• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

—Bruce Wightman, Professor of Biology

USING SOURCES ANALYTICALLY: AN EXAMPLE

In a recent article on thinking entitled “The Other You” that appeared in the journal New Scientist, the writer introduces sources in sequence, wherein each source offers a different researcher’s angle on the same central question: how is the subconscious related to the conscious activities of the mind? The writer, Kate Douglas, discusses the implications of each source without choosing any one as “the answer”:

“Shadlin sees the subconscious and conscious as two parts of the same system, rather than two separate thought processors working in the same machine” (45).

“Others want to further subdivide conscious and subconscious thought and have come up with alternative descriptions to replace the old two-part model” (45)

“Peter Dayan [and colleagues] see the mind as comprising four systems.”

“Dayan says that our behavior is often driven by more than one of the four controllers.”

At the end of this phase of the article, Douglas then states, “Importantly, the subconscious isn’t the dumb cousin of the conscious, but rather a cousin with different skills” (Kate Douglas, “The Other You,” New Scientist, December 1–7, 2007. vol. 196, no. 2632).

As this example demonstrates, often in conversing with sources, a writer is not staging conflicts or debates, but bringing together multiple points of view and offering a final synthesis. Those familiar with the popular journalist Malcolm Gladwell may recognize that he is fond of this method. In books such as Blink, Gladwell presents one piece of research, and in making inferences about it, leads us to the next and often unexpectedly related piece of research. Part of the appeal of Gladwell’s method is how he quilts together a range of disparate voices into one unfolding narrative. The thinking in a Gladwell piece is presented in the way he connects the parts, not in the way that he is critiquing them, finding shortcomings, or emphasizing the differences.

GUIDELINES FOR CONVERSING WITH SOURCES

Avoid the temptation to plug in sources as answers. Aim for a conversation with them. Think of sources as voices inviting you into a community of interpretation, discussion, and debate.

Quote, paraphrase, or summarize in order to analyze. Explain what you take the source to mean, showing the reasoning that has led to the conclusion you draw from it.

Quote sparingly. You are usually better off centering your analysis on a few quotations, analyzing their key terms, and branching out to aspects of your subject that the quotations illuminate. Remember that not all disciplines allow direct quotation.

Don’t underestimate the value of close paraphrasing. You will almost invariably begin to interpret a source once you start paraphrasing its key language.

Locate and highlight what is at stake in your source. Which of its points does the source find most important? What positions does it want to modify or refute, and why?

Look for ways to develop, modify, or apply what a source has said, rather than simply agreeing or disagreeing with it.

If you challenge a position found in a source, be sure to represent it fairly. First, give the source some credit by identifying assumptions you share with it. Then, isolate the part that you intend to complicate or dispute.

Look for sources that address your subject from different perspectives. Avoid relying too heavily on any one source. Aim at the end to synthesize these perspectives: what is the common ground?

When your sources disagree, consider playing mediator. Instead of immediately agreeing with one or the other, clarify areas of agreement and disagreement among them.

* * *

Assignments: Conversing with Sources

1. Make One Source Speak to Another. Choose two articles or book chapters by different authors or by the same author at different points in his or her career. The overriding aim of the assignment is to give you practice in getting beyond merely reacting and generalizing, and instead, participating in your sources’ thinking.