6
ELEMENTS OF A RESEARCH ARGUMENT It is important that researchers grasp the parts of an argument, as well as how these parts integrate to create an effective, persuasive whole. The parts consist of a claim, reasons, evidence, acknowledgements, responses, and warrants. They link in the following manner: the researcher makes a claim, backs it up with reasons supported by evidence, the researcher acknowledges and responds to alternative opinions, and sometimes explains to the readers the principles or concepts (warrants) that support their reasoning. The following examples should help clarify how research arguments are constructed. i Claim: The claim is the answer to the research question and has two kinds of support: the reason and evidence. The reason often connects to the claim with a because clause. For example: The F-22 is necessary for the USAF to maintain air superiority <claim> because other states are developing new capabilities that threaten our ability to secure air superiority. <reason> The claim should be specific and not abstract or vague. In addition, the claim should express why the topic is important in order to get the reader’s attention and to stimulate investment by the reader in the researcher’s position. Reason and evidence are very similar but their differences are clear. ii Reasons and Evidence: Reasons state why the readers should accept the claim; evidence is what the readers accept as fact. Evidence that supports the claim is usually derived from sources. iii Whenever possible make sure the evidence is sufficient, representative, accurate, precise, and taken from authoritative sources. Most importantly, the evidence must be relevant to the claim. Again, an example: The F-22 is necessary for the USAF to maintain air superiority <claim> because other states are developing new capabilities that threaten our ability to secure air superiority. <reason> A National Intelligence Estimate (2007) has identified three new advanced air superiority fighter variants that are being developed, one by China, one by India, and one by Russia. In addition, these states are also developing advanced surface-to-air missile systems. <evidence>

Elements of a Research Argument

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

How to properly frame a research argument as the foundation for a successful research paper.

Citation preview

Page 1: Elements of a Research Argument

ELEMENTS OF A RESEARCH ARGUMENT

It is important that researchers grasp the parts of an argument, as well as how

these parts integrate to create an effective, persuasive whole. The parts consist

of a claim, reasons, evidence, acknowledgements, responses, and warrants.

They link in the following manner: the researcher makes a claim, backs it up with

reasons supported by evidence, the researcher acknowledges and responds to

alternative opinions, and sometimes explains to the readers the principles or

concepts (warrants) that support their reasoning. The following examples should

help clarify how research arguments are constructed.i

Claim:

The claim is the answer to the research question and has two kinds of support:

the reason and evidence. The reason often connects to the claim with a because

clause. For example:

The F-22 is necessary for the USAF to maintain air superiority <claim> because

other states are developing new capabilities that threaten our ability to secure air

superiority.<reason>

The claim should be specific and not abstract or vague. In addition, the claim

should express why the topic is important in order to get the reader’s attention

and to stimulate investment by the reader in the researcher’s position. Reason

and evidence are very similar but their differences are clear.ii

Reasons and Evidence:

Reasons state why the readers should accept the claim; evidence is what the

readers accept as fact. Evidence that supports the claim is usually derived from

sources.iii

Whenever possible make sure the evidence is sufficient, representative,

accurate, precise, and taken from authoritative sources. Most importantly, the

evidence must be relevant to the claim. Again, an example:

The F-22 is necessary for the USAF to maintain air superiority <claim> because

other states are developing new capabilities that threaten our ability to

secure air superiority.<reason> A National Intelligence Estimate (2007) has

identified three new advanced air superiority fighter variants that are being

developed, one by China, one by India, and one by Russia. In addition,

these states are also developing advanced surface-to-air missile

systems.<evidence>

Page 2: Elements of a Research Argument

F-22 Raptor with both engines

on after-burner.

Evidence can come from many sources. Some common types of evidence are:

definitions, examples, testimony, statistics, facts, and explanations. For more

information on types of evidence see the Air Force Tongue and Quill, pages 43-

47.iv

The F-22 example provided above appears reasonable; however, some people

may reject the claim simply because only limited reasons and evidence have

been offered. Anticipating or imagining the questions, objections, or

complications posited by readers is a difficult process but very important in

building a credible research argument.

Acknowledgements/Responses:

The process of acknowledging and responding indicates to readers that

researchers are writing with them in mind. It also adds to a paper’s integrity by

showing readers that the researcher is not only trying to be honest, but fair to

opposing views or positions as well.v Building upon the previous example, the

paragraph below illustrates how acknowledgement and response can bolster

credibility.

The F-22 is necessary for the USAF to maintain air superiority <claim> because

other states are developing new capabilities that threaten our ability to secure air

superiority.<reason> A National Intelligence Estimate (2007) has identified three

new advanced air superiority fighter variants that are being developed, one by

China, one by India, and one by Russia. In addition, these states are also

developing advanced surface-to-air missile systems. <evidence> Some critics

argue, however, that air superiority can be maintained without expensive

air superiority fighters through the use of less expensive, robust integrated

air defense systems. <acknowledgement> Unfortunately, these systems cast their

users into a primarily defensive posture, essentially yielding the initiative

and air superiority to the aggressor.<response>

Page 3: Elements of a Research Argument

Warrants/Principles:

Creating a warrant can be difficult but is also very useful. For example, warrants

can be used to explain the following:

A cause-and-effect relationship.

