Tag Archives: BEAM

Usually, my research process is dominated by a web browser filled with countless tabs, each housing different online articles, or PDFs of scanned books, or maybe even a JSTOR-like database if I can access it. A handwritten outline can, and typically will, be found somewhere nearby, a timeline of “background/ introduction” that is followed by juxtaposed paragraphs of arguments (counter and non-counter) and examples for each. This outline has been oh-so lovingly created by a response to the prompt or question at hand – either answering the question via my own lovely opinion, or creating my own question based upon the prompt that somehow always ends up as an argumentative statement in the end. And it is this very outline which guides my research process.

Source: Giphy

Step 1: Learn more about the issue itself, find the background knowledge, and understand the information. Skim over Wikipedia if you have to, but if there are more reliable or creditable sources – like say, National Geographic or a website ending in .gov – then head over to those. Step 2: Expand the outline. What initial arguments or ideas need to be either expanded on or dropped? What is relevant to the topic? Also, is the breath of the paper too large? If so, get those heads rolling. Step 3: Look at that revised outline, now, what background information can be made into examples? What supports or opposes what you have to say? Play around with the structure of your arguments then, make sure that each is related to the other, that each flows into the other. Step 4: Start writing. Maybe cry, or get a snack. Frantically open another tab to search up Purdue Owl and how to cite this or that, or, for the love of the academic gods, you even structure a footnote. Meanwhile, make sure you get those citations in, and if you discover that a source is not as relevant as you thought it would be, then drop it. If needed repeat steps 2 and 3. Step 5: Review it, revise it, cite it, then somehow come up with both a conclusion that connects to the larger idea (or world or ‘conversation’) and a works cited page that reflects all your in-text citations.

Source: Emolument

Moving on from that 5 step process, let’s talk about BEAM, or Joseph Bizup of Columbia University’s reading and writing model:

Background, Exhibit, Argument, and Method.

The BEAM model, which sorts sources into the aforementioned categories, somewhat reflects my own process of research I would like to think. Sources are meant to be diverse, both in content but also in purpose. Now, I have never given ‘methods’ a single thought, as for ‘background’, ‘exhibit’, and ‘argument’ though, I am very familiar with those. Separating articles, journals, and etc., into nice little categories is a process that has become a necessity for my own organization, as it strengthens the structure of a paper and my own thoughts/arguments.