Chat with us, powered by LiveChat Please make sure that it is your work and not copy and paste off of someone else work or article. Pl | Max paper
  

Please make sure that it is your work and not copy and paste off of someone else work or article. Please make sure that you watch out for spelling errors and grammar errors. Please read the study guide. Please use the APA 7th edition.

Book Reference: Greene, S., & Lidinsky, A. (2018). From inquiry to academic writing: A practical guide (4th ed.). Bedford/St. Martin’s. https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781319071677 

 

Instructions
Analyzing Claims

Select an article from a peer-reviewed journal in your domain to analyze and annotate the claims. The article should be academically reliable from within the last 5 years.Adhere to APA Style when creating citations and references for this assignment. APA formatting, however, is not necessary.

Resources

The following resource(s) may help you with this assignment.

3From Writing Summaries and Paraphrases to Writing Yourself into Academic Conversations

Reading like a writer and writing like a reader help you understand how texts work rhetorically. When you start to use those texts to build your own arguments, there are certain strategies for working with the words and ideas of others that you will have to learn. Often you can quote the words of an author directly; but just as often you will restate (paraphrase) and condense (summarize) the arguments of others to educate your reader about the issues in a particular academic conversation. Indeed, many academic essays begin with a literature review — a roundup that summarizes important arguments and perspectives in such a conversation — as a prelude to the writer setting forth his or her own arguments on an issue. In this chapter, we will present methods of paraphrase and summary. Learning to paraphrase and summarize helps you understand texts and convey that understanding to other participants in the conversation.

SUMMARIES, PARAPHRASES, AND QUOTATIONS

In contrast to quotations, which involve using another writer’s exact words, paraphrases and summaries are both restatements of another writer’s ideas in your own words, but they differ in length and scope:

· A paraphrase is frequently about the same length as the original passage.

· A summary generally condenses a significantly longer text, conveying the argument not only of a few sentences but also of entire paragraphs, essays, or books.

In your own writing, you might paraphrase a few sentences or even a few paragraphs, but you certainly would not paraphrase a whole essay (much less a whole book). In constructing your arguments, however, you will often have to summarize the main points of the lengthy texts with which you are in conversation.

Both paraphrasing and summarizing are means to inquiry. That is, the act of recasting someone else’s words or ideas into your own language, to suit your argument and reach your readers, forces you to think critically: What does this passage really mean? What is most important about it for my argument? How can I best present it to my readers? It requires making choices, not least of which is determining the best way to present the information — through paraphrase, summary, or direct quotation. In general, the following rules apply:

· Paraphrase when all the information in the passage is important, but the language is not key to your discussion, or if it may be difficult for your readers to understand.

· Summarize when you need to present only the key ideas of a passage (or an essay or a book) to advance your argument.

· Quote when the passage is so effective — so clear, so concise, so authoritative, so memorable — that you would be hard-pressed to improve on it.

WRITING A PARAPHRASE

paraphrase is a restatement of all the information in a passage in your own words, using your own sentence structure and composed with your own audience in mind to advance your argument.

· When you paraphrase a passage, start by identifying key words and phrases, and think of other ways to state them. You may have to reread what led up to the passage to remind yourself of the context. For example, did the writer define terms earlier that he or she uses in the passage and now expects you to know?

· Continue by experimenting with word order and sentence structure, combining and recombining phrases to convey what the writer says without replicating his or her style. As you consider how best to state the writer’s idea in your own words, you should come to a much better understanding of what the writer is saying. By thinking critically, then, you are clarifying the passage for yourself as much as for your readers.

Let’s look at a paraphrase of a passage from science fiction writer and scholar James Gunn’s essay “Harry Potter as Schooldays Novel”i:

ORIGINAL PASSAGE

The situation and portrayal of Harry as an ordinary child with an extraordinary talent make him interesting. He elicits our sympathy at every turn. He plays a Cinderella-like role as the abused child of mean-spirited foster parents who favor other, less-worthy children, and also fits another fantasy role, that of changeling. Millions of children have nursed the notion that they cannot be the offspring of such unremarkable parents; in the Harry Potter books, the metaphor is often literal truth.

PARAPHRASE

According to James Gunn, the circumstances and depiction of Harry Potter as a normal boy with special abilities captivate us by playing on our empathy. Gunn observes that, like Cinderella, Harry is scorned by his guardians, who treat him far worse than they treat his less-admirable peers. And like another fairy-tale figure, the changeling, Harry embodies the fantasies of children who refuse to believe that they were born of their undistinguished parents (146).

