1 The 'so what' test
The litmus test of whether an argumentative essay has a proper thesis is whether the thesis passes the ‘so what’ test. This is a well-known criterium about which many papers and articles have been written. It also regularly makes an appearance in books about how to write a thesis (which is where I first ran across it).
When does a paper fail the ‘so what’ test? This happens when, after reading the final conclusion of your paper, a reader is led to cry out in frustration the famous ‘so what’ question: So what? Who cares?
An example of an argumentative paper that fails the ‘so what’ test: a paper in which the main argument is that there are several similarities between Gandhi and Mickey Mouse. Yes, this is an argument one could make. But it’s not an argument that most readers would find useful to take note of. ‘So what’ that Gandhi and Mickey Mouse have several fascinating character traits in common, most readers would ask? Who cares?
If you haven’t convinced your reader that your research findings are important, relevant or useful in some way, then your paper hasn’t passed the ‘so what’ test. Writing a good paper is not just about doing some research and arguing a point; you also need to do something with that research; you need to connect it to a larger context so that you can show that your findings are, in some way, shape or form, useful. In other words: in a good research paper the ‘so what’ question is already anticipated, and in the introduction and conclusion the author explicitly makes points which address it. You need to sell your paper topic in your introduction and conclusion; you need to convince the reader why it is useful to read what you’ve written.
Here is how Sherran Clarence, author of a blog about scholarly writing aimed at graduate students, discusses the ‘so what question’ in a recent blog post:
Writing papers […] means making and supporting strong arguments. This is hard work: making a firm, well-crafted and persuasive argument takes time. But this time is worth taking because this is the most important aspect of your paper. Without a strong argument, you do not have a contribution to knowledge. And if you don’t have that, you don’t have a [strong] paper.
Making arguments is not necessarily as simple as just saying ‘This paper will argue that’, and then making that argument. You also need to locate the argument within the field it is making a contribution to. You need to show your readers why your argument is relevant, or important, and worth their time and attention. This is what is often termed the ‘so what?’ question.
If you have ever tutored, lectured or coached other writers, where you have had to read and give feedback on drafts of their writing, you may have some experience of working with this tricky question, and its answers. You are reading a draft of a paper and you get to the end, and it has been full of interesting information, but you wonder ‘So what? Why have I read all of this? What’s the point?’
The first part of the answer to the ‘so what?’ question of this is the actual argument: ‘This paper is claiming that X is the case…’. It takes time to whittle down all the things you could write about to one tight, well-formed argument you can express in one or two clear sentences. But simply making your argument on its own is not enough. If all you do is make your argument, without considering why you are making it, you run the risk of locking your research into a potentially narrow context, and thus limiting your readership. You need to think about your readers, your audience: who are they? What do you need to consider in terms of making your (focused) argument relevant to them? What would they be able to learn, or gain in terms of their own potential research (or practice)?
In asking, and findings answers to, these questions about relevance you can find your way to answering the second part of the ‘so what?’ question: ‘Why am I making this argument? What is my contribution to my field?’ This is really important, and usually included firmly in the conclusion to your paper. It is important to make this clear, and argue for the relevance of your paper to the field, because this clarifies for the reader how you believe you are making a contribution to knowledge, and why you believe this contribution is relevant or necessary. You make this claim on the basis of your reading of the field, your identification of a gap that needs to be filled, and the research you have done to fill this gap.
Thus, there are two parts to the ‘so what?’ question and both need to be clearly answered in your paper. You need to state, and make your argument, and then you need to tell your readers why that argument needs to be made, and what your research is contributing to your field: a critique, an innovation in theory or methodology, an additional empirical case that explains a current problem in a new way, and so on. To answer both parts of this question in your own papers, then, make sure you ask yourself what am I arguing for (or against) in this paper, and why is this important to my field at this point? Answering both, clearly, will help you ensure that your contribution to your field is well made.
2 The four main paper concepts
There are four common paper concepts which, if applied properly, will allow you to anticipate, and pass, the ‘so what’ test:
1. A paper which argues a point within an existing debate (section 2.1)
2. A paper which critiques a commonly held position (section 2.2)
3. A paper which sheds new light on a topic by outlining or analyzing the topic in a new way (section 2.3)
4. A paper which researches something no one has ever written about (section 2.4)
2.1 Arguing within a debate
One of the most common research paper concepts that will allow you to address the ‘so what’ question is arguing a point within an existing debate. A debate is simply a topic about which differences of opinion exist. In order for it to be an academic debate, these opinions must be put forward by scholarly experts on the topic. The experts don’t even have to be aware of each other (although often this will be the case). ‘Debate’ here doesn’t mean folks literally crossing scholarly swords. It just means that, for a certain topic, there are differences of opinion. Sometimes papers which express such an opinion do ‘cross swords’ with other papers. But this doesn’t have to be the case.