A one-thing-is-the-sign-of-another situation.

A rule of behavior.

A principle of reasoning that may be unknown to the readers.vi In the end, a warrant should indicate the logical relationship between the

research arguments rationale and the research claim. For example:

The F-22 is necessary for the USAF to maintain air superiority <claim> because

other states are developing new capabilities that threaten our ability to secure air

superiority.<reason> Our expeditionary posture requires the USAF to maintain

the capability to conduct offensive combat operations. <warrant> In addition, a

National Intelligence Estimate (2007) has identified three new advanced air

superiority fighter variants that are being developed, one by China, one by India,

and one by Russia. In addition, these states are also developing advanced

surface-to-air missile systems.<evidence> Some critics argue, however, that air

superiority can be maintained without expensive air superiority fighters through

the use of less expensive, robust integrated air defense systems. <acknowledgement>

Unfortunately, these systems cast their users into a primarily defensive posture,

essentially yielding the initiative and air superiority to the aggressor.<response>

A pair of F-22s in flight

As previously noted, evidence has to be appropriate to the field or research

community for which the research product is intended. There are also many

different ways to convince readers of the validity of a research claim, whether it is

with a different rationale or a broad variety of supporting evidence. Regardless

of the approach, however, researchers should be consistent, use reliable terms

and definitions consistent with the discipline/audience, and be concrete and

concise in their arguments.

Page 4: Elements of a Research Argument

Lastly, as research represents the cutting edge of knowledge within a specific

topic, researchers should recognize that they might have to innovate new

approaches to adequately explain and convince their readers of the validity of

their arguments. This requires some creativity. Solid evidence, an effective

approach that convinces readers, a keen understanding of the intended audience

and consistent use of language and fact that they will understand, and creativity

– all of these are part of the research argument and all serve to make the

research effort both challenging and fun.

Created by Drs. John T. Ackerman and Matthew C. Stafford, ACSC/DL

[Updated by Dr. Kathleen A. Mahoney-Norris, ACSC/DL, December 2010;

Attachment contains two additional research argument examples.]

Sources:

Air Force Handbook (AFH) 33-337, The Tongue and Quill, 1 August 2004. On-

line. Available at http://www.e-publishing.af.mil./shared/media/epubs/afh33-

337.pdf.

Booth, Wayne C., Gregory G. Colomb, and Joseph M. Williams, The Craft of

Research, 3rd edition. Chicago, IL.: The University of Chicago Press, 2008.

Page 5: Elements of a Research Argument

MORE EXAMPLES OF RESEARCH ARGUMENTS

A.The economic and personal health costs of overweight and obesity are

enormous and not only compromise the health of the United States but the Air

Force as well <warrant>. The Air Force requires an alternative approach to

resolving its overweight and obesity rates <claim> to optimize the effectiveness

of its human weapons system and reduce economic costs <reason>. Total direct

and indirect cost of overweight and obesity to the U.S. economy in 1995 dollars

was $99.2 billion <evidence>. And while some critics argue that overweight and

obesity’s long term effects don’t immediately impact the Air Force mission

<acknowledgments>, they unfortunately fail to recognize the increased risk of

injury and decreased productivity and absenteeism effects that do <response>.

B.The US should invest 3.8% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in regular

defense spending <claim>. By directly relating defense spending to national

economic capacity as measured by GDP, Congress would help stabilize defense

systems procurement and sustainment programs and – ultimately – better equip

American warfighters as they protect America’s interests around the world

<reasons>. This new approach to resourcing is necessary because the

Department of Defense faces growing fiscal challenges based on the demands of

protracted global operations, the growing costs of sustainment and

recapitalization of aging weapons systems, heightened competition for

increasingly scarce resources, and a long standing American tradition of

allocating resources based on shifting political whims <evidence>. Despite these

challenges, America’s armed forces must accomplish their missions; for

example, the USAF must continue to incur costs so it can fly, fight, and win in air,

space, and cyberspace <warrant>. In an effort to secure funding to cover those

costs, senior USAF leaders recently echoed Defense Secretary Robert Gates in

his call for directly linking regular military spending to the nation’s economic

capacity as measured by GDP <more evidence>. Some critics contend, however,

that defense spending has no logical relationship to GDP; they claim attempts to

impose such a relationship are little more than attempts “to minimize the

magnitude of a defense budget that has swollen to absurdly gigantic proportions”

(Higgs, 2008) <acknowledgement>. Unfortunately, many critics fail to realize the

difficult position defense leaders are in as they balance competing priorities,

accomplish demanding missions in the present, and posture services to

safeguard freedom in an unpredictable future. Critics also fail to acknowledge

that GDP represents a nation’s economic capacity and expressing spending in

relation to GDP provides a context within which global experts regularly assess

affordability <responses>.

[Created by Col Fred P. Stone, PhD, USAF, BSC]

Page 6: Elements of a Research Argument

i Booth, Colomb, and Williams, The Craft of Research, 108-170.

ii Ibid., 130-138.

iii Ibid., 130-133.

iv AFH 33-337, The Tongue and Quill, 43-47.

v Booth, Colomb, and Williams, The Craft of Research, 139-151.

vi Ibid., 153-154.