Photo source: Suzanne.
Gratefully adapted with a CC license from Flickr.
One of the best habits when researching a paper is to seek out scholarly quarrel. Engaging with arguments--especially those fraught with controversy or riven by opposing views--helps you gain a 3D perspective on a topic that, in turn, will strengthen your paper. Sometimes professors will assign a task like this as an assignment all its own. Whether that's true for you, or whether you're working on a paper, this page should help.
Assignments that ask you to identify and engage with a “critical debate” in a field, a “critical dispute,” or a similar term are asking for something different than most assignments you are used to. Rather than develop an argument about an issue and/or primary source using scholarly articles to support them, you must use scholarly criticism as your primary material, referring to the issue and/or primary sources at hand to back up your argument.
First, you must identify a disagreement within the existing scholarship on a given topic. Your source material should be scholarship published by accredited researchers in peer-reviewed journals and scholarly books. If your professor has specified (a) specific source(s) as a starting point, you should be sure to read them; they will probably lead you to a key point of contention in the field you are to write on.
Once you have found scholarly camps (and/or individual scholars) that disagree with each other, you must identify their key points of agreement and disagreement, as well as each camp’s central claims.
You must then construct an argument of your own that engages with the scholarship. It can favour one camp over another or it can argue that neither is adequate. Ultimately, however, you must come up with an argument that goes beyond summarizing what you have read. As a basis for this argument, you can identify biases and oversights in the current scholarship and/or theoretical issues and topics for further discussion that they raise but do not fully explore.
The kind of broad reading in a field required to identify and engage with a critical dispute will enlarge you knowledge about a topic, but it will also help you develop the following skills:
Information seeking: the ability to efficiently scan the available scholarship in order to identify relevant material and critical camps.
Critical reading: the ability to identify the central claims, aims, and intended audience of critical work, but also its biases, oversights, theoretical assumptions, etc. The ability to assess both the contributions of a given critical work/camp and the areas in which it may fall short.
Comparison: the ability to identify points of commonality and disagreement between scholarly sources and camps. The ability to understand academic scholarship not as a unified body of work, but as a conversation with internal divisions and disagreements.
Joining critical conversations: the ability to see scholarly work neither as merely opinion nor as inarguable truth, but rather as informed and supported arguments with their own potential biases, assumptions, and preoccupations. The ability to add your own voice to the conversation by using the oversights and/or implications of various camps as a jumping off point to propose an argument of your own.
Argumentation: the ability to develop, organize, and support a coherent central argument.
Photo source:El Bibliomata.
Gratefully adapted with a CC license from Flickr.
If your professor has given you specific readings to begin your search for a dispute, use them. If not, encyclopedia articles can be a good starting-point for locating a debate. Although they do not, themselves, constitute the kind of sources on which you must base your argument, reference material found through the topic search function on the UofT library website can provide a summary of key points of disagreement in a given field, as well as references for specific articles and books.
Once you have found some scholarly books and/or articles, it is crucial that you engage in critical reading, attending not only to what your sources are arguing, but also to how. An excellent resource for critical reading practices can be found on the UofT Writing website. For critical debate assignments, you should attend especially to points of agreement and disagreement between the critical camps and/or scholars you are addressing. Often these camps will acknowledge each other’s contributions, even when they are otherwise very much at odds. Key words and phrases to look for include:
Agreement: |
Contribution | Insight | |
Valid point | Achievement | ||
Disagreement |
Quarrel | Objection | Falls short |
Overlooks | Does not consider | Neglects |
Once you have identified the dispute, you must be able to quickly and effectively summarize it to set the stage for your more involved and developed argument. In order to do so, you must be able to identify what each camp and or/scholar:
Agrees with or praises about the other critical camp/scholar
Criticizes or disagrees with about the other camp/scholar
Argues instead
When you have done so, you can efficiently summarize each camp’s position using a structure similar to what follows:
“[Camp/scholar A] praises [camp/scholar B] for the insight that [object of praise]; however he/she/ it contends that [camp/scholar B] falls short insofar as it neglects [point of criticism]. Ultimately, [camp/scholar A] maintains that it is necessary to consider [camp/scholar A’s primary claim] in order to understand [issue or topic].