As a rule of thumb, if you’re looking for debates, start with scholarly papers. Books can be used by scholars to put forward an opinion on something too, but not all academic books defend a clear point of view, often they’re used more to convey information about a topic rather than to make a precise, clearly identifiable topic, or they make dozens of tiny separate arguments. Papers, however, almost always a have a single clear argument or thesis, and then a debate is simply something about which several of such arguments exist. If you find two papers about the same topic but with different conclusions, that is already a debate, even though the authors might not even be aware of each other’s existence.
If a debate about a certain topic exists, that’s almost always a very strong clue that the topic will be suitable for an academic research paper that can pass the ‘so what’ test. Because a debate exists about the topic already, the research done in the paper is likely to be relevant to a group of people other than the author. If a debate exists about why Gandhi slept with his young niece naked in a bed frequently (yes, this appears to have happened, and yes, a debate about why he did this exists), and you argue for a particular position in this debate (Gandhi did this but not that, and he did these things for such-and-such reasons) then your research will probably pass the ‘so what’ question. You’ve researched a topic (Gandhi, celibacy, what he did and did not do with his niece and why) and you’ve connected this research to a larger debate. If you’ve then argued a point based on proper research which isn’t 100% identical to someone else’s, then your research passes the ‘so what’ test. Researching Gandhi and Mickey Mouse, on the other hand, is a topic about which no one already cares. It’s very hard to argue why this research is useful, therefore. Perhaps you could do it, but it would be hard.
If a debate exists about the topic you’ve chosen to write about, you always need to prove that it exists, by giving examples of scholars who have argued for a particular position within the debate. The more examples, the stronger. I recently published an academic paper in which I mapped several debates in the introduction. In the draft I sent to the journal, I gave six examples scholars who had taken up a position in one such debate in the introduction. The proof-reader was critical, though, and rather testily wrote that I had not given enough examples – I had overlooked at least two papers, which he insisted I also mention in the introduction.
Many students find the notion of making an argument within an existing debate daunting. They don’t see themselves as experts, whereas the published scholarly material on their topic is probably written by authors who are. This fear is easy to address: it’s an irrelevant concern. An undergraduate paper is an exercise to write in a particular form – it does not have as its goal to write something at the same level as the existing material. I often explain this point to my Senior Project students by using the analogy of a flight simulator. An undergraduate paper is a flight in a flight simulator. You get used to the rules and expectations of a particular genre by doing a ‘trial run’ in a safe environment. Don’t mistake it for the real thing!
Another aspect of making an argument within a debate that students find problematic is the idea of an original contribution. How new and innovative should your argument be? The key point to take note off here is that you can’t make an argument that is 100% the same as someone else’s, and which you also base on the same evidence: that is plagiarism. However, you don’t have to argue a point which runs counter to all other positions in the debate for 100% either. In all likelihood you’ll end up agreeing with some of what other people say, and disagreeing with some of it too. You’ll find yourself drawn, probably, to one or two authors with whom you agree most. Find something to distance yourself from them as well, and you have your ‘original contribution’. In another paper I recently published, I did exactly that in my conclusion. I first showed which authors had completely failed to see the point, in my opinion, and then addressed an author who I felt came pretty close to what I saw as the correct position. I then outlined, based on the research presented in the middle part of the paper, in which way I felt that this author had still made some errors, thus outlining my own original contribution. It was therefore quite a subtle point – not something that no one had ever written about before at all, but a more nuanced way of looking at something that had already been written about[1].
You can argue a position within a debate about a virtually endless list of different topics: debates about the proper interpretation of a theory, book or concept, debates about historical events, debates about how to classify a particular religious movement, debates about rituals, debates about how to interpret certain passages in religious texts, debates about important religious leaders, debates about how to translate something properly.
However, there are also debates which are not really appropriate for an academic paper. In an academic paper, you should always engage with a debate about something that is somewhat provable and not completely subjective. In the context of religious studies, this means that you cannot engage with debates that are completely faith-based. So ‘does God exist’ or ‘Who is better, Shiva or Vishnu’ are not appropriate debates for a religious studies paper, as it’s hard to prove anyone right or wrong. ‘Does the soul exist, and what is its nature’ is a question which philosophers and theologians have written about, certainly, but it does not make for an appropriate debate to engage with in an academic research paper, as any conclusions about the topic are unprovable and too subjective. Although Plato wrote about the nature of the soul, you would not write a paper in which you argue that the soul is structured differently – on which research findings would you be able to make such claims? However, you can engage with debates about how to interpret Plato’s writings on the soul. For example, a debate exists about whether Plato really believed that the soul consists of three parts (as most scholars claim that he does), because there are texts by Plato in which he puts forward a different view of the nature of the soul. How does Plato describe the soul? is therefore an appropriate debate to engage with, not Is plato right about the soul’s nature?
