Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
National Council of Teachers of English is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to College English
Robert A. Schwegler is a member of the Department of English and acting director of the Col
Writing Program at the University of Rhode Island. He is the co-author of Commnunication: Wr
and Speaking (Little, Brown), and the author of articles on composition, folklore, and Renai
literature.
Linda K. Shamoon teaches in the Department of English and the College Writing Program a
University of Rhode Island. She has published essays on the research paper and is currently wor
on a study of academic writing.
This essay, like the preceding essay by Richard L. Larson, was presented as part of a panel of f
papers at the MLA meeting in December 1981. It will form part of the introductory chapter o
book Teaching the Research Paper edited by James Ford (Modern Language Association, forthc
ing).
for writing is, instead, what James Kinneavy calls "scientific discourse": writing
that makes interpretive statements about some aspect of reality (a poem, a his-
torical event, a social movement, or a chemical reaction) and demonstrates the
validity of these statements (A Theory of Discourse [Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, 1971], pp. 88-89).
A third answer has been that we should give up teaching the research paper
altogether because it bears little relationship to the writing that students are
asked to do in other courses. Yet students are often required to write papers
based on research, and the strategies appropriate for these papers are easy
enough to recognize-and to make part of research paper instruction in composi-
tion courses.
As we see it, the first step in a satisfactory answer to the research paper
problem is to recognize the considerable difference between the way students
view the research paper (and have been taught to view it) and the way most
college instructors and other researchers view it. The second step is to begin to
base research paper instruction on a sound understanding of the features of
academic research writing, features that characterize the professional writing of
most college instructors and that form a model that instructors rely on-often
unconsciously-to evaluate student papers.
We became acutely aware of differing views of the research paper when we
interviewed instructors and students about their views of the research process,
the aims of research, the forms of research writing, and the appropriate evalua-
tion standards for academic research papers. The responses revealed not only
the differences in outlook of the novice and the professional, but also substan-
tially different attitudes towards the research process and the aim, forms, and
audience of the research paper. These contradictory perspectives go a long way
toward explaining the dissatisfaction many instructors feel when they have
finished grading a set of research papers and the irritation students feel when
they receive a poor grade on a paper they were sure did all that a research paper
is supposed to do.
When asked why they write research papers and why teachers assign the pa-
pers, students responded,
"to learn more about a topic"
"to learn how to use the library"
"to show how much you know"
"information ... they want a small topic where you can get just about everything
on it"
"they want to see specifics . . to see how well you can use your research skills."
When asked about the process of researching and writing, students offered the
following scenario:
You usually don't get around to it for a while, but when you do you start out with a
little bit of an idea; then you get a lot of books and put the information on note
cards; you keep the note cards and bibliography sorted out; then you put together
the pieces of information that are related, start on a rough outline, and finally write
the paper.
When asked what standards they expect instructors to apply, the students said,
"The instructor knows about the topic; he knows what you should have in that
paper; he's going to look for those points in the paper."
"They'll say use Kate Turabian ... go by the book . . every page is laid out."
"Depends on the teacher ... some are too mixed up in grammar and punctuation;
they'll ignore the content."
These comments show that students generally view the research paper as in-
formative in aim, not argumentative, much less analytical; as factual rather than
interpretive; designed to show off knowledge of library skills and documentation
procedures. The paper is viewed as an exercise in information gathering, not an
act of discovery; the audience is assumed to be a professor who already knows
about the subject and is testing the student's knowledge and information-
gathering ability. Thus, according to the students, evaluation is (and should be)
based on the quantity and quality of the information presented, on correctness of
documentation, but not on form and style (English papers excepted).
When asked about the purpose of research and the research paper, instructors
replied that the aim is to test a theory, to follow up on previous research, or to
explore a problem posed by other research or by events. For most instructors,
however, research is a "continuous development," a pursuit of an elusive truth:
"What you do in research is to try to throw open a window on the world at a given
point; open up the window and see what it looks like there; but as soon as that point
has been identified it has already moved into the past so that one would not expect
it to remain the same."
For most instructors, the research and writing process follows a clear but com-
plex pattern:
"The original focus begins with getting interested in an idea during reading or a
review of the literature and getting a sense of where the field stands theoretically
and methodologically-and jotting down notes about problems, drawbacks to the
research, how theoretical and methodological ideas can be improved. From there I
would say, after a considerable amount of reading, how I would do it better, what
research approach I would use to fill in a gap, answer a question, compare two
theories-to me it's a giant puzzle and I try to assess how well the pieces fit to-
gether and then I design a research project to add more pieces to the puzzle or
clarify the edges, or build a new puzzle."
"the community of scholars (peers) working in the area and the classroom, too, are
sources of ideas . . . there is a certain amount of serendipity involved."
"Studies have shown that virtually the last place you go is the library . . . the first
step is to call around to colleagues to identify sources . . . another start is to pick up
a bibliography through Bibliographic Index."
