Writing Analytically, 6th Edition - Rosenwasser, David & Stephen, Jill.original_ [142]
10 on 1 and Disciplinary Conventions
In some cases, the conventions of a discipline appear to discourage doing 10 on 1. The social sciences in particular tend to require a larger set of analogous examples to prove a hypothesis. Especially in certain kinds of research, the focus of inquiry rests on discerning broad statistical trends over a wide range of evidence. But some trends deserve more attention than others, and some statistics similarly merit more interpretation than others. The best writers learn to choose examples carefully—each one for a reason—and to concentrate on developing the most revealing ones in depth.
For instance, proving that tax laws are prejudiced in particularly subtle ways against unmarried people might require a number of analogous cases along with a statistical summary of the evidence. But even with a subject such as this, you could still concentrate on some examples more than others. Rather than moving through each example as a separate case, you could use your analyses of these primary examples as lenses for investigating other evidence.
PAN, TRACK, AND ZOOM: USING 10 ON 1 TO BUILD A PAPER
How can 10 on 1 generate the form of a paper? The language of filmmaking offers a useful way for understanding the different ways a writer can focus evidence. The writer, like the director of a film, controls the focus through different kinds of shots.
The pan—The camera pivots around a stable axis, giving the viewer the big picture. Using a pan, we see everything from a distance. Pans provide a context, some larger pattern, the “forest” within which the writer can also examine particular “trees.” Pans establish the representativeness of the example the writer later examines in more detail, showing that it is not an isolated instance.
The track—The camera no longer stays in one place but follows some sequence of action. For example, whereas a pan might survey a room full of guests at a cocktail party, a track would pick up a particular guest and follow along as she walks across the room, picks up a photograph, proceeds through the door, and throws the photo in a trash can. Analogously, a writer tracks by moving in on selected pieces of the larger picture and following them to make telling connections among them.
The zoom—The camera moves in even closer on a selected piece of the scene, allowing us to notice more of its details. For example, a zoom might focus in on the woman’s hand as she crumples the photograph she’s about to throw away or on her face as she slams the lid on the trash can. A writer zooms in by giving us more detail on a particular part of the evidence and making the details say more. The zoom is the shot that enables you to do 10 on 1.
In a short paper (three to five pages), you might devote as much as 90 percent of your writing to exploring what one example (the “1”—your zoom) reveals about the larger subject. Even in a paper that uses several examples, however, as much as 50 percent might still be devoted to analysis of and generalization from a single case. The remaining portion of the paper would make connections with other examples, testing and applying the ideas you arrived at from your single case. In-depth analysis of your best example thus creates a center from which you can move in two directions: (1) toward generalizations about the larger subject and (2) toward other examples, using your primary example as a tool of exploration.
Doing 10 on 1: A Brief Example (Tiananmen Square)
Note how the writer of the following discussion of the people’s revolt in China in 1989 sets up his analysis. He first explains how his chosen example—a classic photograph (shown in Figure 10.3) from the media coverage of the event—illuminates his larger subject. The image is of a Chinese man in a white shirt who temporarily halted a line of tanks on their way to quell a demonstration in Tiananmen Square in Beijing.