In the article “BEAM: A Rhetorical Vocabulary for Teaching Research-Based Writing”, Joseph Bizup offers researches a simplified method for the complex world of research. The process is given the acronym “BEAM:” B – background, which refers to materials that writers use as general or factual information. E – exhibit, which refers to materials that writers use for explication, analysis, or interpretation. A – argument, which refers to materials that a writer affirms, disputes, refines, or extends somehow. M – method, which refers to materials from which a writer derives a concept or manner of working from. BEAM.
As Bizup flawlessly points out, categorizing research sources as “primary” or “secondary” automatically establishes a hierarchy that diminishes the value of some sources. It allows readers and researches to believe there is no or little value in secondary and tertiary sources when in reality they can be used effectively. They may not be a first hand account, but they certainly hold value in the world of research.
In addition to adding unnecessary ranking to sources, it causes the research paper to sound like a mechanized process. It eliminates the freedom of exploration, choice of style, and freedom of voice. It becomes formulaic and frankly dry. Instead, we should describe how writers actually use sources rather than what level they are on the hierarchy.
It eliminates the freedom of exploration, choice of style, and freedom of voice.
Thinking of this process in conjunction with my own research history, it is clear to see the benefits of BEAM as a model for analytical research. As aforementioned, primary, secondary, and even tertiary sources have their own benefits when used appropriately. There have been times in my writing career where I have used all types. However, rather than just limiting ourselves to this hierarchy, BEAM allows us to go outside and see the research process for its complicated self. BEAM allows writers to find background information, illustrate examples, prove a point, and even take a stance. The process shows how every part of the research process has to work together in order to create a cohesive final project.
