Spring 2012 Writing 20:Ocean Acidification February 21, 2011 researching & developing a claim for MP2

1. Spring 2012 Writing 20:Ocean AcidificationFebruary 21, 2011researching & developing a claim for MP2 Much of this material is compiled from: http://sites.duke.edu/writing20_12_s2012/files/2012/02/lit_review.pdf http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/619/01/ http://sites.duke.edu/writing20_12_f2011/files/2011/09/developing_claim.pdf

2. Writing a research paper is an iterative process topic question research claim drafting

3. Research and Writing Processes for MP2 Determine your purpose Techniques for reading Questions to ask as you read Keeping track of your sources Drafting a working claim Evaluating your claim

4. 1. Determine your purpose To “articulate a position” on any aspect of ocean acidification (or related issue) that interests you. This involves “moving beyond what has been said before.” This position (or claim) should be based on your analysis of peer-review literature.

5. 2. Techniques for reading • Read through the titles and abstracts to decide which papers you may be most interested in. • When you’ve selected articles of interest, read non-linearly. Exploit the format of research articles to quickly access the information you need. Don't feel compelled to read every line start to finish. • This is not a science course, so no need to critically evaluate the methods or attempt to comprehend every aspect of the paper. • BUT do make sure you understand: • Context for the study • Overall approach • Key results • Implications

6. 3. Questions to ask as you read • How are sources similar in terms of methodologies, claims, choice and interpretation of evidence, reliability, etc.? • How do they differ? • What do you think is interesting about your topic? • Do you observe gaps in the research or areas that require further study? • Are we at the point where sufficient research exists to begin applying those findings to management decisions? • Do particular issues or problems stand out? • Are there inconsistencies, controversies, or debates to which you could contribute?

7. 4. Keeping track of your sources • Write a summary for each source (see paraphrasing techniques on next slide) • Consider making a table or chart to map how different sources relate to/contrast with one another. • Consider the significance of each work to the field. The amount of space you dedicate to an individual source denotes its significance within the body of literature. Guiding question: What research is still needed on effects of OA on the shellfish industry? Source 7 Shellfish physiol. (unsure if useful) Basic background on OA Source 1 Source 8 Source 2 Source 9 Source 5 Source 3 Suggest future study of acclimation Focus on upwelling Source 4 Source 6

8. Paraphrasing • A paraphrase is... • your own rendition of essential information and ideas expressed by someone else, presented in a new form. • one legitimate way (when accompanied by accurate documentation) to borrow from a source. • a more detailed restatement than a summary, which focuses concisely on a single main idea. • Paraphrasing is a valuable skill because... • it is better than quoting information from an undistinguished passage. • it helps you control the temptation to quote. • direct quoting is almost never used in scientific writing, even seconday sources like lit. reviews! • the mental process required for successful paraphrasing helps you to grasp the full meaning of the original.

9. Paraphrasing 6 Steps to Effective Paraphrasing Reread the original passage until you understand its full meaning. Set the original aside, and write your paraphrase on a note card (or in a Word document). Jot down a few words below your paraphrase to remind you later how you envision using this material. At the top of the note card, write a key word or phrase to indicate the subject of your paraphrase. Check your rendition with the original to make sure that your version accurately expresses all the essential information in a new form. Use quotation marks to identify any unique term or phraseology you have borrowed exactly from the source (when writing about peer-reviewed science this is rarely necessary). Record the source (including the page) on your note card so that you can credit it easily if you decide to incorporate the material into your paper.

10. Research and Writing Processes for MP2 Determine your purpose Techniques for reading Questions to ask as you read Keeping track of your sources Drafting a working claim Evaluating your claim

11. 5. Drafting a working claim • Once you have generated a list of interesting, analytical questions, consider the possible answers. Can you narrow your inquiry to a central, overriding question and answer? If so, you’re ready to draft a working claim! • Think about the justifications or rationale for your claim. Similarly, try to anticipate counterarguments to your claim and consider if you should acknowledge them in some way. • If you are having difficulty articulating a claim, try expressing the pieces of your claim in bullet points. The most important thing is to have a central argument to give your draft a unifying and organizing idea.

12. 6. Evaluating your claim • Contestable: Intentionally writing a claim that someone can disagree with may seem counterintuitive, but consider that if no one could possibly disagree with what you’re arguing, there’s little point in writing about it. Being able to acknowledge and refute counterarguments will strengthen your claim, not weaken it. • Reasonable: While you want your claim to be contestable, you also want it to be reasonable. A claim can be radical, in the context of current dialogue on your topic, and still be reasonable if you have sufficient evidence to support it. Readers will recognize the difference between thoughtful, critical interpretations of evidence and contortions that twist evidence around to support an unreasonable claim. • Specific: Broad claims are more difficult to support effectively than focused claims. Specific claims also tend to provide readers with more useful information than broad claims.

13. 6. Evaluating your claim • Significant: Consider the context of the course for which you are writing your paper. Is your claim adding anything meaningful to the current dialogue surrounding your topic? Note that as you become more familiar with the concerns of a given topic or discipline, you will be able to contribute more significantly to the discussion. • Interpretive: Does your claim offer an interpretation of evidence or does it simply describe a situation?

14. Writing a research paper is an iterative process topic question research claim drafting