniclesmagazine.org
Maclean’s (Canadian)
Proclaiming itself, “Canada’s only
national weekly current affairs
magazine,” Maclean’s provides
investigative reporting on
international and social issues,
national politics, business, and
culture.
http://www2.macleans.ca
The Humanist
(Non-Theistic)
A bimonthly magazine published
by the American Humanist
Association, The Humanist takes
a non-theistic, secular and
naturalistic approach to topics on
the environment, civil liberties,
human rights, international
relations and other contemporary
social concerns.
www.thehumanist.org
Tikkun
Mother Jones
National Review
New Republic (TNR)
An independent nonprofit
progressive publication focused on
coverage of social justice, anticorporate and environmental
issues.
www.motherjones.com
In addition to pointedly right-wing
editorials, this bi-monthly
conservative magazine features
short articles on current interest
issues, a longer feature article, and
reviews of the arts.
www.nationalreview.com
A nonpartisan, inside-the-Beltway
publication that provides evenhanded coverage of current
issues regarding U. S. politics,
foreign policy and culture.
www.tnr.com
Prepared by HWC Reference Librarians
Last Updated: January 2011
(Jewish)
A bimonthly magazine focused on
social theory, religion/spirituality,
social change, contemporary
American and global politics and
economics, ecology, culture,
psychology, and Israel/ Palestine.
www.tikkun.org
3
Magazines Continued:
(Left / Liberal)
(Right / Conservative)
(Non-Partisan)
The Nation
The New American
Newsweek
An openly left-wing publication that
covers a wide range of current
issues via concise articles and
multiple short editorials.
www.thenation.com
Self-described as, “an essential
news source for freedom-loving
Americans,” this bi-monthly John
Birch Society publication presents
news and commentary from a
decidedly right-wing,
fundamentalist Christian
perspective. Its primary goal is to
expose the behind-the-scenes
activities shaping American politics
and culture.
www.thenewamerican.com
One of three major newsweeklies
in the United States (Newsweek,
Time, and U.S. News & World
Report), this magazine covers
current events and issues in the
U. S. and world.
www.newsweek.com
New Statesman (British)
A weekly magazine focused
primarily on news and politics of
greatest interest in the United
Kingdom, where the content is
roughly divided 60% news and 40%
politics.
www.newstatesman.com
The Progressive
This monthly magazine is
considered a journalistic voice for
peace, social and economic justice,
civil rights and liberties, human
rights and the environment.
www.progressive.org
The Weekly Standard
This weekly magazine provides
right-wing articles on Washington,
D.C. politics and government topics
in America and around the world.
www.weeklystandard.com
Time
One of the standard newsweeklies in the United States, this
magazine covers current events
and issues in the U.S. and world.
www.time.com
U. S. News & World Report
One of the three major
newsweeklies in the United
States (and considered a bit more
conservative than Time and
Newsweek), this magazine
provides serious reporting on
current events and issues in the
U.S. and the world.
www.usnews.com
Prepared by HWC Reference Librarians
Last Updated: January 2011
4
NEWSPAPERS (Editorial Stance)
Left
Right
(Liberal)
(Conservative)
Non-Partisan
Religious
Perspective
The Boston Globe
Human Events
Christian Science Monitor
Islam Online
Provides global coverage focused on
news and events of the Greater
Boston area. This award winning
daily offers in-depth coverage of
news, business, sports, arts &
entertainment, and provocative
columns.
www.BostonGlobe.com
“The bible of the right,” is how the
Wall Street Journal describes this
Washington, D.C.-based weekly that
has a strong partisan focus on
national and international political
and legislative news.
www.humanevents.com
For over a century, this multiple
award-winning weekly, with eight
U.S. offices and eight foreign
bureaus, has provided nonpartisan, in-depth coverage of
news and feature stories from
every corner of the globe.
www.csmonitor.com
Los Angeles Times
New York Post
Chronicle of Higher Education
The largest metropolitan daily
newspaper in the U.S., the LA Times
covers news and events of Southern
California, global news and
extensive coverage of the arts and
entertainment and how they affect
society.
www.latimes.com
News Corporation owns the Wall
Street Journal, the New York Post
and Fox Broadcasting. Best known
for its comprehensive sports section
and gossip columns, this daily also
provides global coverage of world
news and events.
www.nypost.com
New York Times
Wall Street Journal
The New York Times Company owns
The New York Times, the International Herald Tribune, The Boston
Globe, 15 other daily newspapers
and more than 50 websites. This
Pulitzer-Prize winning daily reports
on national and world events, major
political speeches, current events,
arts reviews and lifestyle matters.
Regular opinion columnists include
Maureen Dowd, Bob Herbert, Paul
Krugman and David Brooks.
www.nytimes.com
Owned by media magnate Rupert
Murdoch, the Wall Street Journal is
written primarily for people who
follow the money and investment
markets. With a pro-business news
bent, it covers global events from
finance to general news.
www.online.wsj.com
This Washington, D.C.-based
weekly is the number one source
of news, information, and jobs
for college and university faculty
members and administrators. The
Chronicle has more than 70 fulltime writers and editors, as well
as 17 foreign correspondents
around the world. Although
intended for academe, its
content is relevant for
researchers, students, legislators
and government policy makers.
www.chronicle.com
(Islamic)
Based in Dubai, IslamOnline is the
original Internet portal and
leading source for Islamic content
in the Islamic world. With a
stated objective, “of portraying a
positive and accurate picture of
Islam to the world and to provide
support for Muslims,” its
coverage includes news reports
on political, financial and
economic events as they affect
Muslims of the Middle East and
America.
www.islamonline.com
Washington Post
Washington Times
The Washington Post Company,
owns the Washington Post. This
award-winning newspaper provides
global news, reports, and analysis
on federal politics at the national
and international levels. Regular
opinion columnists include Eugene
Robinson, Jonathan Capehart, and
E. J. Dionne
www.washingtonpost.com
Published by The Washington Times
LLC, the Washington Times
newspaper is a full-service, general
interest daily headquartered in the
nation's capital, that provides
thorough coverage of politics and
policy. Regular opinion columnists
include Cal Thomas, Michelle
Malkin, and Tony Blankley.
www.washingtontimes.com
Prepared by HWC Reference Librarians
Last Updated: January 2011
Jewish Telegraphic Agency
(Jewish)
Headquartered in New York City,
and with correspondents around
the globe, JTA is able to provide
in-depth coverage of political,
economic and social
developments affecting Jews in
North and South America, Israel,
Europe, Africa and Australia.
www.jta.org
5
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Both Sides of the Story. University of North Florida. UNF Thomas G. Carpenter Library, Mar.
2008. Web. 03 Nov. 2009. .
Conservative Links. Politics1.com. Ron Gunzburger, n.d. Web. 05 Nov. 2009.
.
Guide to Progressive Publications for Democratic Socialists. Young Democratic Socialists USA.
Young Democratic Socialists, n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2009.
.
Hagin, Mr. “Political Links and Debate Resources.” Kennesaw State University. English 1101,
2001. Web. 18 Nov. 2009.
.
Johnson, Carolyn. Point of View in Periodicals. Northwest Missouri State University.