Two main kinds of argument are most likely in critical debate assignments. Argument 1 mostly agrees with one camp and disagrees with the other. Argument 2 claims that they both fall short. Either way, you must do more than simply summarize the scholarly work—a more challenging task in Argument 1. You can use the biases, assumptions and/or oversights and/or implications and/or topics for further study that have not be fully explored as the basis of your argument. The former are usually most relevant to Argument 2, while the latter are generally most important for Argument 1. The resource on writing article critiques, found here on the UofT Writing website , might prove helpful for locating biases and implications. Your arguments will probably employ structures similar to what follows:
Argument 1: “[Camp A] remedies the shortcomings of [camp B, specify shortcoming] by proposing [camp A’s primary claim] as a method for understanding [issue]. [Camp A]’s arguments raise interesting questions of [unexplored implications] without fully developing them. Exploring [implication in relation to issue], extends [camp A]’s insights, providing a more nuanced understanding of [issue] [specify how].”
Argument 2: “Both [camp A] and [camp B] assert that [point of agreement] is key to understanding [issue]; however, neither camp offers a comprehensive grasp of [issue], [camp A] in prioritizing [camp A’s bias or assumption] and [camp B] in prioritizing [camp B’s bias or assumption]. Ultimately, neither critical camp is able to enact the [what, according to you, would remedy both their shortcomings] necessary for providing a balanced account of [the issue].
Don't get stuck in a swamp!
Photo source: Yortw.
Gratefully adapted with a CC license from Flickr.
Ask why you're opening a book or scholarly article in the first place. You want something--but what? If you're not sure, there's a good chance that book or article will suck you in like a swamp and keep you stuck for hours. That's because you're letting your sources take charge. Once you wade in, it's their world, their time, their rules. Don't let that happen! Instead, venture with purpose.
You may have a thesis statement, you may have a research question, or you may just have a basic topic. All these can help you decide:
What kind of information you want. For example:
Factual evidence
Opinion
Overview
What kind of source you need. For example:
Quantitative studies
Scholarly articles
Government reports
Personal letters
Books
Once you've been to the library and brought home books and scholarly articles, you'll need to decide what's worth reading closely. Skimming and scanning can help with this selection. Scanning means glancing quickly and strategically for a specific word, or series of words. Skimming also means glancing quickly and strategically--not for specific words but for general meaning.
Everyone should have more than one way to read. Steve Hoselton focuses on two methods that help you read (and feel more relaxed) under pressure.
Scanning helps you figure out if a chapter may relate to your essay topic, whereas skimming gives you the gist of a reading you're covering in class tomorrow. Rather than reading every word, or flipping unproductively through a book or article, use scanning and skimming to stand back, either to suss a text's relevance (in the case of scanning) or its general gist (in the case of skimming). To do that, you pick up a book chapter or article and quickly glance through it for gist or relevance. Focus on:
Tables of Contents
Indexes
Chapter headings
First and last paragraphs of chapters or articles
First sentences of paragraphs
Diagrams, charts, and tables
In an argumentative paragraph, details support an argument; in a descriptive paragraph, details round out a general topic. In both cases, the writing has a purpose called the gist or main idea. In short, the main idea is the essence of what any communication is about. Think of a keystone at the top of an archway that holds the other stones in place. That's what a main idea does.
Take, for example, the argument pollution is bad. This statement is a main idea; but facts about the deaths of seabirds from a Gulf of Mexico oilslick and respiratory illnesses due to smog pollution in Los Angeles are details that support this main idea.
Voltaire, paraphrased.
Trafalgar Square, London, 2006.
Photo source: Andrew Wales.
Gratefully adapted with a CC license from Flickr.
Putting other people’s thoughts in your own words is essential to success at university. It helps you understand others’ ideas, it helps you ponder and critique them, and it helps you integrate them into your own work. Shuffling the words an author uses and substituting a few synonyms may give your sentences the appearance of paraphrase but they often expose a lack of understanding. Paraphrasing means rephrasing entirely—so what you’ve read is clear, both in your mind and on paper.
Understanding is key. Grasp a text's ideas well enough and they naturally sprout an independent life, both in your brain and on your keyboard.
Here are 8 steps that may help.
1. Read the original text carefully:
To focus on the chimera of anthropological greenhouse warming while ignoring real threats posed by natural variability of the climate system is self-delusion on a grand scale1.
2. Read it again till you feel you really understand it.
3. Hide the text away so you can’t see it.
4. Sit back and think about what you’ve read—in particular, figure out:
what the gist (or main idea) is;
what details the author uses to support this idea.
what you NEED from this source—and what it has to do with your assignment.
5. State the main idea to yourself out loud. Don’t worry yet if you ramble at first, or if your interpretation is simplistic. Better a simple interpretation that means something to you than a complex one you haven’t grasped.
