Up A Quiz for Chapter 5 Urban Folklore APA Style Exercise

Chapter 5

Composing the Communication
 Argument: The Reasoning and the Evidence

bulletA Brief Quiz
bulletUrban Folklore and Fits of Fancy
bulletAPA Style Exercise

 

OUTLINE

CONCEPTS

I.  Construction of the Articles You Will Read and Review (sections)
     A. Title
     B. Abstract
     C. Introduction and Context of the Problem
          (Justification by):
          1.  Filling a Gap in Knowledge
          2.  Solving Practical Problems
          3.  Extending and Improving Past Research
     D.  Statement of the Problem
     E.  Review of Literature
          (argument purposes of the review)
     F.  Rationale for Hypotheses
     G.  Method:
          1.  Data or Documentary Sample

          2. Operational Definitions of Variables
          3.  Procedures
          4.  Methods for Analysis of Data or Criticism of Documentary
               Samples
     H.  Results
      I.  Discussion
     J.  Conclusion
     K.  References
II.  Writing Scholarship
     A.  Using Proper Formats and Subdivisions
operational definitions: isolation of a concept by specifying the steps researchers follow to make observations of the variables
     B.  Matters of Style


III.  Writing Classroom Reports
     A.  Strategies for a Definitional Criticism Paper
           1. Organizing a Definitional Review Paper
           2. Isolating Schools of Thought
                a. Where to look for definitions
                b.   Categorizing different schools of thought
       B.  Strategies for the Literature Review

style: the choice and use of words
internal organizers: phrases that preview, summarize, and transition between main points
            1.  Organizing a
                  Literature
                  Review
                  (introduction,
                  context of the
                  problem,
                  background
                  definitions of
                  terms,
                  relevant theory,
                  the research
                  survey,
                  opportunities
                  for future research)
exhaustive literature reviews: research surveys that include all material related to the subject
exemplary literature reviews: surveys of only the most important contributions
            2.  Selecting a Summary Organization

known to unknown: reviewing literature by considering what (little) is known separately about each variable in the research review question and then announcing what remains to be learned
deductive: reviewing literature by considering what is known in general categories, followed by increasingly specific categories that are related to the topic
problem-solution: a problem and its cause are suggested, followed by a research suggestion that might solve the problem
chronological: studies are summarized in their order of publication from the oldest study through the most recent one
inductive: study findings in a given area are summarized by producing general propositions (laws or rules) that are demonstrated by each subcollection of them (studies are grouped largely by their findings, rather than their input variables)
topical: studies are summarized by references to content categories into which studies fall
heuristic merit: the ability of research to lead scholars to new inventions, ideas, and research avenues
explication: a literature review that makes an issue clear and comprehensive

research prospectus: a complete proposal for a research activity to be completed in the future

       C.  Research Prospectus
             1.  Standard Steps in the Research Prospectus
 
             2.  Common Mistakes ecological fallacy: using data from groups of people to draw conclusions about individuals
Delphi fallacy: the use of vague predictions as research claims
Jeanne Dixon fallacy: making multiple predictions and claiming partial support
patchwork quilt fallacy: making no predictions but offering explanations after the fact
ad hoc rescue: claiming support for a theory despite failed predictions
IV.  Checking on the Research Argument
       A.  Checking on the Quality of Research Evidence