Northwest B. D. Owens Library, 13 Feb. 2009. Web. 20 Nov. 2009.
.
Liberal Links. Politics1.com. Ron Gunzburger, n.d. Web. 05 Nov. 2009.
.
Vroman, Ashley K. “Slandering the News: How Labelers Cleverly Undermine the Reliability and
Validity of Newspapers.” University of Wisconsin Parkside. Dear Habermas, 05 May
1999. Web. 20 Nov. 2009.
.
Prepared by HWC Reference Librarians
Last Updated: January 2011
6
Essay Four
Immigration: An Argumentative Research Essay
PROMPT:
Essay Four will build on Essay Three, relying on the readings from Essay Three
and FOUR sources you’ve discovered through sound research for Essay Four.
ONE of the Essay Four sources must be a JOURNAL article.
Essay Four, will then be a researched argumentative essay focused on a main
claim that relies on sources you’ve analyzed (taken apart to study) and
synthesized (put together) to back each subclaim supporting the main claim.
The essay will include at least one significant counterargument/rebuttal and will
demonstrate the essential skills for effective academic papers.
Essay Four, will be an 8-10 page, MLA formatted paper, including MLA in-text
citations, and an MLA-formatted Works Cited list.
Argumentative Research Essay
Components
I. Four Precis, Due Sunday, May 5
ASSIGNMENT STEPS:
1. Conduct research to find four sound sources that relate to the main claim you plan to argue.
(Don’t worry if you feel you need to adjust your main claim as you conduct research. Our
claims often evolve as we learn new things. In the end, we must be able to defend our
arguments through the research we conduct.)
2. Write a precis for each source, ONE of which must be a JOURNAL ARTICLE.
3. Write a separate Works Cited page that will get you started on your Essay Four final
submission. To create this, refer to our Canvas page on creating Works Citied lists where you’ll
find instructions and the “Works Cited List Sample” document. Your Essay Four Works Cited
list only needs to include outside sources, not those which I provided. (In a standard academic
essay, you would include a Works Cited entry for all sources cited in the paper. In this case,
you may not have enough information to complete that for those I’ve found for you.)
4. TO EXCEED THE B CONTRACT: Include a precis and Works Cited entry for an additional source.
II. Main Claim, Introduction, Outline, Revised Works Cited, Due Sunday, May 12
ASSIGNMENT DETAILS: This assignment will include –
1. Your revised main claim.
2. A draft of an effective introduction.
3. A bulleted outline (not written in paragraph form), including 8-10 subclaims, at least two
pieces of evidence to support each subclaim with an accurate MLA in-text citation, a
counterargument from an actual source, a rebuttal, and a concluding idea.
4. A revised version of your Works Cited page.
5. TO EXCEED THE B CONTRACT: Produce an exceptionally effective assignment with attention to
detail.
Larson – ENGL 124-0582 - Spring 2019 – Essay Four Assignment Sheet
1
III. Essay Four Draft, Due Sunday, May 19
ASSIGNMENT DETAILS: Essay Four builds on Essay Three and is an MLA-formatted, 8-10
argumentative research essay on a focused aspect of U.S. immigration. Your argumentative
research essay will bring your ideas together with source ideas to support a focused and debatable
main claim. It will demonstrate the essential skills for writing academic essays that we’ve
practiced this semester.
SOURCES: Essay Four will rely on Readings One-Six from Weeks Nine-Eleven that you’ve analyzed
and produced rhetorical precis for and on the discussion readings assigned for Roll Call Posts
during Weeks Ten-Twelve. This was our work for Essay Three. In addition, Essay Four will rely on
an additional FOUR sources, one of which will be from a JOURNAL ARTICLE.
Your Argumentative Research Essay will include An effective introduction that provides necessary context and logically leads to the main
claim.
Body paragraphs that –
o begin with subclaims (key supporting points)
o include related evidence from our source texts and your explanation
o relate back to the main claim
At least one counterargument from an actual source and your rebuttal.
A conclusion that logically relates to the essay, but that adds an idea or suggestion for further
action or thought that leaves your reader with something to ponder.
Your essay will Be submitted to NetTutor for review.
Remain focused on one primary idea throughout the essay.
Use sound evidence and reasoning.
Allow your voice to speak first, last, and loudest.
Rely on at least FIVE sources provided by me and researched by you.
In EACH body paragraph, include embedded quotations/paraphrases/summaries from these
sources that each include a signal phrase, accurate citation, and explanation afterward.
FOUR embedded sources must be direct quotations.
Include accurate in-text citations
Include a separate Works Cited page as the last page of the essay.
Not include instances of “you.”
Be clear and logical, overall.
TO EXCEED THE B CONTRACT: Draft NINE full, effective pages.
IV. Essay Four Peer Review, Due Wednesday, May 22
ASSIGNMENT DETAILS: This will be an extended peer review of TWO peers’ Essay Four drafts.
1. Identify at least one area of strength and three specific areas for improvement, citing from
the draft and including suggestions for revision, in a minimum of 100 words for each aspect.
Consider the required elements of the essay, as shown on this sheet, when choosing the
aspects you will review.
2. TO EXCEED THE B CONTRACT: Provide a review for an additional peer.
Larson – ENGL 124-0582 - Spring 2019 – Essay Four Assignment Sheet
2
V. Essay Four Final Draft, Due Sunday, May 31
ASSIGNMENT DETAILS:
1. Meaningfully revise your draft relying on your own judgment and your instructor’s and peers’,
and NetTutor comments.
2. SENTENCE REVISION USING TEMPLATES: Revise two sentences or groups of sentences using
templates from They Say/I Say.
• Underline these passages in your essay.
• At the end of the essay, before the Works Cited page, include the original and revised
passages.
• For each revised passage, show the original passage first and the revised passage after.
3. REVISION REFLECTION: Below the They Say/I Say revision, before the Works Cited page, write one
paragraph that reflects on the revisions you made and why you focused on these.
4. THE FINAL PAGE OF YOUR ESSAY WILL BE THE WORKS CITED PAGE. This should be on its own page.
Skills We’ll Practice
Brainstorming, Summarizing, and Synthesizing Ideas
Drafting and Revising a Longer Essay
Interpreting Texts
Writing with a Focus
MLA Paper Formatting, In-Text Citations, and Works Cited Entries
Supporting Main Claims with Subclaims, Evidence, and Explanation
Properly Embedding Source Material with Signal Phrases, Citations, and Explanation
Writing Logically, Clearly, and Fully
Care for Your Readers’ Understanding and Reading Experience
Eliminating Instances of “You”
Larson – ENGL 124-0582 - Spring 2019 – Essay Four Assignment Sheet
3
FOURTH EDITION
“THEY SAY I SAY”
The Moves That Matter
in Academic Writing
H
GERALD GRAFF
CATHY BIRKENSTEIN
both of the University of Illinois at Chicago
B
w. w. norton & company
new york | london
preface
Demystifying Academic Conversation
H
Experienced writing instructors have long recognized
that writing well means entering into conversation with others.