In this paraphrase, the writer uses his own words to express key terms (circumstances and depiction for “situation and portrayal,” guardians for “foster parents”) and rearranges the structure of the original sentences. But the paraphrase is about the same length as the original and says essentially the same things as Gunn’s original.

Now, compare the paraphrase with this summary:

SUMMARY

James Gunn observes that Harry Potter’s character is compelling because readers empathize with Harry’s fairy tale–like plight as an orphan whose gifts are ignored by his foster parents (146).

The summary condenses the passage, conveying Gunn’s main point without restating the details. Notice how both the paraphrase and the summary indicate that the ideas are James Gunn’s, not the writer’s — “According to James Gunn,” “James Gunn observes” — and signal, with page references, where Gunn’s ideas end. It is essential that you acknowledge your sources, a subject we come back to in our discussion of plagiarism on page 228. The point we want to make here is that borrowing from the work of others is not always intentional. Many students stumble into plagiarism, especially when they are attempting to paraphrase. Remember that it’s not enough to change the words in a paraphrase; you must also change the structure of the sentences and cite your source.

You may be wondering: “If paraphrasing is so tricky, why bother? What does it add? I can see how the summary of Gunn’s paragraph presents information more concisely and efficiently than the original, but the paraphrase doesn’t seem to be all that different from the source and doesn’t seem to add anything to it. Why not simply quote the original or summarize it?”

Good questions. The answer is that you paraphrase when the ideas in a passage are important but the language is not key to your discussion or it may be difficult for readers to understand. When academics write for their peers, they draw on the specialized vocabulary of their disciplines to make their arguments. By paraphrasing, you may be helping your readers, providing a translation of sorts for those who do not speak the language.

Consider this paragraph by George Lipsitz from his academic book Time Passages: Collective Memory and American Popular Culture (1990), and compare the paraphrase that follows it:

ORIGINAL PASSAGE

The transformations in behavior and collective memory fueled by the contradictions of the nineteenth century have passed through three major stages in the United States. The first involved the establishment and codification of commercialized leisure from the invention of the telegraph to the 1890s. The second involved the transition from Victorian to consumer-hedonist values between 1890 and 1945. The third and most important stage, from World War II to the present, involved extraordinary expansion in both the distribution of consumer purchasing power and in both the reach and scope of electronic mass media. The dislocations of urban renewal, suburbanization, and deindustrialization accelerated the demise of tradition in America, while the worldwide pace of change undermined stability elsewhere. The period from World War II to the present marks the final triumph of commercialized leisure, and with it an augmented crisis over the loss of connection to the past.

PARAPHRASE

Historian George Lipsitz argues that Americans’ sense of the past is rooted in cultural changes dating from the 1800s and has evolved through three stages. In the first stage, technological innovations of the nineteenth century gave rise to widespread commercial entertainment. In the second stage, dating from the 1890s to about 1945, attitudes toward the consumption of goods and services changed. Since 1945, in the third stage, increased consumer spending and the growth of the mass media have led to a crisis in which Americans find themselves cut off from their traditions and the memories that give meaning to them (12).

Notice that the paraphrase is not a word-for-word translation of the original. Instead, the writer has made choices that resulted in a slightly briefer and more accessible restatement of Lipsitz’s thinking. (Although this paraphrase is shorter than the original passage, a paraphrase can also be a little longer than the original if extra words are needed to help readers understand the original.)

Notice too that several specialized terms and phrases from the original passage — the “codification of commercialized leisure,” “the transition from Victorian to consumer-hedonist values,” “the dislocations of urban renewal, suburbanization, and deindustrialization” — have disappeared. The writer not only looked up these terms and phrases in the dictionary but also reread the several pages that preceded the original passage to understand what Lipsitz meant by them.

The paraphrase is not meant to be an improvement on the original passage — in fact, historians would most likely prefer what Lipsitz wrote — but it may help readers who do not share Lipsitz’s expertise understand his point without distorting his argument.

Now compare this summary to the paraphrase:

SUMMARY

Historian George Lipsitz argues that technological, social, and economic changes dating from the nineteenth century have culminated in what he calls a “crisis over the loss of connection to the past,” in which Americans find themselves cut off from the memories of their traditions (12).