"I know the whole strategy. I'll have a couple dozen sentences in my head, particu-
larly introductory sentences, analytic sentences, and conclusion sentences, [and
then I'll sit down to write]."
And the instructors also have specific ideas about how research and research
papers should be structured-and about how they are usually evaluated by the
other scholars that make up the intended audience:
"There is a continuous degree of uncertainty through the process . .. but when you
write the paper you really have an obligation to state your views and to state what
you have perceived or concluded in strong enough terms so that there is some
validity to the statement."
"''If you don't follow the appropriate paradigm, then other scholars will attack your
work."
"I look for a formula in every article that comes into our journal. ... [An empirical
article, for example:] Introduction, theoretical overview, justification of the issue,
literature review, methods, sample, measurements, design, data, analysis, sum-
mary, references, footnotes. ... The review of research must be analysis, not just
a summary; it must tell me what the scholars said and what it means in relationship
to the whole . . . each individual analysis is part of the puzzle and I want to know
how much of the puzzle is complete."
These then are the underlying aims or features of the research paper: aware-
ness of scholarly content; method of investigation; specific subject (data); con-
clusion about the nature of the subject; and relationship of specific subject to
broader subject area. And these underlying features manifest themselves in re-
search papers as essential textual features, that is, as conventions. They appear
1. Review of research. This pattern takes as its subject not some external
phenomenon, but the process of scholarly debate itself. It reviews the
methods, data, and conclusions of prior research, pointing out emerging
patterns of agreement and conflict and attempting through critical analy-
sis to shed new light on the development of research in a particular area.
2. Application or implementation of a theory. This pattern consists of the
application of a generally accepted theory to a new situation or subject;
the theory is generally not questioned, and the burden of proof lies in
showing that it can be used to explain or understand the new phenome-
non. For example, a theory developed to account for the structure of a
specific social group or even a set of poems can often be applied to
similar subjects.
3. Refute, refine, or replicate prior research. Much research begins when a
Though the first pattern, the review of research, might seem particularly use-
ful for undergraduates, it can be rather tricky, as most of us no doubt are aware.
Undergraduate classes at all levels, however, make use of the second pattern,
the application of a theory, whether it be in asking students to apply a method of
analysis used in class to a novel they have read on their own or in asking them to
apply an anthropological theory to an understanding of a culture. And as these
examples suggest, the use of this pattern is not limited to research papers; it
appears frequently in brief critical papers and examination essays as well. The
third pattern, the response to prior research, is also widely used, though most
often in upper-level courses; it is particularly useful for research papers, and it
appears as well in the classic essay question, "Scholar X says the following
about Shakespeare's comedies. . ... Refute, extend, or modify this criticism
based on your knowledge of the plays."
In short, these patterns play an important role in the undergraduate research
papers assigned in content courses and in other forms of academic writing as
well. In an appropriately simplified form they should be made part of instruction
in the research paper, both as patterns of thought and patterns of expression.
Care should be taken, however, to distinguish between standard exercises in
evaluating source material, which are appropriate to argumentative and informa-
tive writing, and the development of an awareness of research patterns, which is
an exercise in understanding academic discourse.
To sum up, we suggest that the aims of the academic research paper and its
conventions are limited, even formulaic enough, to be made part of instruction in
the research paper. And we also suggest that it is important to take note of these
features because students will find in other courses that the features become the
grounds for evaluation. Implementing these recommendations in practical ways
is another important matter, of course, but not one we are equipped to deal with
here. We would suggest, however, that simply presenting students with a listing
of the surface features of the academic research paper is a practice likely to
encourage them to produce papers that are sterile exercises. The proper ap-
proach is to view the research paper as a process of thought and expression and
to recognize its limits as well as its strengths.
Appendix A
3. Conclusion
a. Restatement of thesis or hypothesis
b. Limitations of study
c. Indications of validity or reliability of the study's outcome
d. Paths for future study
Appendix B
The indicators of range are usually found in one form or another in the opening section of
a research paper, as in James Kinney's "Classifying Heuristics" (College Communication
and Composition, 30 [1979], 351-56).
Statement #1 r'Thinking and writing go together, but how?
(Phenomenon under study) - Interest in invention is widespread; heuristic proce-
Ldures to stimulate thinking proliferate. Ann Berthoff
Statement #2 "has spoken for the need for "critical inquiry into ...
(limit phenomenon; cite the simultaneity of thinking and writing, of the role of
previous research; cite consciousness in composing." Lee Odell has posed
current debate) specific questions about the forms and functions of
heuristics. For a broader understanding of heuristics,
however, and as part of a inquiry into the role of con-
sciousness in the composing process, I think we must
erase the distinction Odell makes between the
Macrorie/Elbow-style free writing and heuristic
Odell restricts heuristics to "systematic inquiry p
cedures" and labels them "process of conscious in
quiry."
Statement #4 (hypothesis) - My intention here is to demonstrate that
Statement #3 (method marker)/ - of heuristics exist besides the systemat
cepted by Odell and to show that free writing is also
process of conscious inquiry. (p. 351)