6. Write down what you said out loud. Revise a few times. Then go back to the original text to see if you’ve given an accurate account. Here’s a sample paraphrase of the text in step #1:
Many scientists, Kininmonth argues, blame people for climate change2. But focusing on only human causes, he says, leads researchers to neglect other explanations for the crisis such as natural climate variation3.
7. Switching from talking aloud to writing thoughts down can be challenging. If that happens to you, try a voice recorder. Many smart phones have one.
8. As with quotations, when you paraphrase you must always cite your source.
1. William Kininmonth, Climate Change: A Natural Hazard (Brentwood, UK: Multi-Science Publishing, 2004), 10.
2. Kininmonth, 10.
3. Ibid.
Photo sources: Caroline (miniature steam engine) and John Ward (Flying Scotsman).
Gratefully adapted with CC licenses from Flickr.
Like paraphrasing, summarizing means expressing someone else's thoughts in your own words. But whereas paraphrasing generally matches the length of the original text, a summary is a snapshot of the essence of the original. It's brief and concise.
Summarizing is crucial in research essays. Sure, your main focus is building an argument from your thesis statement. But to develop what you argue you'll need to summarize--and then comment on--what others say. The brief guide below introduces how to summarize a scholarly paragraph on the Crusades.
Annotated Bibliographies . . . A Snapshot of Key Sources
Vintage camera.
Gratefully adapted with a CC license from Wikimedia.Annotated bibliographies are highly prized. Not only do they offer readers lists of sources to examine but they also give clear summaries of each source's argument, its evidence, and its scholarly heft.
Finding these bibliographic luxuries is a treat for any scholar. But creating them is handy too. Anyone can find books and articles and list them; not everyone can sift through complex sources and pinpoint the central arguments of each.
Learning to annotate your sources--before you've even started writing your paper or drafting a thesis statement--keeps procrastination in check, boosts reading and thinking, and gives you confidence in analyzing some of your topic's central ideas.
Annotations consist of 2 main things:
Summarize a source’s main argument / idea as concisely as possible. If you can, briefly explain how the author supports this argument.
Evaluate the source’s value / relevance / distinctive contribution.
What They Are
Sample Annotations
An annotated bibliography is an organised list of sources each of which is followed by a critical summary or description of the item.
reviews the literature on a particular subject
illustrates the quality of research that you have done
provides examples of the types of sources available
describes other items on a topic that may be of interest to the reader
explores the subject for further research
informed library research
concise expression
succinct analysis
bibliographical citations which are accurate and formatted correctly
annotations which are both descriptive and critical and which show any relationships between different works cited
an appropriate selection of items
describe the content (focus) of the item
describe the usefulness of the item
discuss any limitations that the item may have, e.g. relevance, timeliness etc.
describe what audience the item is intended for
evaluate the methods (research) used in the item
evaluate reliability of the item
compare or contrast this work with another you have cited
discuss the author’s background and authority
discuss any conclusions the author(s) may have made
explain how this work illuminates your bibliography topic
describe your reaction to the item
Chevedden, P. E. (2013). Crusade Creationism versus Pope Urban II 's Conceptualization of the Crusades. The Historian. 75 (1), 1-46. doi: 10.1111/hisn.12000
Paul Chevedden’s article attacks what he calls the “creationist” trend among historians of the crusades such as Norman Housley and Jonathan Riley-Smith. These historians, Chevedden says, argue the crusades were either created entirely by Pope Urban II or were caused by a list of fixed forces such as holy war, penitence, and Papal support. In truth, Chevedden says, the crusades were spawned by a medley of largely unrelated forces and private motives. What linked these expeditions together, he argues, was the common goal of claiming the Mediterranean from Muslim forces.
Chevedden differs from Housley and other historians in his focus on general intention rather than cause. Like Housley, Chevedden offers an overview of historical approaches to the crusades. His focus, however, is on “creationist” historians and his intention is not to report these views so much as expose their flaws. In the case of Housley, this approach sometimes leads Chevedden astray. He castigates him for pinpointing the bias inherent in medieval writings and asserts it is unfair to expect medieval laypeople to be historians. Housley’s comments, however, were merely exploring the difficulties inherent in using contemporary accounts to make sense of history.
Housley, N. (2006). Contesting the Crusades. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Explaining the crusades is tricky, Norman Housley says, partly because each crusade was different and partly because new crusaders took part for different reasons and in different ways than their ancestors. Housley argues, however, that in spite of crusaders joining up for often unrelated and personal reasons, these various crusades were prompted by a series of common socio-political shifts: economic, domestic, religious, and military.