Which is better, the paraphrase or the summary? Neither is better or worse in and of itself. Their correctness and appropriateness depend on how the restatements are used in a given argument. That is, the decision to paraphrase or summarize depends entirely on the information you need to convey. Would the details in the paraphrase strengthen your argument? Or is a summary sufficient? In this case, if you plan to focus your argument on the causes of America’s loss of cultural memory (the rise of commercial entertainment, changes in spending habits, globalization), then a paraphrase might be more helpful. But if you plan to define loss of cultural memory, then a summary may provide enough context for the next stage of your argument.

Steps to Writing a Paraphrase

1. Decide whether to paraphrase. If your readers don’t need all the information in the passage, consider summarizing it or presenting the key points as part of a summary of a longer passage. If a passage is clear, concise, and memorable as originally written, consider quoting instead of paraphrasing. Otherwise, and especially if the original was written for an academic audience, you may want to paraphrase the original to make its substance more accessible to your readers.

2. Understand the passage. Start by identifying key words, phrases, and ideas. If necessary, reread the pages leading up to the passage, to place it in context.

3. Draft your paraphrase. Replace key words and phrases with synonyms and alternative phrases (possibly gleaned from the context provided by the surrounding text). Experiment with word order and sentence structure until the paraphrase captures your understanding of the passage, in your own language, for your readers.

4. Acknowledge your source. Protect yourself from a charge of plagiarism and give credit for ideas you borrow.

A Practice Sequence: Writing a Paraphrase

1. In one of the sources you’ve located in your research, find a sentence of some length and complexity, and paraphrase it. Share the original and your paraphrase of it with a classmate, and discuss the effectiveness of your restatement. Is the meaning clear to your reader? Is the paraphrase written in your own language, using your own sentence structure?

2. Repeat the activity using a short paragraph from the same source. You and your classmate may want to attempt to paraphrase the same paragraph and then compare results. What differences do you detect?

WRITING A SUMMARY

As you have seen, a summary condenses a body of information, presenting the key ideas and acknowledging the source. A common activity or assignment in a composition class is to summarize a text. You may be asked to read a text, reduce it to its main points, and convey them, without any details or examples, in a written summary. The goal of this assignment is to sharpen your reading and thinking skills as you learn to distinguish between main ideas and supporting details. Being able to distill information in this manner is crucial to critical thinking.

However, summarizing is not an active way to make an argument. While summaries do provide a common ground of information for your readers, you must shape that information to support the purposes of your researched argument with details that clarify, illustrate, or support their main ideas for your readers.

We suggest a method of summarizing that involves

1. describing the author’s key claims,

2. selecting examples to illustrate the author’s argument,

3. presenting the gist of the author’s argument, and

4. contextualizing what you summarize.

We demonstrate these steps for writing a summary following Clive Thompson’s article “On the New Literacy.”

CLIVE THOMPSON

On the New Literacy

A print journalist at New York Magazine, Clive Thompson started his blog, Collision Detection, in September 2002, when he was beginning his year as a Knight Fellow in Science Journalism at MIT. Collision Detection has become one of the most well-regarded blogs on technology and culture. The blog receives approximately 3,000 to 4,000 hits a day. His piece on literacy appeared in Wired magazine in 2009.

As the school year begins, be ready to hear pundits fretting once again about how kids today can’t write — and technology is to blame. Facebook encourages narcissistic blabbering, video and PowerPoint have replaced carefully crafted essays, and texting has dehydrated language into “bleak, bald, sad shorthand” (as University College of London English professor John Sutherland has moaned). An age of illiteracy is at hand, right?

Andrea Lunsford isn’t so sure. Lunsford is a professor of writing and rhetoric at Stanford University, where she has organized a mammoth project called the Stanford Study of Writing to scrutinize college students’ prose. From 2001 to 2006, she collected 14,672 student writing samples — everything from in-class assignments, formal essays, and journal entries to e-mails, blog posts, and chat sessions. Her conclusions are stirring.

“I think we’re in the midst of a literacy revolution the likes of which we haven’t seen since Greek civilization,” she says. For Lunsford, technology isn’t killing our ability to write. It’s reviving it — and pushing our literacy in bold new directions.

The first thing she found is that young people today write far more than any generation before them. That’s because so much socializing takes place online, and it almost always involves text. Of all the writing that the Stanford students did, a stunning 38 percent of it took place out of the classroom — life writing, as Lunsford calls it. Those Twitter updates and lists of 25 things about yourself add up.