Academic writing in particular calls upon writers not simply to
express their own ideas, but to do so as a response to what others
have said. The first-year writing program at our own university,
according to its mission statement, asks “students to participate in ongoing conversations about vitally important academic
and public issues.” A similar statement by another program
holds that “intellectual writing is almost always composed in
response to others’ texts.” These statements echo the ideas
of rhetorical theorists like Kenneth Burke, Mikhail Bakhtin,
and Wayne Booth as well as recent composition scholars like
David Bartholomae, John Bean, Patricia Bizzell, Irene Clark,
Greg Colomb, Lisa Ede, Peter Elbow, Joseph Harris, Andrea
Lunsford, Elaine Maimon, Gary Olson, Mike Rose, John Swales
and Christine Feak, Tilly Warnock, and others who argue that
writing well means engaging the voices of others and letting
them in turn engage us.
Yet despite this growing consensus that writing is a social,
conversational act, helping student writers actually participate in these conversations remains a formidable challenge.
This book aims to meet that challenge. Its goal is to demystify academic writing by isolating its basic moves, explaining
them clearly, and representing them in the form of templates.
xiii
PR E FAC E
In this way, we hope to help students become active participants in the important conversations of the academic world
and the wider public sphere.
highlights
•
Shows that writing well means entering a conversation, summarizing others (“they say”) to set up one’s own argument
(“I say”).
•
Demystifies academic writing, showing students “the moves
that matter” in language they can readily apply.
•
Provides user-friendly templates to help writers make those
moves in their own writing.
•
Shows that reading is a way of entering a conversation—not just
of passively absorbing information but of understanding and
actively entering dialogues and debates.
how this book came to be
The original idea for this book grew out of our shared interest in democratizing academic culture. First, it grew out of
arguments that Gerald Graff has been making throughout his
career that schools and colleges need to invite students into
the conversations and debates that surround them. More specifically, it is a practical, hands-on companion to his recent
book Clueless in Academe: How Schooling Obscures the Life of the
Mind, in which he looks at academic conversations from the
perspective of those who find them mysterious and proposes
ways in which such mystification can be overcome. Second,
xiv
Demystifying Academic Conversation
this book grew out of writing templates that Cathy Birkenstein
developed in the 1990s for use in writing and literature courses
she was teaching. Many students, she found, could readily grasp
what it meant to support a thesis with evidence, to entertain
a counterargument, to identify a textual contradiction, and
ultimately to summarize and respond to challenging arguments,
but they often had trouble putting these concepts into practice
in their own writing. When Cathy sketched out templates on
the board, however, giving her students some of the language
and patterns that these sophisticated moves require, their
writing—and even their quality of thought—significantly
improved.
This book began, then, when we put our ideas together and
realized that these templates might have the potential to open
up and clarify academic conversation. We proceeded from the
premise that all writers rely on certain stock formulas that they
themselves didn’t invent—and that many of these formulas
are so commonly used that they can be represented in model
templates that students can use to structure and even generate
what they want to say.
As we developed a working draft of this book, we began using
it in first-year writing courses that we teach at UIC. In classroom exercises and writing assignments, we found that students
who otherwise struggled to organize their thoughts, or even to
think of something to say, did much better when we provided
them with templates like the following.
j In discussions of
, a controversial issue is whether
. While some argue that
that
.
j This is not to say that
.
xv
, others contend
PR E FAC E
One virtue of such templates, we found, is that they focus
writers’ attention not just on what is being said, but on the
forms that structure what is being said. In other words, they
make students more conscious of the rhetorical patterns that
are key to academic success but often pass under the classroom
radar.
the centrality of “they say / i say”
The central rhetorical move that we focus on in this book is the
“they say / I say” template that gives our book its title. In our
view, this template represents the deep, underlying structure,
the internal DNA as it were, of all effective argument. Effective
persuasive writers do more than make well-supported claims
(“I say”); they also map those claims relative to the claims of
others (“they say”).
Here, for example, the “they say / I say” pattern structures
a passage from an essay by the media and technology critic
Steven Johnson.
For decades, we’ve worked under the assumption that mass culture follows a path declining steadily toward lowest-commondenominator standards, presumably because the “masses” want
dumb, simple pleasures and big media companies try to give the
masses what they want. But . . . the exact opposite is happening:
the culture is getting more cognitively demanding, not less.
Steven Johnson, “Watching TV Makes You Smarter”
In generating his own argument from something “they say,”
Johnson suggests why he needs to say what he is saying: to
correct a popular misconception.
xvi
Demystifying Academic Conversation
Even when writers do not explicitly identify the views they
are responding to, as Johnson does, an implicit “they say” can
often be discerned, as in the following passage by Zora Neale
Hurston.
I remember the day I became colored.
Zora Neale Hurston, “How It Feels to Be Colored Me”
In order to grasp Hurston’s point here, we need to be able to
reconstruct the implicit view she is responding to and questioning: that racial identity is an innate quality we are simply born
with. On the contrary, Hurston suggests, our race is imposed
on us by society—something we “become” by virtue of how
we are treated.
As these examples suggest, the “they say / I say” model can
improve not just student writing, but student reading comprehension as well. Since reading and writing are deeply reciprocal activities, students who learn to make the rhetorical moves
represented by the templates in this book figure to become more
adept at identifying these same moves in the texts they read. And
if we are right that effective arguments are always in dialogue
with other arguments, then it follows that in order to understand
the types of challenging texts assigned in college, students need
to identify the views to which those texts are responding.
Working with the “they say / I say” model can also help
with invention, finding something to say. In our experience,
students best discover what they want to say not by thinking
about a subject in an isolation booth, but by reading texts,
listening closely to what other writers say, and looking for an
opening through which they can enter the conversation. In
other words, listening closely to others and summarizing what
they have to say can help writers generate their own ideas.
xvii
PR E FAC E
the usefulness of templates
Our templates also have a generative quality, prompting students to make moves in their writing that they might not otherwise make or even know they should make. The templates
in this book can be particularly helpful for students who are
unsure about what to say, or who have trouble finding enough
to say, often because they consider their own beliefs so
self-evident that they need not be argued for. Students like this
are often helped, we’ve found, when we give them a simple template like the following one for entertaining a counterargument
(or planting a naysayer, as we call it in Chapter 6).
j Of course some might object that
that
, I still maintain that
. Although I concede
.
What this particular template helps students do is make the
seemingly counterintuitive move of questioning their own
beliefs, of looking at them from the perspective of those who
disagree. In so doing, templates can bring out aspects of students’ thoughts that, as they themselves sometimes remark,
they didn’t even realize were there.
Other templates in this book help students make a host of
sophisticated moves that they might not otherwise make: summarizing what someone else says, framing a quotation in one’s
own words, indicating the view that the writer is responding to,
marking the shift from a source’s view to the writer’s own view,
offering evidence for that view, entertaining and answering
counterarguments, and explaining what is at stake in the first
place. In showing students how to make such moves, templates
do more than organize students’ ideas; they help bring those
ideas into existence.
xviii
Demystifying Academic Conversation
“ok—but templates?”
We are aware, of course, that some instructors may have reservations about templates. Some, for instance, may object that
such formulaic devices represent a return to prescriptive forms
of instruction that encourage passive learning or lead students
to put their writing on automatic pilot.
This is an understandable reaction, we think, to kinds of rote
instruction that have indeed encouraged passivity and drained
writing of its creativity and dynamic relation to the social world.