2.2 Critiquing a common position
Another paper concept which will allow you to address the ‘so what’ question is by using your research to critique a common position, for example one expressed frequently by journalists and politicians. An example of such a position is the following: Islamic state is not ‘Islamic’ because it is so violent. If you critique this position based on research (for example by looking at the history of Islam and violence) your findings pass the ‘so what’ question, because you are able to show that your research is useful. For this to be the case, however, the position you critique needs to be defended by people who carry some weight. So not a group of random bloggers, but journalists for quality newspapers, or scholars, or influential politicians. Even Barack Obama at one point argued that Islamic state is not Islamic; therefore, this is an opinion which carries some weight and is appropriate to critique. An often-found scholarly opinion also works – and perhaps makes for an even stronger topic. In my PhD, I critiqued the commonly found scholarly opinion that Joseph Campbell is a Jungian, by showing that he was not always in favour of Jung (although he was highly favourable of Jung in the final phase of his career, he was very critical in an early book from the fifties).
It is very rare to find an opinion which has not been critiqued at all. In other words: most ‘critiquing a common opinion’ papers are secretly about debates. What sets them apart from ‘arguing within a debate’ is the ratio between pro and con. If the vast majority of voices express a certain opinion, and the counterpoint is quite rare, then you can write your paper as a ‘critiquing a common opinion paper’. This was the case for my PhD topic, for example. Almost every scholar who had written about Cmapbell had simply stated, without much evidence, that he was a Jungian scholar. Only one person before me had argued against this. I was thus able to pitch my PhD argument as a ‘critiquing a common opinion paper’. I did address the other critical ‘lone voice’, but for the most part I simply argued against the common opinion. The same goes for the Islamic state topic. When Islamic State was still in existence, the vast majority of voices stated that their violence was unIslamic. One of my senior project students was thus able to pitch her senior project about this topic as a ‘critiquing a common opinion’ paper. Another example: ‘Western yoga is based on a centuries old tradition and has been done in this way for centuries’ is quite a common opinion / perspective. Only one or two scholars have countered it. This allowed one of my students to write a ‘critiquing a common opinion’ paper about this topic, in which she showed this perspective was flawed.
2.3 Shedding new light on a topic
Another way to address the ‘so what’ question is by presenting descriptive research that doesn’t necessarily argue for a particular point within a debate, but which is presented in a new or innovative way, so that new light is shed on a topic. Examples of research which does this:
-Research in which a theory or model is applied to a case-study that hadn’t been applied to this case-study before;
-Research in which the author analyzes information and sets up his/her own model to analyze and clarify the data.
In both cases, the research only passes the ‘so what’ test if the author can show in the introduction of the paper that the approach is new and innovative, and also that it is useful to take this novel approach – for example because it helps to see a topic in which there is scholarly interest in a new light. In other words: you have to know the approaches used in the existing literature so that you can show that your approach is new. This doesn’t mean you need to have read everything in-depth, but it does mean you need to have looked at a lot of books and articles briefly to see what their approach is.
An example of research like this is a senior project which I supervised a number of years ago. The student wanted to do research on the Jewish Sabbath, but found it hard to find debates about the topic which felt right to engage with. After doing a lot of research, she discovered a ‘gap’ in the available literature: no one had written about the history of the Sabbath in such a way that the most important time periods were covered. There was research on particular time periods, but no overview which analysed and compared several time periods. The student ended up presenting a model of the history of the Sabbath, arguing that there were three key time periods to look at. She then did research on each time period and wrote a chapter about each of them. The conclusion was an overview of the changes from time period to time period. In the end, most of the thesis was quite descriptive and not so much argumentative. However, because she could show that her descriptive research was organized in a way that was new and innovative (i.e. she looked at three key time periods and traced the development through all of them, which surprisingly no one had done before) she could still address the ‘so what’ question in her introduction and conclusion. If she hadn’t done that, it could have easily come across as quite a weak, descriptive piece of writing. However, because she could show that her approach was novel and argue why this new approach was useful ,she could address the ‘so what’ question and connect her research to a larger context. In the end, I believe it was this particular aspect of her senior project which led to the high grade it received.
