What’s BEAM?

Source: Flickr

ackground

Source: Flickr

xhibit

Source: Wikimedia Commons

rgument

Source: Flickr

ethod

When I was introduced to research as a young student  I was told many rules of the right s and wrongs. It suddenly seemed there were a lot of good and bad moves I could make in my research. Rules regarding all sorts of concepts like primary vs. secondary vs. tertiary sources, internet sources vs. print sources were tossed in my direction.

And with each of these came a whole set of stereotypes which insist a certain type of source is better than another. However, as associate professor of English at Boston University, Joseph Bizup, points out in his article there are flaws in all of these naming systems. He states that “If we want students to adopt a rhetorical perspective toward research-based writing, then we should use language that focuses their attention not on what their sources and other materials are…but on what they as writers might do with them”. So he is indicating that rather than organizing sources by what they are it is easier to sort by what a writer can do with them. His solution is a new system using the acronym BEAM, but we will get to that later.

Personally, I never saw much wrong this the initial naming systems. But that’s probably because I have always taken the stereotypes and treated them as vague guidelines for my work rather than strict rules. For example, I would use mainly online resources even though that is often looked down upon. When I research, I go to Wikipedia and look at the background knowledge even though Wikipedia is not considered a decent source of information in academia. I am not saying I would cite it, but is still a useful tool if you need a starting point as long as you double check the information and read it critically.

Mainly, my approach to research is a simple two step process. First, I always try to skim as many things as I can before deciding what sources to use. To be honest, that involves a lot of Googling. The second step is narrowing down to as few sources as are optimal (to simplify the writing process itself). The second step is mainly a personal preference (and perhaps a bad habit to get into) but I resort to it because I get overwhelmed by sources unless I just choose a few and dig deeply into them.

BEAM in my Terms

B is for background sources. For me, it is the information you already know or might get off of wikipedia.

E is for exhibit sources. For me, these are the sources that provide the frame work for my argument to launch off of. They are the raw data. They also provide reason my argument must be made. These will give me examples or applications for me to use within my paper.

A is for argument sources. For me, these are the sources that take a stance (whether they disagree or agree with me). I find those opposing and supporting views in these sources. Supporting views will be incorporated through well-said quotes and opposing views are argued against by appealing to logic, or emotion.

M is for method sources. For me, these are the sources that influence my writing. For example, if I see an organization or style being used by all of the authors within a certain discipline or topic, I follow that general organization or style because it is the norm.

When Bizup brought up the acronym BEAM it made me realize that I hadn’t really been choosing sources based on whether they were print or primary but rather how I could use them in my writing. If I saw a catchy quote I would mark that as something I could use as a hook. If I saw something I disagreed with I marked that as an opposing view I could argue against. From there writing the paper is about outlining and embedding sources within that outline.

Works Cited

Joseph Bizup (2008) BEAM: A Rhetorical Vocabulary for Teaching ResearchBased                            Writing, Rhetoric Review, 27:1, 72-86, DOI: 10.1080/07350190701738858