The trouble is that many students will never learn on their own
to make the key intellectual moves that our templates represent. While seasoned writers pick up these moves unconsciously
through their reading, many students do not. Consequently, we
believe, students need to see these moves represented in the
explicit ways that the templates provide.
The aim of the templates, then, is not to stifle critical
thinking but to be direct with students about the key rhetorical moves that it comprises. Since we encourage students to
modify and adapt the templates to the particularities of the
arguments they are making, using such prefabricated formulas
as learning tools need not result in writing and thinking that
are themselves formulaic. Admittedly, no teaching tool can
guarantee that students will engage in hard, rigorous thought.
Our templates do, however, provide concrete prompts that can
stimulate and shape such thought: What do “they say” about my
topic? What would a naysayer say about my argument? What
is my evidence? Do I need to qualify my point? Who cares?
In fact, templates have a long and rich history. Public orators
from ancient Greece and Rome through the European Renaissance studied rhetorical topoi or “commonplaces,” model passages
and formulas that represented the different strategies available
xix
PR E FAC E
to public speakers. In many respects, our templates echo this
classical rhetorical tradition of imitating established models.
The journal Nature requires aspiring contributors to follow
a guideline that is like a template on the opening page of their
manuscript: “Two or three sentences explaining what the main
result [of their study] reveals in direct comparison with what was
thought to be the case previously, or how the main result adds to
previous knowledge.” In the field of education, a form designed
by the education theorist Howard Gardner asks postdoctoral
fellowship applicants to complete the following template: “Most
scholars in the field believe
. As a result of my study,
.” That these two examples are geared toward postdoctoral fellows and veteran researchers shows that it is not
only struggling undergraduates who can use help making these
key rhetorical moves, but experienced academics as well.
Templates have even been used in the teaching of personal
narrative. The literary and educational theorist Jane Tompkins
devised the following template to help student writers make the
often difficult move from telling a story to explaining what it
means: “X tells a story about
to make the point that
. My own experience with
yields a point
that is similar/different/both similar and different. What I take
away from my own experience with
is
. As
a result, I conclude
.” We especially like this template
because it suggests that “they say / I say” argument need not be
mechanical, impersonal, or dry, and that telling a story and making an argument are more compatible activities than many think.
why it’s okay to use “i”
But wait—doesn’t the “I” part of “they say / I say” flagrantly
encourage the use of the first-person pronoun? Aren’t we aware
xx
Demystifying Academic Conversation
that some teachers prohibit students from using “I” or “we,”
on the grounds that these pronouns encourage ill-considered,
subjective opinions rather than objective and reasoned arguments? Yes, we are aware of this first-person prohibition, but
we think it has serious flaws. First, expressing ill-considered,
subjective opinions is not necessarily the worst sin beginning
writers can commit; it might be a starting point from which they
can move on to more reasoned, less self-indulgent perspectives.
Second, prohibiting students from using “I” is simply not an
effective way of curbing students’ subjectivity, since one can
offer poorly argued, ill-supported opinions just as easily without
it. Third and most important, prohibiting the first person tends
to hamper students’ ability not only to take strong positions but
to differentiate their own positions from those of others, as we
point out in Chapter 5. To be sure, writers can resort to various circumlocutions—“it will here be argued,” “the evidence
suggests,” “the truth is”—and these may be useful for avoiding a monotonous series of “I believe” sentences. But except
for avoiding such monotony, we see no good reason why “I”
should be set aside in persuasive writing. Rather than prohibit
“I,” then, we think a better tactic is to give students practice
at using it well and learning its use, both by supporting their
claims with evidence and by attending closely to alternative
perspectives—to what “they” are saying.
how this book is organized
Because of its centrality, we have allowed the “they say / I say”
format to dictate the structure of this book. So while Part 1
addresses the art of listening to others, Part 2 addresses how
to offer one’s own response. Part 1 opens with a chapter on
xxi
PR E FAC E
“Starting with What Others Are Saying” that explains why it is
generally advisable to begin a text by citing others rather than
plunging directly into one’s own views. Subsequent chapters
take up the arts of summarizing and quoting what these others
have to say. Part 2 begins with a chapter on different ways of
responding, followed by chapters on marking the shift between
what “they say” and what “I say,” on introducing and answering
objections, and on answering the all-important questions: “so
what?” and “who cares?” Part 3 offers strategies for “Tying It All
Together,” beginning with a chapter on connection and coherence; followed by a chapter on academic language, encouraging
students to draw on their everyday voice as a tool for writing;
and including chapters on the art of metacommentary and using
templates to revise a text. Part 4 offers guidance for entering
conversations in specific academic contexts, with chapters on
entering class discussions, writing online, reading, and writing
in literature courses, the sciences, and social sciences. Finally,
we provide five readings and an index of templates.
what this book doesn’t do
There are some things that this book does not try to do. We do
not, for instance, cover logical principles of argument such as
syllogisms, warrants, logical fallacies, or the differences between
inductive and deductive reasoning. Although such concepts
can be useful, we believe most of us learn the ins and outs of
argumentative writing not by studying logical principles in the
abstract, but by plunging into actual discussions and debates,
trying out different patterns of response, and in this way getting
a sense of what works to persuade different audiences and what
xxii
Demystifying Academic Conversation
doesn’t. In our view, people learn more about arguing from
hearing someone say, “You miss my point. What I’m saying
is not
, but
,” or “I agree with you that
, and would even add that
,” than they do
from studying the differences between inductive and deductive
reasoning. Such formulas give students an immediate sense of
what it feels like to enter a public conversation in a way that
studying abstract warrants and logical fallacies does not.
engaging with the ideas of others
One central goal of this book is to demystify academic writing
by returning it to its social and conversational roots. Although
writing may require some degree of quiet and solitude, the “they
say / I say” model shows students that they can best develop
their arguments not just by looking inward but by doing what
they often do in a good conversation with friends and family—
by listening carefully to what others are saying and engaging
with other views.
This approach to writing therefore has an ethical dimension,
since it asks writers not simply to keep proving and reasserting
what they already believe, but to stretch what they believe by
putting it up against beliefs that differ, sometimes radically,
from their own. In an increasingly diverse, global society, this
ability to engage with the ideas of others is especially crucial
to democratic citizenship.
Gerald Graff
Cathy Birkenstein
xxiii
introduction
Entering the Conversation
H
Think about an activity that you do particularly well:
cooking, playing the piano, shooting a basketball, even something as basic as driving a car. If you reflect on this activity, you’ll
realize that once you mastered it you no longer had to give much
conscious thought to the various moves that go into doing it.
Performing this activity, in other words, depends on your having
learned a series of complicated moves—moves that may seem
mysterious or difficult to those who haven’t yet learned them.
The same applies to writing. Often without consciously realizing it, accomplished writers routinely rely on a stock of established moves that are crucial for communicating sophisticated
ideas. What makes writers masters of their trade is not only
their ability to express interesting thoughts but their mastery
of an inventory of basic moves that they probably picked up
by reading a wide range of other accomplished writers. Less
experienced writers, by contrast, are often unfamiliar with these
basic moves and unsure how to make them in their own writing.
Hence this book, which is intended as a short, user-friendly
guide to the basic moves of academic writing.