evidence
: information that scholars use to support claims

            1.  Factual Information

                 a.   Reports

factual evidence: descriptions and characterizations of things
reports: accounts of what took place whether by participants or by outside observers
                       --Types of reports:
                          primary or secondary sources
                          --questions to test credibility of reports:
                             can the reports be corroborated? Are
                             primary sources used? Is the reporter
                             reliable?
primary sources: information from individuals who have firsthand experience with the events reported
secondary sources: information obtained from individuals who do not have firsthand experience with the events reported
                 b.   Statistical Reports:
                       --questions to test credibility of statistics: are the
                          statistics recent? was the sampling properly
                          completed? were the measures accurate? were
                          the methods appropriate? were the statistics
                          misleadingly presented?
statistical reports: quantitative reports based on observations in a sample
parameters: numbers that describe the population
           2.  Opinions
                --types of opinion information: expert and lay opinion
                --questions to test the credibility of opinions:
                  is the opinion maker source competent? is the opinion
                  maker biased so much that the opinion is unreliable?
                  is the opinion consistent?
     B.  Checking on the Adequacy of Research Reasoning
opinions: interpretations of the meaning of collections of facts
expert opinion: opinions from people who are experts in the field of inquiry
lay opinion: opinions from people who are not experts in the field of inquiry
          1.  Checking Inductive Research Reasoning inductive reasoning: the process by which we conclude what is true of certain individuals is true of a class, what is true of part is true of the whole class, or what it true at certain times will be true in similar circumstances at all times
                a. argument from definition
                     --often found when articles draw conclusions that
                       appear to be about facts, but really are
                       applications of special definitions
                     --tests of argument from definition: is there sound
                       evidence for the appropriateness of word meanings
                       or usage?" if the reason for a conclusion is a definition,
                       are conclusions properly limited to the meaning of
                       terms in the research setting? is the definition truly
                       equivalent to the term defined?               
argument from definition: reasoning that submits that things do or do not belong in a certain class of things
                 b.   arguments from example and generalization
                       --most conclusions drawn in surveys and carefully
                         controlled experiments are arguments by
                         example and generalization.  Studies that
                         analyze past speeches also draw conclusions
                         by taking specific examples of communication
                         and inferring generalizations from them.
                      --standards for evaluation: are the examples typical
                         and representative? are enough examples cited?
                         are the examples relevant to the conclusions drawn?    
argument from example and generalization: taking some particular cases and arguing what is true of the instances is generally true in the and population of events
               c.   argument by analogy

 

                    --types of analogies:
                       literal and figurative

argument from analogy: a comparison of two things known to be alike in one or more features and suggesting that they will be alike in other features as well
literal analogy: an analogy that compares something to an event that really exists
figurative analogy: an analogy that compares something to a hypothetical situation
                   --often used in sections of studies dedicated to the
                     rationale and to the conclusion
                  --standards for evaluation: are the cases similar in
                     many, rather than a few, essential respects? are
                     there so many dissimilarities that a comparison is not
                     reasonable? since literal analogies are preferred as proof,
                     were literal analogies relied on instead of
                     figurative analogies?
              d.   causal argument
                    --correctly appears in long term historical studies and
                       experiments
                    --standards for evaluation: is there
                      a direct and potent relationship between
                      the cause and effect? can other causes actually
                      explain the effects instead? can something else
                      prevent the effect from occurring? Is the cause capable
                      of producing the effect all by itself?
causal argument: reasoning that a given factor is responsible for producing certain other results
          2.  Checking Deductive Research Reasoning deductive reasoning: a form of argument in which a valid conclusion necessarily follows from premises
syllogism: a set of two premises that result in a conclusion
                a.   categorical syllogism
                     --the chief reasoning tool of the literature
                       review and the discussion section argument in
                       research articles
                     --rules for the categorical syllogism: a middle term
                       must be distributed (used in an "allness" statement) at
                       least once; no terms may be distributed in the
                       conclusion if not distributed in a premise; a
                       negative conclusion can occur only when one of the
                       premises is negative; both premises cannot
                       be negative; if a conclusion describes a particular, one
                       premise must be particular.
categorical syllogism: a syllogism that starts with a categorical statement (a categorical statement is an "allness" statement about things). Violations of logical form are called "invalid" because the conclusion cannot logically follow from the premises
                b.   disjunctive syllogism
                     --found in research arguments in which scholars try to
                       compare the predictions of conflicting theories
                       or expectations
                     --rules: major premise must include all
                       alternatives; major premise must deny or affirm a
                       term in the major premise; alternatives must
                       be mutually exclusive
disjunctive syllogism: a syllogism whose major premise makes an "either-or" statement
                c.   conditional syllogism
                     --the basis of the logic of hypothesis testing; used in
                        the hypothesis, methods, and discussion of
                        results section of research articles
                     --rules: minor premise must not deny the
                        antecedent nor affirm the consequent
conditional syllogism: a form of syllogism in which the major premise makes an "if-then" statement