It’s almost hard to remember how big a paradigm shift this is. Before the Internet came along, most Americans never wrote anything, ever, that wasn’t a school assignment. Unless they got a job that required producing text (like in law, advertising, or media), they’d leave school and virtually never construct a paragraph again.

But is this explosion of prose good, on a technical level? Yes. Lunsford’s team found that the students were remarkably adept at what rhetoricians call kairos — assessing their audience and adapting their tone and technique to best get their point across. The modern world of online writing, particularly in chat and on discussion threads, is conversational and public, which makes it closer to the Greek tradition of argument than the asynchronous letter and essay writing of 50 years ago.

The fact that students today almost always write for an audience (something virtually no one in my generation did) gives them a different sense of what constitutes good writing. In interviews, they defined good prose as something that had an effect on the world. For them, writing is about persuading and organizing and debating, even if it’s over something as quotidian as what movie to go see. The Stanford students were almost always less enthusiastic about their in-class writing because it had no audience but the professor: It didn’t serve any purpose other than to get them a grade. As for those texting short-forms and smileys defiling serious academic writing? Another myth. When Lunsford examined the work of first-year students, she didn’t find a single example of texting speak in an academic paper.

Of course, good teaching is always going to be crucial, as is the mastering of formal academic prose. But it’s also becoming clear that online media are pushing literacy into cool directions. The brevity of texting and status updating teaches young people to deploy haiku-like concision. At the same time, the proliferation of new forms of online pop-cultural exegesis — from sprawling TV-show recaps to 15,000-word videogame walkthroughs — has given them a chance to write enormously long and complex pieces of prose, often while working collaboratively with others.

We think of writing as either good or bad. What today’s young people know is that knowing who you’re writing for and why you’re writing might be the most crucial factor of all.

◼ Describe the Key Claims of the Text

As you read through a text with the purpose of summarizing it, you want to identify how the writer develops his or her argument. You can do this by what we call “chunking,” grouping related material together into the argument’s key claims. Here are two strategies to try.

Notice how paragraphs begin and end.

 

Often, focusing on the first and last sentences of paragraphs will alert you to the shape and direction of an author’s argument. It is especially helpful if the paragraphs are lengthy and full of supporting information, as much academic writing is.

Because of his particular journalistic forum, Wired magazine, the paragraphs Thompson writes are generally rather short, but it’s still worth taking a closer look at the first and last sentences of his opening paragraphs:


Paragraph 1

: As the school year begins, be ready to hear pundits fretting once again about how kids today can’t write — and technology is to blame. Facebook encourages narcissistic blabbering, video and PowerPoint have replaced carefully crafted essays, and texting has dehydrated language into “bleak, bald, sad shorthand” (as University College of London English professor John Sutherland has moaned). An age of illiteracy is at hand, right?


Paragraph 2

: Andrea Lunsford isn’t so sure. Lunsford is a professor of writing and rhetoric at Stanford University, where she has organized a mammoth project called the Stanford Study of Writing to scrutinize college students’ prose. From 2001 to 2006, she collected 14,672 student writing samples — everything from in-class assignments, formal essays, and journal entries to e-mails, blog posts, and chat sessions. Her conclusions are stirring.

Right away you can see that Thompson has introduced a topic in each paragraph — pundits’ criticism of students’ use of electronic media in the first, and a national study designed to examine students’ literacy in the second — and has indicated a connection between them. In fact, Thompson is explicit in doing so. He asks a question at the end of the first paragraph and then raises doubts as to the legitimacy of critics’ denunciation of young people’s reliance on blogs and posts to communicate. How will Thompson elaborate on this connection? What major points does he develop?

Notice the author’s point of view and use of transitions.

 

Another strategy for identifying major points is to pay attention to descriptive words and transitions. For example, Thompson uses a rhetorical question (“An age of illiteracy is at hand, right?”) and then offers a tentative answer (“Andrea Lunsford isn’t so sure”) that places some doubt in readers’ minds.