One of our key premises is that these basic moves are so
common that they can be represented in templates that you
can use right away to structure and even generate your own
1
INTRODUCTION
writing. Perhaps the most distinctive feature of this book is
its presentation of many such templates, designed to help you
successfully enter not only the world of academic thinking and
writing, but also the wider worlds of civic discourse and work.
Instead of focusing solely on abstract principles of writing,
then, this book offers model templates that help you put those
principles directly into practice. Working with these templates
will give you an immediate sense of how to engage in the kinds
of critical thinking you are required to do at the college level
and in the vocational and public spheres beyond.
Some of these templates represent simple but crucial moves
like those used to summarize some widely held belief.
j Many Americans assume that
.
Others are more complicated.
j On the one hand,
. On the other hand,
.
j Author X contradicts herself. At the same time that she argues
, she also implies
j I agree that
.
.
j This is not to say that
.
It is true, of course, that critical thinking and writing go deeper
than any set of linguistic formulas, requiring that you question
assumptions, develop strong claims, offer supporting reasons
and evidence, consider opposing arguments, and so on. But
these deeper habits of thought cannot be put into practice
unless you have a language for expressing them in clear, organized ways.
2
Entering the Conversation
state your own ideas as a
response to others
The single most important template that we focus on in this
book is the “they say
; I say
” formula that
gives our book its title. If there is any one point that we hope
you will take away from this book, it is the importance not only
of expressing your ideas (“I say”) but of presenting those ideas
as a response to some other person or group (“they say”). For us,
the underlying structure of effective academic writing—and of
responsible public discourse—resides not just in stating our own
ideas but in listening closely to others around us, summarizing
their views in a way that they will recognize, and responding
with our own ideas in kind. Broadly speaking, academic writing is argumentative writing, and we believe that to argue well
you need to do more than assert your own position. You need
to enter a conversation, using what others say (or might say)
as a launching pad or sounding board for your own views. For
this reason, one of the main pieces of advice in this book is to
write the voices of others into your text.
In our view, then, the best academic writing has one underlying feature: it is deeply engaged in some way with other people’s views. Too often, however, academic writing is taught as
a process of saying “true” or “smart” things in a vacuum, as if
it were possible to argue effectively without being in conversation with someone else. If you have been taught to write a
traditional five-paragraph essay, for example, you have learned
how to develop a thesis and support it with evidence. This is
good advice as far as it goes, but it leaves out the important
fact that in the real world we don’t make arguments without
being provoked. Instead, we make arguments because someone has said or done something (or perhaps not said or done
3
INTRODUCTION
something) and we need to respond: “I can’t see why you like
the Lakers so much”; “I agree: it was a great film”; “That argument is contradictory.” If it weren’t for other people and our
need to challenge, agree with, or otherwise respond to them,
there would be no reason to argue at all.
“why are you telling me this?”
To make an impact as a writer, then, you need to do more than
make statements that are logical, well supported, and consistent. You must also find a way of entering into conversation
with the views of others, with something “they say.” The easiest
and most common way writers do this is by summarizing what
others say and then using it to set up what they want to say.
“But why,” as a student of ours once asked, “do I always
need to summarize the views of others to set up my own view?
Why can’t I just state my own view and be done with it?”
Why indeed? After all, “they,” whoever they may be, will have
already had their say, so why do you have to repeat it? Furthermore, if they had their say in print, can’t readers just go and
read what was said themselves?
The answer is that if you don’t identify the “they say” you’re
responding to, your own argument probably won’t have a point.
Readers will wonder what prompted you to say what you’re saying and therefore motivated you to write. As the figure on the
following page suggests, without a “they say,” what you are saying
may be clear to your audience, but why you are saying it won’t be.
Even if we don’t know what film he’s referring to, it’s easy
to grasp what the speaker means here when he says that its
characters are very complex. But it’s hard to see why the speaker
feels the need to say what he is saying. “Why,” as one member
4
Entering the Conversation
of his imagined audience wonders, “is he telling us this?” So
the characters are complex—so what?
Now look at what happens to the same proposition when it
is presented as a response to something “they say”:
5
INTRODUCTION
We hope you agree that the same claim—“the characters
in the film are very complex”—becomes much stronger when
presented as a response to a contrary view: that the film’s characters “are sexist stereotypes.” Unlike the speaker in the first
cartoon, the speaker in the second has a clear goal or mission:
to correct what he sees as a mistaken characterization.
the as-opposed-to-what factor
To put our point another way, framing your “I say” as a response
to something “they say” gives your writing an element of contrast without which it won’t make sense. It may be helpful to
think of this crucial element as an “as-opposed-to-what factor”
and, as you write, to continually ask yourself, “Who says otherwise?” and “Does anyone dispute it?” Behind the audience’s
“Yeah, so?” and “Why is he telling us this?” in the first cartoon
above lie precisely these types of “As opposed to what?” questions. The speaker in the second cartoon, we think, is more
satisfying because he answers these questions, helping us see
his point that the film presents complex characters rather than
simple sexist stereotypes.
how it’s done
Many accomplished writers make explicit “they say” moves to
set up and motivate their own arguments. One famous example
is Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” which
consists almost entirely of King’s eloquent responses to a public
statement by eight clergymen deploring the civil rights protests
6
Entering the Conversation
he was leading. The letter—which was written in 1963, while
King was in prison for leading a demonstration against racial
injustice in Birmingham—is structured almost entirely around a
framework of summary and response, in which King summarizes
and then answers their criticisms. In one typical passage, King
writes as follows.
You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But
your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern
for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations.
Martin Luther King Jr., “Letter from Birmingham Jail”
King goes on to agree with his critics that “It is unfortunate that
demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham,” yet he hastens
to add that “it is even more unfortunate that the city’s white
power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.”
King’s letter is so thoroughly conversational, in fact, that it
could be rewritten in the form of a dialogue or play.
King’s critics:
King’s response:
Critics:
Response:
Clearly, King would not have written his famous letter were
it not for his critics, whose views he treats not as objections
to his already-formed arguments but as the motivating source
of those arguments, their central reason for being. He quotes
not only what his critics have said (“Some have asked: ‘Why
didn’t you give the new city administration time to act?’ ”), but
also things they might have said (“One may well ask: ‘How can
7
INTRODUCTION
you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?’ ”)—all
to set the stage for what he himself wants to say.
A similar “they say / I say” exchange opens an essay about
American patriotism by the social critic Katha Pollitt, who uses
her own daughter’s comment to represent the patriotic national
fervor after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
My daughter, who goes to Stuyvesant High School only blocks
from the former World Trade Center, thinks we should fly the
American flag out our window. Definitely not, I say: the flag stands
for jingoism and vengeance and war. She tells me I’m wrong—the
flag means standing together and honoring the dead and saying no
to terrorism. In a way we’re both right. . . .