Housley’s book differs from others on the subject by focusing on the voices of medieval laypeople. While valuing the importance of their first-hand accounts to understanding the crusades, he explores key limitations of these accounts, including the widespread conviction that capturing Jerusalem had been ordained by God, and the intention behind many writers to incite others to fight rather than inform them about events.
Photo source: Jon Collier
Gratefully adapted with a CC license from Flickr.
When you are asked to write an essay that creates an argument, your reader will probably expect a clear statement of your position. This statement is called a thesis statement. Typically, this summary statement comes in the first paragraph of the essay, though there is no rigid rule about its position.
There are no set rules, since every professor sets assignments differently, but many will use these kinds of words - illustrate analyze explain evaluate compare and/or contrast discuss show interpret reflect. These words ask you for an ARGUMENT that shows how your reading is put together, how it works - and it will determine what kind of thesis statement you write.
It is - a process of sharing knowledge, presented so that others can test your claims and reasoning, a way for others to determine whether they agree with what you think. In other words, it is like a conversation with someone interested in your claims but not necessarily convinced by them.
Your thesis statement is a way of presenting your argument to the reader… think of it as a roadmap or contract.
A one or two sentence statement that:
explicitly outlines the purpose or point of your essay
points toward the course of argument your essay will take
contains an arguable point (NOT an observation or fact)
Think of your thesis as having two parts:
a claim: makes specific argumentative points rather than sweeping general statements
a strategy for proving that claim: indicates a theoretical basis and promise of substantial support
The CLAIM of the Thesis:
Answers a question of “who, what, where or when”
Offers something the reader can argue against (for example, reader can respond by saying “no, I don’t agree”)
Is of limited value; only a starting point for the thesis
The STRATEGY of the Thesis:
Explains “how” or “why” you will develop your argument
Can ‘indirectly’ or ‘directly’ indicate your argumentative strategy
Compels you to be interpretive
Weak
Moderate
Strong
(Shows Interpretation)
1. It makes a definite and limited assertion that needs to be explained and supported by further discussion:
David Malouf's An Imaginary Life is a great Australian novel
In his novel An Imaginary Life, David Malouf develops a contrast between a witty Roman poet and a wild child he meets in a primitive colony by the Black Sea.
In his novel An Imaginary Life, David Malouf, in developing a contrast between an urbane Roman poet and a wild speechless child, emphasizes the importance of language in forging a connection to others and the world.
Vague
Specific
(Shows Strategy)
2. It shows the emphasis and indicates the methodology of your argument:
The First World War was caused by political alliances and treaties.
The origins of the First World War lay in the alliances of Serbia with Russia and France, Germany with Austro-Hungary, and Britain with Belgium.
Sweeping, vague
Complex
(Considers arguments)
3. It shows awareness of difficulties and disagreement:
Having an official policy on euthanasia just causes problems, as the Dutch example shows.
Dutch laws on euthanasia have been rightly praised for their attention to the principles of self-determination. Recent cases, however, show that they have not been able to deal adequately with issues involving technological intervention of unconscious patients. Hamarckian strategies can solve at least the question of assignation of rights.
Is the thesis statement the same as the research question?
No. They are related, but not interchangeable. The research question is the first step. It focuses your research on a significant issue, controversy or contradiction, but does not necessarily make a claim.
Does the thesis statement have to come at the end of the first paragraph?
No. This is the conventional place for a statement of focus, but it is not the only one. Some thesis statements can be made in the opening sentences of an essay. Other papers need more than one paragraph for an introduction.
Can the thesis statement contain more than one sentence?
Yes. Clear, concise writing is the most important rule of thumb, but a complex argument might require more than one sentence.
Must the thesis statement have a three part structure?
No. It should show that the essay will discuss and support its argument, but does not need a specific number of points. Use as many or as few points as you need to present a suitably complex and clear argument.
Can a thesis statement use the first person (“I”)?
Yes. Some arguments are explicitly opinions and personal speculations, while others are presented in a more objective, neutral way. Whether you use the first person or not will often depend upon the type of essay you are writing. As long as your argument is grounded in evidence and analysis, you need not be too concerned about using the “I.” When in doubt, ask your professor or TA!
What if my argument is tentative? Can I revise my thesis statement later?
Yes. Sometimes when we start to write we have a tentative claim or hypothesis. It is not set in stone. Your thesis statement can evolve as you do your research or as you think through your ideas in the writing process. You can always refine your thesis statement once you have finished your draft to reflect the complexities of your argument.
Does your thesis show depth of thought or is it mainly descriptive?
Does the thesis present an argument and is it worded as an argument?
Is the thesis debatable? Can someone contest your claim?
Does the thesis answer the “so what” question?
Does the thesis address the assigned question?