Up A Brief Quiz Urban Folklore APA Style Exercise

Chapter 5

Composing the Communication
 Argument: The Reasoning and the Evidence

bulletA Brief Quiz
bulletDissecting the Research Argument
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
               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
     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.   Categor-
                      izing
                      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
       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
 


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 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:
                       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