Katha Pollitt, “Put Out No Flags”
As Pollitt’s example shows, the “they” you respond to in
crafting an argument need not be a famous author or someone
known to your audience. It can be a family member like
Pollitt’s daughter, or a friend or classmate who has made a
provocative claim. It can even be something an individual or
a group might say—or a side of yourself, something you once
believed but no longer do, or something you partly believe but
also doubt. The important thing is that the “they” (or “you” or
“she”) represent some wider group with which readers might
identify—in Pollitt’s case, those who patriotically believe in
flying the flag. Pollitt’s example also shows that responding to
the views of others need not always involve unqualiSee Chapter
4 for more
fied opposition. By agreeing and disagreeing with her
on agreeing,
daughter, Pollitt enacts what we call the “yes and no”
but with a
difference.
response, reconciling apparently incompatible views.
While King and Pollitt both identify the views they are
responding to, some authors do not explicitly state their views
8
Entering the Conversation
but instead allow the reader to infer them. See, for instance, if
you can identify the implied or unnamed “they say” that the
following claim is responding to.
I like to think I have a certain advantage as a teacher of literature
because when I was growing up I disliked and feared books.
Gerald Graff, “Disliking Books at an Early Age”
In case you haven’t figured it out already, the phantom “they
say” here is the common belief that in order to be a good
teacher of literature, one must have grown up liking and enjoying books.
court controversy, but . . .
As you can see from these examples, many writers use the “they
say / I say” format to challenge standard ways of thinking and
thus to stir up controversy. This point may come as a shock to
you if you have always had the impression that in order to succeed academically you need to play it safe and avoid controversy
in your writing, making statements that nobody can possibly
disagree with. Though this view of writing may appear logical,
it is actually a recipe for flat, lifeless writing and for writing that
fails to answer what we call the “so what?” and “who cares?”
questions. “William Shakespeare wrote many famous plays and
sonnets” may be a perfectly true statement, but precisely because
nobody is likely to disagree with it, it goes without saying and
thus would seem pointless if said.
But just because controversy is important doesn’t mean you
have to become an attack dog who automatically disagrees with
9
INTRODUCTION
everything others say. We think this is an important point to
underscore because some who are not familiar with this book
have gotten the impression from the title that our goal is to
train writers simply to disparage whatever “they say.”
disagreeing without being disagreeable
There certainly are occasions when strong critique is needed.
It’s hard to live in a deeply polarized society like our current one
and not feel the need at times to criticize what others think.
But even the most justified critiques fall flat, we submit, unless
we really listen to and understand the views we are criticizing:
j While I understand the impulse to
is
, my own view
.
Even the most sympathetic audiences, after all, tend to feel
manipulated by arguments that scapegoat and caricature the
other side.
Furthermore, genuinely listening to views we disagree with
can have the salutary effect of helping us see that beliefs we’d
initially disdained may not be as thoroughly reprehensible as
we’d imagined. Thus the type of “they say / I say” argument
that we promote in this book can take the form of agreeing up
to a point or, as the Pollitt example above illustrates, of both
agreeing and disagreeing simultaneously, as in:
j While I agree with X that
, I cannot accept her over-
all conclusion that
j While X argues
.
, and I argue
we’re both right.
10
, in a way
Entering the Conversation
Agreement cannot be ruled out, however:
j I agree with
that
.
the template of templates
There are many ways, then, to enter a conversation and respond
to what “they say.” But our discussion of ways to do so would
be incomplete were we not to mention the most comprehensive
way that writers enter conversations, which incorporates all the
major moves discussed in this book:
j In recent discussions of
, a controversial issue has
been whether
that
. On the one hand, some argue
. From this perspective,
. On the other
hand, however, others argue that
. In the words of
, one of this view’s main proponents, “
According to this view,
whether
. In sum, then, the issue is
or
.
My own view is that
. Though I concede that
, I still maintain that
. For example,
. Although some might object that
reply that
.”
. The issue is important because
, I would
.
This “template of templates,” as we like to call it, represents
the internal DNA of countless articles and even entire books.
Writers commonly use a version of it not only to stake out their
“they say” and “I say” at the start of their manuscript, but—just
as important—to form the overarching blueprint that structures
what they write over the entire length of their text.
11
INTRODUCTION
Taking it line by line, this master template first helps
you open your text by identifying an issue in some ongoing
conversation or debate (“In recent discussions of
,
a controversial issue has been
”), and then to map
some of the voices in this controversy (by using the “on the
one hand / on the other hand” structure). The template
then helps you introduce a quotation (“In the words of ”),
to explain the quotation in your own words (“According to
this view”), and—in a new paragraph—to state your own
argument (“My own view is that”), to qualify your argument (“Though I concede that”), and then to support your
argument with evidence (“For example”). In addition, the
template helps you make one of the most crucial moves in
argumentative writing, what we call “planting a naysayer in
your text,” in which you summarize and then answer a likely
objection to your own central claim (“Although it might
be objected that
, I reply
”). Finally,
this template helps you shift between general, over-arching
claims (“In sum, then”) and smaller-scale, supporting claims
(“For example”).
Again, none of us is born knowing these moves, especially
when it comes to academic writing. Hence the need for this
book.
but isn’t this plagiarism?
“But isn’t this plagiarism?” at least one student each year will
usually ask. “Well, is it?” we respond, turning the question
around into one the entire class can profit from. “We are, after
all, asking you to use language in your writing that isn’t your
12
Entering the Conversation
own—language that you ‘borrow’ or, to put it less delicately,
steal from other writers.”
Often, a lively discussion ensues that raises important
questions about authorial ownership and helps everyone
better understand the frequently confusing line between plagiarism and the legitimate use of what others say and how
they say it. Students are quick to see that no one person
owns a conventional formula like “on the one hand . . .
on the other hand. . . .” Phrases like “a controversial issue”
are so commonly used and recycled that they are generic—
community property that can be freely used without fear of
committing plagiarism. It is plagiarism, however, if the words
used to fill in the blanks of such formulas are borrowed from
others without proper acknowledgment. In sum, then, while
it is not plagiarism to recycle conventionally used formulas, it
is a serious academic offense to take the substantive content
from others’ texts without citing the author and giving him
or her proper credit.
“ok—but templates?”
Nevertheless, if you are like some of our students, your initial response to templates may be skepticism. At first, many
of our students complain that using templates will take away
their originality and creativity and make them all sound the
same. “They’ll turn us into writing robots,” one of our students
insisted. “I’m in college now,” another student asserted; “this
is third-grade-level stuff.”
In our view, however, the templates in this book, far from
being “third-grade-level stuff,” represent the stock-in-trade of
13
INTRODUCTION
sophisticated thinking and writing, and they often require a great
deal of practice and instruction to use successfully. As for the
belief that pre-established forms undermine creativity, we think
it rests on a very limited vision of what creativity is all about.
In our view, the templates in this book will actually help your
writing become more original and creative, not less. After all,
even the most creative forms of expression depend on established
patterns and structures. Most songwriters, for instance, rely on a
time-honored verse-chorus-verse pattern, and few people would
call Shakespeare uncreative because he didn’t invent the sonnet
or the dramatic forms that he used to such dazzling effect. Even
the most avant-garde, cutting-edge artists like improvisational
jazz musicians need to master the basic forms that their work
improvises on, departs from, and goes beyond, or else their work
will come across as uneducated child’s play. Ultimately, then,
creativity and originality lie not in the avoidance of established
forms but in the imaginative use of them.