Notice, too, the words that Thompson uses to characterize the argument in the first paragraph, which he appears to challenge in the second paragraph. Specifically, he describes these critics as “pundits,” a word that traditionally refers to an expert or knowledgeable individual. However, the notion of a pundit, someone who often appears on popular talk shows, has also been used negatively. Thompson’s description of pundits “fretting,” wringing their hands in worry that literacy levels are declining, underscores this negative association of what it means to be a pundit. Finally, Thompson indicates that he does not identify with those who describe students as engaging in “narcissistic blabbering.” This is clear when he characterizes the professor as having “moaned.”

Once you identify an author’s point of view, you will start noticing contrasts and oppositions in the argument — instances where the words are less positive, or neutral, or even negative — which are often signaled by how the writer uses transitions.

For example, Thompson begins with his own concession to critics’ arguments when he acknowledges in paragraph 8 that educators should expect students to “[master] formal academic prose.” However, he follows this concession with the transition word “but” to signal his own stance in the debate he frames in the first two paragraphs: “online media are pushing literacy into cool directions.” Thompson also recognizes that students who write on blogs tend to write short, abbreviated texts. Still, he qualifies his concern with another transition, “at the same time.” This transition serves to introduce Thompson’s strongest claim: New media have given students “a chance to write enormously long and complex pieces of prose, often while working collaboratively with others.”

These strategies can help you recognize the main points of an essay and explain them in a few sentences. For example, you could describe Thompson’s key claims in this way:

1. Electronic media give students opportunities to write more than in previous generations, and students have learned to adapt what they are writing in order to have some tangible effect on what people think and how they act.

2. Arguably, reliance on blogging and posting on Twitter and Facebook can foster some bad habits in writing.

3. But at least one major study demonstrates that the benefits of using the new media outweigh the disadvantages. This study indicates that students write lengthy, complex pieces that contribute to creating significant social networks and collaborations.

◼ Select Examples to Illustrate the Author’s Argument

A summary should be succinct, which means you should limit the number of examples or illustrations you use. As you distill the major points of the argument, try to choose one or two examples to illustrate each major point. Here are the examples (in italics) you might use to support Thompson’s main points:

1. Electronic media give students opportunities to write more than in previous generations, and students have learned to adapt what they are writing in order to have some tangible effect on what people think and how they act. Examples from the Stanford study: Students “defined good prose as something that had an effect on the world. For them, writing is about persuading and organizing and debating” (para. 7).

2. Arguably, reliance on blogging and posting on Twitter and Facebook can foster some bad habits in writing. Examples of these bad habits include critics’ charges of “narcissistic blabbering,” “bleak, bald, sad shorthand,” and “dehydrated language” (para. 1). Thompson’s description of texting’s “haiku-like concision” (para. 8seems to combine praise (haiku can be wonderful poetry) with criticism (it can be obscure and unintelligible).

3. But at least one major study demonstrates that the benefits of using the new media outweigh the disadvantages. Examples include Thompson’s point that the writing in the new media constitutes a “paradigm shift” (para. 5). Andrea Lunsford observes that students are “remarkably adept at what rhetoricians call kairos — assessing their audience and adapting their tone and technique to best get their point across” (para. 6).

A single concrete example may be sufficient to clarify the point you want to make about an author’s argument. Throughout the essay, Thompson derives examples from the Stanford study to support his argument in the final two paragraphs. The most concrete, specific example of how the new media benefit students as writers appears in paragraph 6, where the primary research of the Stanford study describes students’ acquisition of important rhetorical skills of developing writing that is opportune (kairos) and purposeful. This one example may be sufficient for the purposes of summarizing Thompson’s essay.

◼ Present the Gist of the Author’s Argument

When you present the gist of an argument, you are expressing the author’s central idea in a sentence or two. The gist is not quite the same thing as the author’s thesis statement. Instead, it is your formulation of the author’s main idea, composed for the needs of your own argument.

Thompson’s observations in paragraph 8 represent his thesis: “But it’s also becoming clear that online media are pushing literacy into cool directions. . . . [T]he proliferation of new forms of online pop-cultural exegesis — from sprawling TV-show recaps to 15,000-word videogame walkthroughs — has given [students] a chance to write enormously long and complex pieces of prose, often while working collaboratively with others.” In this paragraph, Thompson clearly expresses his central ideas in two sentences, while also conceding some of the critics’ concerns. However, in formulating the gist of his argument, you want to do more than paraphrase Thompson. You want to use his position to support your own. For example, suppose you want to qualify the disapproval that some educators have expressed in drawing their conclusions about the new media. You would want to mention Thompson’s own concessions when you describe the gist of his argument:

GIST

In his essay “On the New Literacy,” Clive Thompson, while acknowledging some academic criticism of new media, argues that these media give students opportunities to write more than in previous generations and that students have learned to adapt what they are writing in order to have some tangible effect on what people think and how they act.