You can also apply an existing model or theory to a particular topic. Religious Studies is very interdisciplinary, and it is common for scholars to use theories and models from fields such as psychology, literary theory, sociology and anthropology. In such cases, however, it is usually a lot harder to address the ‘so what’ question. You’ll have to really show that it is somehow useful to look at a particular topic through the lens of your chosen theory. What does it allow you to clarify about the topic that wasn’t yet clear? This can be hard to show – for example because your chosen theory is not agreed upon anymore by the majority of scholars (i.e. a Marxist analysis of the caste system, although possibly interesting, is hard to sell to the reader). These kinds of papers, therefore, can very easily feel a bit arbitrary, and still lead the reader to ask so what? at the end.
2.4 A paper about something no one has ever written about
The most common form of academic writing is probably writing which, in some shape or form, engages critically with already existing positions. Arguing a position within a debate does that very explicitly, as you’ll need to show what in the existing research you don’t agree with, and offer something new. Critiquing a common position does that very explicitly as well. You can write a great research paper which passes the ‘so what’ question about something completely new, however, and without referring to any already existing positions. If you find a topic that no one has ever written about at all, you’ve hit the scholarly jack-pot: in that case, you simply describe the topic as you’ve come to see it, without referencing the point of view of other scholars. If you’re the first author ever to write about the new religious movement inspired by Jediism from the Starwars movies, then your job is simple: research the phenomenon and present your findings. Finding such a topic is very rare, though. For almost all topics, your research will not be done within a social vacuum; almost always, you will make an argument against the backdrop of other people’s positions. Mapping these positions and then making your own point is the most common form of academic writing. Writing in this way also means that you can ‘sell’ your topic in the introduction and show why your research passes the ‘so what’ question.
3 Structure
A common structure for an ‘arguing a position within a debate’ paper is the following:
1. Introduction
The concept of the paper is explained. A debate is introduced, and evidence is
given for its existence – you do this by listing all the sources you’re aware
of which argue for the respective positions within the debate. It is explained
in which way the paper will engage with the debate. The paper structure (road
map) is given.
2. Research
Research findings are described.
3. Argument
An argument is made based on this research. The argument is made in reference
to the debate identified in section 1.
4. A conclusion is given, in which the argument is summarized. Usually, the conclusion really drives home the ‘usefulness’ of the argument. In short: it tries to prevent the reader from asking the ‘so what’ question.
An example of a paper which follows this structure is the example paper already mentioned above. In this example article (a paper I published in the Journal of Analytical Psychology a couple of years ago) a debate is introduced in the beginning, but not a lot of words are used to map it. The paper just introduces the different sides and give examples of scholars who have defended it. The reason this works is because the different sides in the debate don’t need a lot of explaining; they are relatively simple to grasp for the target audience.
In some cases, though, describing the different positions in the debate needs more words because the positions are complex and need to be explained properly in the paper itself. For example: if you are writing about the different sides in the debate about possible evolutionary explanations for the origins of religion, then this is probably a more suitable structure. You would not assume that your target audience already knows these positions intimately, and therefore you need to summarize them in some detail. In such a case, the paper structure would look more like this:
1. Introduction.
2. Summarizing the positions in the debate in details (research)
3. Making an argument against the backdrop of this debate (argumentative writing, perhaps combined with, or proceeded by, more research)
4. Conclusion
Both structures are common, but it depends on your topic which one is appropriate. Before you start writing, it’s always to make a make a paper outline of the different sections. When you are doing this, ask yourself the question which of these two structures would be most appropriate for your paper. These are not the only possible structures, of course – feel free to discuss your thoughts about the paper structure with me at any time.
A common structure for a ‘critiquing a common position’ paper is the following:
1. Introduction.
2. Mapping the common position
3. Research
New information about the topic is presented
4. Argument: the common position is critiqued
5. Conclusion: a summary of the argument, and a reflection on its usefulness.
4 On the difference between descriptive and argumentative writing.
Students often think that an argumentative paper constantly needs to be in ‘argumentative’ mode. This is not true. Parts of the essay need to engage with your arguments, either by introducing the position you will critique (introduction) or by doing the actual critiquing. Large parts of your paper, however, can be descriptive. When you write about the research question ‘Is Islamic state Islamic’, you would introduce a common position in the introduction and critique it in the final sections of the paper. The heart of the paper, however, would be descriptive writing about your research – for example into the history of Islam and violence. Mapping these research findings in the body of the paper would be largely descriptive. This is absolutely fine, as long as you use this descriptive writing to make an argument later on. In the final section of this paper, for example, you could use your research findings (there is a large history of Islamic violence similar to that of Islamic state) to make an argument (it is nonsense to call Islamic State un-Islamic). It is fine if large chunks of your paper are descriptive. A division between descriptive writing and argumentative writing of 50/50 is fine; even 60/40 or 70/30 is not unheard of.
No comments:
Post a Comment