Upload
coachhand
View
28
Download
4
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
How to properly frame a research argument as the foundation for a successful research paper.
Citation preview
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>
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>
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.
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.
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]
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.