Notice that this gist could not have been written based only on Thompson’s thesis statement. It reflects knowledge of Thompson’s major points, his examples, and his concessions.

◼ Contextualize What You Summarize

Your summary should help readers understand the context of the conversation:

· Who is the author?

· What is the author’s expertise?

· What is the title of the work?

· Where did the work appear?

· What was the occasion of the work’s publication? What prompted the author to write the work?

· What are the issues?

· Who else is taking part in the conversation, and what are their perspectives on the issues?

Again, because a summary must be concise, you must make decisions about how much of the conversation your readers need to know. If your assignment is to practice summarizing, it may be sufficient to include only information about the author and the …

RCH 7302, Doctoral Writing and Inquiry Into Research 1

Course Learning Outcomes for Unit II

Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to:

2. Analyze the text of an academic document using a variety of methods.
2.1 Analyze an academic journal article and its supporting argumentation.

3. Prepare an annotated bibliography using paraphrasing and summarization.

3.1 Practice summarizing and paraphrasing an academic article.
3.2 Interpret an article by annotating its contents.

Course/Unit
Learning Outcomes

Learning Activity

2.1

Unit Lesson
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Unit II Article Review
Unit II Scholarly Activity

3.1 Unit II Scholarly Activity

3.2 Unit II Scholarly Activity

Required Unit Resources

Chapter 3: From Writing Summaries and Paraphrases to Writing Yourself into Academic Conversations

Chapter 4: From Identifying Claims to Analyzing Arguments

Unit Lesson

Samuel Johnson (1709–1784), one of the first American literary critics, once said, “the greatest part of a
writer’s time is present in reading, in order to write; a man will turn over half a library to make one book” (as
cited in Bui, 2020, p. 47). Extending this to a doctoral journey, the more a student reads, the more they will be
able to research their own chosen topic. Researchers develop research based on previous research. By
reviewing what others have studied, such as looking at perspectives or approaches relating to a particular
topic or argument, particularly those who do not agree with one’s thinking or current positions, novice
researchers can improve their own analysis and critical thinking skills (Barnet et al., 2020, p. iii). In all
research, authors need to examine their previous approaches to the topic. This examination might include
evaluating counterarguments, which exemplifies that writing an argument is a continuous process.
Researchers want to avoid binary thinking: presuming that there are only two opposite approaches to an
issue, argument, or position (Greene & Lidinsky, 2018). It is imperative to develop a system that is effective
when reviewing the literature. Greene and Lidinsky (2018), Keshav (2015), and Rosenberg (2010) each share
a similar though slightly different system for reviewing academic articles. Their discussion includes several
ideas:

• Take notes on the article. (What stands out?)

• Ask questions. (What is not clear, or needs further explanation?)

• Read related articles. (This adds perspective for knowledge management.)

UNIT II STUDY GUIDE

Summaries, Paraphrasing,
and Identifying Claims

RCH 7302, Doctoral Writing and Inquiry Into Research 2

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

Title

The association of reading to effective writing has been researched and discussed at multiples levels from
grade school through graduate students working on dissertations (Grant, 2016; Kerr & Frese, 2017; Mateos et
al., 2011; McCulloch, 2013; Yager, 2019). The differences between writing without sufficient reading and
writing after extensive reading can be seen in a more pronounced and effective presentation of a position or
argument. Often a novice researcher tries to find sources that agree with an already established belief or
position. This approach robs the researcher of the opportunity to delve deeply into a topic and really
understand alternative views, evaluate support, and review counterarguments.

The Unit I discussion suggests that reading and research in the broadest sense is an absolute requirement for
good writing and research. Unit I lists some areas where topics can be reviewed, gaps in knowledge might be
found, and dissertation/research topics might be discovered. Unit I also suggests different ways to reach
documents and peer-reviewed journal articles in the fields of interest. Extending on the reading in Unit I, this
approach suggests broader and further reading to enhance the understanding in a field, or area of interest, or
even a broader approach to reading initially to examine a topical area. Keshav (2015) discusses the value of
cross reading, or reading in the same field and related fields, to build a stronger knowledge and perspective in
the field of study. One source for topical research is to look at sources such as Annual Reviews or literature
reviews in a topical area of interest.