Furthermore, these templates do not dictate the content of
what you say, which can be as original as you can make it, but
only suggest a way of formatting how you say it. In addition,
once you begin to feel comfortable with the templates in this
book, you will be able to improvise creatively on them to fit
new situations and purposes and find others in your reading.
In other words, the templates offered here are learning tools to
get you started, not structures set in stone. Once you get used
to using them, you can even dispense with them altogether,
for the rhetorical moves they model will be at your fingertips
in an unconscious, instinctive way.
But if you still need proof that writing templates need not
make you sound stiff and artificial, consider the following opening to an essay on the fast-food industry that we’ve included at
the back of this book.
14
Entering the Conversation
If ever there were a newspaper headline custom-made for Jay Leno’s
monologue, this was it. Kids taking on McDonald’s this week, suing
the company for making them fat. Isn’t that like middle-aged men
suing Porsche for making them get speeding tickets? Whatever
happened to personal responsibility?
I tend to sympathize with these portly fast-food patrons, though.
Maybe that’s because I used to be one of them.
David Zinczenko, “Don’t Blame the Eater”
Although Zinczenko relies on a version of the “they say / I
say” formula, his writing is anything but dry, robotic, or uncreative. While Zinczenko does not explicitly use the words
“they say” and “I say,” the template still gives the passage its
underlying structure: “They say that kids suing fast-food companies for making them fat is a joke; but I say such lawsuits
are justified.”
putting in your oar
Though the immediate goal of this book is to help you become a
better writer, at a deeper level it invites you to become a certain
type of person: a critical, intellectual thinker who, instead of sitting passively on the sidelines, can participate in the debates and
conversations of your world in an active and empowered way.
Ultimately, this book invites you to become a critical thinker
who can enter the types of conversations described eloquently
by the philosopher Kenneth Burke in the following widely cited
passage. Likening the world of intellectual exchange to a neverending conversation at a party, Burke writes:
You come late. When you arrive, others have long preceded you,
and they are engaged in a heated discussion, a discussion too heated
15
INTRODUCTION
for them to pause and tell you exactly what it is about. . . . 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. . . . The hour grows late, you must depart. And you do
depart, with the discussion still vigorously in progress.
Kenneth Burke, The Philosophy of Literary Form
What we like about this passage is its suggestion that stating an
argument (putting in your oar) can only be done in conversation with others; that entering the dynamic world of ideas must
be done not as isolated individuals but as social beings deeply
connected to others.
This ability to enter complex, many-sided conversations
has taken on a special urgency in today’s polarized, Red State /
Blue State America, where the future for all of us may depend
on our ability to put ourselves in the shoes of those who think
very differently from us. The central piece of advice in this
book—that we listen carefully to others, including those who
disagree with us, and then engage with them thoughtfully
and respectfully—can help us see beyond our own pet beliefs,
which may not be shared by everyone. The mere act of crafting a sentence that begins “Of course, someone might object
that
” may not seem like a way to change the world;
but it does have the potential to jog us out of our comfort
zones, to get us thinking critically about our own beliefs, and
even to change minds, our own included.
Exercises
1. Write a short essay in which you first summarize our rationale
for the templates in this book and then articulate your own
16
Entering the Conversation
position in response. If you want, you can use the template
below to organize your paragraphs, expanding and modifying
it as necessary to fit what you want to say.
In the Introduction to “They Say / I Say”: The Moves That Matter in
Academic Writing, Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein provide templates designed to
. Specifically, Graff and Birkenstein
argue that the types of writing templates they offer
the authors themselves put it, “
believe
, Graff and Birkenstein insist that
In sum, then, their view is that
. As
.” Although some people
.
.
I [agree/disagree/have mixed feelings]. In my view, the types
of templates that the authors recommend
instance,
. In addition,
of course, on the grounds that
that
. Yet I would argue
. Overall, then, I believe
point to make given
. For
. Some might object,
—an important
.
2. Read the following paragraph from an essay by Emily Poe, a
student at Furman University. Disregarding for the moment
what Poe says, focus your attention on the phrases she uses
to structure what she says (italicized here). Then write a new
paragraph using Poe’s as a model but replacing her topic,
vegetarianism, with one of your own.
The term “vegetarian” tends to be synonymous with “tree-hugger”
in many people’s minds. They see vegetarianism as a cult that
brainwashes its followers into eliminating an essential part of their
daily diets for an abstract goal of “animal welfare.” However, few
vegetarians choose their lifestyle just to follow the crowd. On the
contrary, many of these supposedly brainwashed people are actually independent thinkers, concerned citizens, and compassionate
human beings. For the truth is that there are many very good reasons
17
INTRODUCTION
for giving up meat. Perhaps the best reasons are to improve the
environment, to encourage humane treatment of livestock, or to
enhance one’s own health. In this essay, then, closely examining a
vegetarian diet as compared to a meat-eater’s diet will show that
vegetarianism is clearly the better option for sustaining the Earth
and all its inhabitants.
18
ONE
“they say”
Starting with What Others Are Saying
H
Not long ago we attended a talk at an academic conference
where the speaker’s central claim seemed to be that a certain
sociologist—call him Dr. X—had done very good work in a
number of areas of the discipline. The speaker proceeded to
illustrate his thesis by referring extensively and in great detail
to various books and articles by Dr. X and by quoting long passages from them. The speaker was obviously both learned and
impassioned, but as we listened to his talk we found ourselves
somewhat puzzled: the argument—that Dr. X’s work was very
important—was clear enough, but why did the speaker need to
make it in the first place? Did anyone dispute it? Were there
commentators in the field who had argued against X’s work or
challenged its value? Was the speaker’s interpretation of what
X had done somehow novel or revolutionary? Since the speaker
gave no hint of an answer to any of these questions, we could
only wonder why he was going on and on about X. It The hypo
thetical
was only after the speaker finished and took questions audience in
from the audience that we got a clue: in response to the figure on
p. 5 reacts
one questioner, he referred to several critics who had similarly.
19
one
“ T H E Y S AY ”
vigorously questioned Dr. X’s ideas and convinced many sociologists that Dr. X’s work was unsound.
This story illustrates an important lesson: that to give writing the most important thing of all—namely, a point—a writer
needs to indicate clearly not only what his or her thesis is,
but also what larger conversation that thesis is responding to.
Because our speaker failed to mention what others had said about
Dr. X’s work, he left his audience unsure about why he felt the
need to say what he was saying. Perhaps the point was clear to
other sociologists in the audience who were more familiar with
the debates over Dr. X’s work than we were. But even they, we
bet, would have understood the speaker’s point better if he’d
sketched in some of the larger conversation his own claims were
a part of and reminded the audience about what “they say.”
This story also illustrates an important lesson about the order
in which things are said: to keep an audience engaged, a writer
needs to explain what he or she is responding to—either before
offering that response or, at least, very early in the discussion.
Delaying this explanation for more than one or two paragraphs
in a very short essay or blog entry, three or four pages in a
longer work, or more than ten or so pages in a book reverses
the natural order in which readers process material—and in
which writers think and develop ideas. After all, it seems very
unlikely that our conference speaker first developed his defense
of Dr. X and only later came across Dr. X’s critics. As someone
knowledgeable in his field, the speaker surely encountered the
criticisms first and only then was compelled to respond and, as
he saw it, set the record straight.
