Chapter 5
Composing the Communication
Argument: The Reasoning and the
Evidence
 | A Brief Quiz |
| Dissecting the Research Argument |
| Urban Folklore and Fits of Fancy |
| APA Style Exercise |
OUTLINE |
CONCEPTS |
I. Construction of the |
|
|
2. Operational Definitions of Variables 3. Procedures 4. Methods for Analysis of Data or Criticism of Documentary Sample 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 |
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 |
| C. Research
Prospectus 1. Standard Steps in the Research Prospectus |
research prospectus: a complete proposal for a research activity to be completed in the future |
| 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 |
|
|
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 corroborat- ed? 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: |
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 |