Summaries and Paraphrasing

In this unit’s reading, Greene and Lidinsky (2018) discuss the use of summaries and paraphrasing. These two
techniques, once mastered, are important in the process of analyzing, understanding, and presenting the
findings of researchers. Barnet et al. (2020) state that writing a summary helps to not only present an
argument, but to initially understand it (p. 58).

Keep in mind that when you incorporate a summary or a paraphrasing into an essay, the source should be
acknowledged and a statement made that this is a summary or paraphrasing, as appropriate. Barnet et al.
(2020) further suggest that patchwriting, overly paraphrasing, and summarizing sentence after sentence risks
a charge of plagiarism even when the source is noted (p. 61). Academic writing also requires the inclusion of
the researcher’s own thoughts added to the materials provided by authors on the topic, rather than just
repeating what others have said without any analysis and original contribution.

One of the side benefits of reading extensively is to learn not only how to write persuasively but to learn to
write better grammatically while developing an extensive vocabulary. The entire process of communication
can often be enhanced by further experience in understanding not only the process of communication but
examples of effective communication by others (Gieselman, 1982). By reading, therefore, researchers (or
future researchers) can become better writers, which leads to an increase in the quality of research.

Research

For doctoral students, it is expected that peer-reviewed journals are the source of research articles. The
Columbia Southern University Online Library provides many databases of peer-reviewed journals, and there
are numerous libraries available outside of the university that could be helpful as well. A local college, or a
school where you are an alum, or a local community library can all have databases for research and
investigation. Doctoral students should also be aware of journals that have been characterized as predatory.

Predatory Journals

What is a predatory journal? A predatory journal is one that charges authors to publish their articles (Beall,
2017). Jeffrey Beall, a scholarly communications librarian at the University of Colorado Denver, created a list
of potential predatory journals and publishers in 2008. The creation of this site was controversial, and in 2017,
the website was pulled down (Straumsheim, 2017). Beall’s supervisor, Shea Swauger (2017), responded with
a different perspective on predatory journals, which demonstrates that the position of one researcher should
be evaluated with the positions of others. For the record, the Beall’s List website has been reestablished by
an academic in the United Kingdom.

RCH 7302, Doctoral Writing and Inquiry Into Research 3

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

Title

Academic Journals

Doctoral students need to be aware of the quality of academic journals. Learning to critically analyze and read
the research of others is a skill developed over time and with experience in research—it is never ending.
Blogs, magazines, newspapers, professional association newsletters, professional services advertising, and
news service information distributed online are not peer-reviewed; thus, these should be considered
questionable academic sources. Wikis and online or print encyclopedias can be helpful to find sources, but
the actual site/publication is not an appropriate source. If an internet source does not have an author or the
author is questionable (not a recognized expert in the field), then the source should be questioned. It is up to
the reader to determine this and thus be experienced and astute enough to recognize and identify the
shortcomings (Greene & Lidinsky, 2018).

Working at the doctoral level requires a deeper study into research methods, theoretical frameworks, and the
areas of research. Taking a comprehensive approach allows the researcher to gain a greater understanding
with the depth of knowledge in the field, develop a research approach to advance the field building on what
has occurred previously, and set a research agenda for the present and future. The more invested the
researcher is, the greater the potential for the study. There is a need for the researcher to be immersed in the
field and their research approach; this happens through extensive, in-depth reading. Being able to read,
digest, comprehend, and analyze previous studies as well as associated materials provides a greater
spectrum and depth of knowledge in the given field for more intentional research and, thus, greater results.

An academic researcher integrates their ideas into the information that has been acquired through other
sources. As a researcher, a considerable amount of information from previous studies is utilized to develop
the current study. The researcher assesses and analyzes the previous information, integrating their analysis
of the previous research and other sources into the current study. The value of reading in the subject as well
as related subjects provides cross functionality and multiple dimensions.

Reading an academic article is different than other types of reading. As a researcher, reading academic and
professional publications is a significant part of the process. Countless hours will be spent reading, reviewing,
studying, and analyzing these articles. Developing an effective system that works for the individual researcher
is highly recommended. The key principles and elements that are discussed is taking a multi-tier approach
(Keshav, 2015; Meriam Library, 2019; Rosenberg 2010). Keshav (2015) describes a three-pass approach to
assist in understanding core elements of an academic article.