Therefore, when it comes to constructing an argument
(whether orally or in writing), we offer you the following
advice: remember that you are entering a conversation and
therefore need to start with “what others are saying,” as the
20
Starting with What Others Are Saying
title of this chapter recommends, and then introduce your own
ideas as a response. Specifically, we suggest that you summarize
what “they say” as soon as you can in your text, and remind
readers of it at strategic points as your text unfolds. Though
it’s true that not all texts follow this practice, we think it’s
important for all writers to master it before they depart from it.
This is not to say that you must start with a detailed list of
everyone who has written on your subject before you offer your
own ideas. Had our conference speaker gone to the opposite
extreme and spent most of his talk summarizing Dr. X’s critics
with no hint of what he himself had to say, the audience probably
would have had the same frustrated “why-is-he-going-on-likethis?” reaction. What we suggest, then, is that as soon as possible
you state your own position and the one it’s responding to together,
and that you think of the two as a unit. It is generally best to
summarize the ideas you’re responding to briefly, at the start of
your text, and to delay detailed elaboration until later. The point
is to give your readers a quick preview of what is motivating your
argument, not to drown them in details right away.
Starting with a summary of others’ views may seem to contradict the common advice that writers should lead with their
own thesis or claim. Although we agree that you shouldn’t keep
readers in suspense too long about your central argument, we also
believe that you need to present that argument as part of some
larger conversation, indicating something about the arguments
of others that you are supporting, opposing, amending, complicating, or qualifying. One added benefit of summarizing others’
views as soon as you can: you let those others do some of the
work of framing and clarifying the issue you’re writing about.
Consider, for example, how George Orwell starts his famous
essay “Politics and the English Language” with what others are
saying.
21
one
“ T H E Y S AY ”
Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the
English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that
we cannot by conscious action do anything about it. Our civilization is decadent and our language—so the argument runs—must
inevitably share in the general collapse. . . .
[But] the process is reversible. Modern English . . . is full of
bad habits . . . which can be avoided if one is willing to take the
necessary trouble.
George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language”
Orwell is basically saying, “Most people assume that we cannot
do anything about the bad state of the English language. But
I say we can.”
Of course, there are many other powerful ways to begin.
Instead of opening with someone else’s views, you could start
with an illustrative quotation, a revealing fact or statistic, or—
as we do in this chapter—a relevant anecdote. If you choose
one of these formats, however, be sure that it in some way
illustrates the view you’re addressing or leads you to that view
directly, with a minimum of steps.
In opening this chapter, for example, we devote the first paragraph to an anecdote about the conference speaker and then
move quickly at the start of the second paragraph to the misconception about writing exemplified by the speaker. In the following opening, from an opinion piece in the New York Times Book
Review, Christina Nehring also moves quickly from an anecdote
illustrating something she dislikes to her own claim—that book
lovers think too highly of themselves.
“I’m a reader!” announced the yellow button. “How about you?” I
looked at its bearer, a strapping young guy stalking my town’s Festival
of Books. “I’ll bet you’re a reader,” he volunteered, as though we were
22
Starting with What Others Are Saying
two geniuses well met. “No,” I replied. “Absolutely not,” I wanted to
yell, and fling my Barnes & Noble bag at his feet. Instead, I mumbled
something apologetic and melted into the crowd.
There’s a new piety in the air: the self-congratulation of book
lovers.
Christina Nehring, “Books Make You a Boring Person”
Nehring’s anecdote is really a kind of “they say”: book lovers
keep telling themselves how great they are.
templates for introducing
what “they say”
There are lots of conventional ways to introduce what others
are saying. Here are some standard templates that we would
have recommended to our conference speaker.
j A number of sociologists have recently suggested that X’s work
has several fundamental problems.
j It has become common today to dismiss
.
j In their recent work, Y and Z have offered harsh critiques of
for
.
templates for introducing
“standard views”
The following templates can help you make what we call the
“standard view” move, in which you introduce a view that has
become so widely accepted that by now it is essentially the
conventional way of thinking about a topic.
23
one
“ T H E Y S AY ”
j
Americans have always believed that individual effort can
triumph over circumstances.
j Conventional wisdom has it that
.
j Common sense seems to dictate that
.
j The standard way of thinking about topic X has it that
j It is often said that
.
j My whole life I have heard it said that
j You would think that
.
.
.
j Many people assume that
.
These templates are popular because they provide a quick
and efficient way to perform one of the most common moves
that writers make: challenging widely accepted beliefs, placing
them on the examining table, and analyzing their strengths
and weaknesses.
templates for making what “they say”
something you say
Another way to introduce the views you’re responding to is
to present them as your own. That is, the “they say” that you
respond to need not be a view held by others; it can be one that
you yourself once held or one that you are ambivalent about.
j I’ve always believed that museums are boring.
j When I was a child, I used to think that
24
.
Starting with What Others Are Saying
j Although I should know better by now, I cannot help thinking
that
.
j
At the same time that I believe
, I also believe
.
templates for introducing
something implied or assumed
Another sophisticated move a writer can make is to summarize
a point that is not directly stated in what “they say” but is
implied or assumed.
j Although none of them have ever said so directly, my teachers
have often given me the impression that education will open doors.
j One implication of X’s treatment of
is that
.
j Although X does not say so directly, she apparently assumes
that
.
j
While they rarely admit as much,
granted that
often take for
.
These are templates that can help you think analytically—to
look beyond what others say explicitly and to consider their
unstated assumptions, as well as the implications of their views.
templates for introducing
an ongoing debate
Sometimes you’ll want to open by summarizing a debate
that presents two or more views. This kind of opening
25
one
“ T H E Y S AY ”
demonstrates your awareness that there are conflicting ways
to look at your subject, the clear mark of someone who knows
the subject and therefore is likely to be a reliable, trustworthy
guide. Furthermore, opening with a summary of a debate can
help you explore the issue you are writing about before declaring your own view. In this way, you can use the writing
process itself to help you discover where you stand instead of
having to commit to a position before you are ready to do so.
Here is a basic template for opening with a debate.
j In discussions of X, one controversial issue has been
On the one hand,
hand,
argues
.
. On the other
contends
. Others even maintain
. My own view is
.
The cognitive scientist Mark Aronoff uses this kind of template
in an essay on the workings of the human brain.
Theories of how the mind/brain works have been dominated
for centuries by two opposing views. One, rationalism, sees the
human mind as coming into this world more or less fully formed—
preprogrammed, in modern terms. The other, empiricism, sees the
mind of the newborn as largely unstructured, a blank slate.
Mark Aronoff, “Washington Sleeped Here”
A student writer, Michaela Cullington, uses a version of this
template near the beginning of an essay to frame a debate over
online writing abbreviations like “LOL” (“laughing out loud”)
and to indicate her own position in this debate.
Some people believe that using these abbreviations is hindering
the writing abilities of students, and others argue that texting is
26
Starting with What Others Are Saying
actually having a positive effect on writing. In fact, it seems likely
that texting has no significant effect on student writing.
Michaela Cullington, “Does Texting Affect Writing?”
Another way to open with a debate involves starting with a
proposition many p...
Purchase answer to see full
attachment