You could argue that everyone does research. Technically, any form of searching up a topic and reading more about it equates gaining a higher understanding. But can we, and should we be trusting any online source we come across? The internet has made information readily available, but once you let in the good, you also let in the bad.
A lot of times, what you see above is what happens. We sloppily throw some articles together, quote them, then hope for the best. It’s starting to really become a problem. That’s why Joseph Bizup of Columbia University proposed an entirely new way of looking at research in his article “BEAM: A Rhetorical Vocabulary for Teaching Research-Based Writing”. Forget the primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. It’s time to be sure about the sources we use while correctly applying them in a way that adheres to self- improvement.
The Main Reasoning:
“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” (Bizup 75).
In other words, Bizup is urging all of us to dismantle the current structure in which research is normally conducted. How do we do this?
1. Background:
Relying on background sources refers to any materials that writers use authoritatively. These are known facts that can also be known as “common knowledge”. When using background sources they are typically uncited, though we should be aware of where the writer is pulling the information from. Depending on the topic, background information can be vastly different for every person. As for me, when writing about white privilege, it was certainly important to be aware of the different ways people would react to my work depending on the preconceived notions they brought in.
2. Exhibits:
Interpreting or analyzing exhibits comes from materials that can be used as an example. Depending on the exhibit, some need to be carefully laid out and explained, while others don’t need much more information in order to be understood. Not to be confused with evidence, which simply supports or refutes a claim, exhibits can provide a setting, or clarify terms. I found it thought-provoking that Bizup mentioned how “rich exhibits may be subjected to multiple and perhaps even conflicting “readings.”’ I saw this within my archival essay since a lot of the documents I referenced didn’t just exist to prove the point I was trying to make. Instead, they laid out all the possibilities which then allowed me to dive in and talk about what I thought was necessary.
3. Arguments:
Engaging in arguments with sources allow writers to enter into a conversation by providing unique views on various topics. Often times research papers written by neuroscientists or historians are meant to prompt others in their field to respond. For students, that doesn’t happen as much, which is often while it feels like a one-sided conversation when we write papers. In high school, a lot of my papers definitely didn’t make any attempts with entering conversations because that’s just not how I viewed any of my assignments. Even now, it’s still hard to enter an argument without knowing everything there is to know about certain subjects, but it’s worth trying. In my first post on this blog (Let’s Talk Race. And Education.), I tried to stay relevant by first noting that many before me had begun to discuss this topic, then went on by establishing a different stance.
4. Methods:
Following methods is a little harder to define because it can take many forms. Mainly though, when taking a recognizable name and hinting at their influence, or using a certain “prose style or mode of exposition”, that’s considered using a method. The one time I can truly recall using a certain method would have to be again, in my first post, where I took on the ideals that one woman, Peggy McIntosh, used to describe white privilege. Going with her method of explanation I “used a particular terminology” to better articulate my thoughts. I feel like its generally harder to notice when you use a method, but being more aware of where sources come from helps a lot.
So Now What?
Once you can safely say that you’ve at least attempted to research a little differently through BEAM, then you’re one step closer to stronger research and increased ethos, logos, and pathos. Hopefully my explanations and examples of BEAM provide clarity.
TL;DR: Yes. You should BEAM. Do it so humanity doesn’t have to sit through one more poorly crafted “research paper.”
Links:
BEAM Article: file:///C:/Users/Bella/Downloads/BEAM%20rhetorical%20vocabulary.pdf
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NlD92q_9Gtg/T7_fEq6UcTI/AAAAAAAAAfk/s9YkU3zeorw/s320/lizzie+bennet+diaries+3.gif
http://media.giphy.com/media/8VrtCswiLDNnO/giphy.gif