• The first component is reviewing the basic elements of the article such as the abstract, introduction,
headers, sub headers, and conclusion. The review should give an overview as to what the article is
about. This is not intended to be the element that gives the greatest understanding, only to skim the
article to gain a basic grasp regarding the contents of the article.

• The second component requires reading the article and taking notes. Ask questions as to what is
being presented or discussed. Write down terms or concepts that are unclear or the context that is
distorted. This is not about reading for results but to gain comprehensive understanding of the big
picture regarding the article. At the end of components one and two, there will be a general
understanding as to the article, what it has to offer, and how it fits into the purpose for which the
researcher is reviewing literature.

• The third component is reading to re-implement the research. Understanding and applying the
assumptions that are made in the article, as well as analyzing the process and results, will reinforce
and strengthen not only the understanding but the assessment and analysis for synthesis and further
evaluation of this article and also of other similar articles regarding the topic or related topics.

Using these three components will provide a solid foundation of an academic article. The researcher may not
use this process every time they review an article, but if they are building the foundations for their study or
developing a concept, using this approach is effective. Find the approach that works best, yielding the optimal
results and making best use of time and resources.

RCH 7302, Doctoral Writing and Inquiry Into Research 4

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

Title

References

Barnet, S., Bedau, H., & O’Hara, J. (2020). From critical thinking to argument: A portable guide (6th ed.).

Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Beall, J. (2017). What I learned from predatory publishers. Biochemia Medica, 27(2), 273–278.

https://doi.org/10.11613/bm.2017.029

Bui, Y. N. (2020). How to write a master’s thesis (3rd ed.). SAGE.

Gieselman, R. D. (1982). Reading, writing, and research: Pedagogical implications. International Journal of

Business Communication, 19(4), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/002194368201900402

Grant, M. J. (2016). Learning to write through reading. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 33(4), 255–

256. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12166

Greene, S., & Lidinsky, A. (2018). From inquiry to academic writing: A practical guide (4th ed.). Bedford/St.

Martin’s. https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781319071677

Kerr, M. M., & Frese, K. M. (2017). Reading to learn or learning to read? Engaging college students in course

readings. College Teaching, 65(1), 28–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2016.1222577

Keshav, S. (2015). How to read a paper. Stanford University.

https://web.stanford.edu/class/ee384m/Handouts/HowtoReadPaper.pdf

Mateos, M., Cuevas, I., Martín, E., Martín, A., Echeita, G., & Luna, M. (2011). Reading to write an

argumentation: The role of epistemological, reading and writing beliefs. Journal of Research in
Reading, 34(3), 281–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01437.x

McCulloch, S. (2013). Investigating the reading-to-write processes and source use of L2 postgraduate

students in real-life academic tasks: An exploratory study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,
12(2), 136–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.11.009

Meriam Library. (2019, May 1). What is a scholarly article and how do I find one? California State University,

Chico. https://libguides.csuchico.edu/c.php?g=462359&p=3163509

Rosenberg, K. (2010). Reading games: Strategies for reading scholarly sources. In C. Lowe & P. Zemliansky

(Eds.), Writing spaces: Readings on writing (Vol. 2, pp. 210–220). Parlor Press.

Straumsheim, C. (2017, January 18). No more ‘Beall’s List.’ Inside Higher Education.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/01/18/librarians-list-predatory-journals-reportedly-
removed-due-threats-and-politics

Swauger, S. (2017). Open access, power, and privilege: A response to “What I learned from predatory

publishing.” College and Research Library News, 78(11), 603–606.
https://doi.org/10.25261/ir00000076

Yager, K. (2019). Innovative pedagogical practice in English through ‘reading to write.’ mETAphor, (4), 13–19.

https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=055377209205822;res=IELHSS;type=pdf

RCH 7302, Doctoral Writing and Inquiry Into Research 5

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

Title

Suggested Unit Resources

In order to access the following resources, click the links below.

Videos and Recordings for Doctoral Students provides links to multiple recordings provided by Dr. Babb, CEO
of the Babb Group, on study habits, literature reviews, locating and evaluating resources, exploring literature
to being a research topic, and academic writing and tone. Transcripts for each recording are also provided.

Beall’s List of Predatory Journals has been compiled into this PDF List of Predatory Journals, which you may
find useful.

error: Content is protected !!