Writing in the Social Sciences: Part 1

(Writing in the Social Sciences for undergraduate students, doctoral students, & university scholars)

 Study Notes, provided by Ricardo D. Stanton-Salazar, Ph.D.

Table of Contents

Writing and Revising your Thesis Statements

What is an argument?

Deductive Reasoning

Inductive Argument/Reasoning

Making a Sociological Argument: Orienting Students to a New Field Greta Krippner, Sociology

Two Strategies for Making a Sociological Argument

Finding a Research Question

How to Read a (Quantitative) Journal Article

 Crafting a Thesis Statement        Professor David Zimmerman, English

Teaching Revision 

Rebecca Lorimer and Rebecca Schoenike Nowacek

How to Build a Theoretical Model   Mike Rucker  

A Brief Overview of Three Types of Literature Review

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper: Theoretical Framework

Why do students resist revision?

The Conceptual Framework. College of Education. Alabama State University

Strategies for Developing the Theoretical Framework

Borrowing Theoretical Constructs from Elsewhere

Another Writing Tip

Don't Undertheorize!

What is Develop Developmental Editing?

 

 

Thesis Statements: (Beginning with Behrens & Rosen, p. 18)

·     Every paragraph of a paper illuminates the thesis by providing supporting detail or explanation. (p.18)

 \Writers Workshop https://www.cws.illinois.edu/workshop/writers/tips/thesis/

Defining the Thesis Statement

What is a thesis statement?

Every paper you write should have a main point, a main idea, or central message. The argument(s) you make in your paper should reflect this main idea. The sentence that captures your position on this main idea is what we call a thesis statement.

·     A thesis consists of a subject and an assertion about that subject. (B & R, p. 18)

·     Two main types of thesis statements (see below)

[RSS: …but a thesis statement should be the result of engaging and studying the literature and research; then making up your mind about how you feel about the situation given what you’ve read. A thesis might be understood as somewhat analygous to court trial with two attorneys; each has an argument (e.g., my client is innocent, vs. my client is guilty)]

How long does it need to be?

A thesis statement focuses your ideas into one or two sentences. It should present the topic of your paper and also make a comment about your position in relation to the topic. Your thesis statement should tell your reader what the paper is about and also help guide your writing and keep your argument focused.

Questions to Ask When Formulating Your Thesis

Where is your thesis statement?

You should provide a thesis early in your essay -- in the introduction, or in longer essays in the second paragraph -- in order to establish your position and give your reader a sense of direction.

Tip: In order to write a successful thesis statement:

• Avoid burying a great thesis statement in the middle of a paragraph or late in the paper.
• Be as clear and as specific as possible; avoid vague words.
• Indicate the point of your paper but avoid sentence structures like, “The point of my paper is…”

Is your thesis statement specific?

Your thesis statement should be as clear and specific as possible. Normally you will continue to refine your thesis as you revise your argument(s), so your thesis will evolve and gain definition as you obtain a better sense of where your argument is taking you.

Two main types of thesis statements   (B & R)

(1) deductive organization: thesis first (or argument first), supporting details second

(2) inductive organization: the author locates his/her thesis at the end of the work; the author begins with specific details and builds toward a more general conclusion, or thesis. (p. 18)

Writers Workshop https://www.cws.illinois.edu/workshop/writers/tips/thesis/

The opposite of a focused, narrow, crisp thesis is a broad, sprawling, superficial thesis. Compare this original thesis (too general) with three possible revisions (more focused, each presenting a different approach to the same topic):

• Original thesis:
• There are serious objections to today's horror movies.
• Revised theses:
• Because modern cinematic techniques have allowed filmmakers to get more graphic, horror flicks have desensitized young American viewers to violence.
• The pornographic violence in "bloodbath" slasher movies degrades both men and women.
• Today's slasher movies fail to deliver the emotional catharsis that 1930s horror films did.

Back to Bloom’s article on Empathy (p. 14) RSS: His main thesis (or argument) seems to follow the inductive type of writing; thesis appears in paragraph 9. 

Empathy research is thriving these days, as cognitive neuroscience undergoes what some call an “affective revolution.” There is increasing focus on the emotions, especially those involved in moral thought and action. (p. 14)

Organization:

·     An issue that Bloom feels is “problematic,” but doesn’t say it’s problematic yet; saying it’s problematic would be a thesis. So in this case, he introduces the “state of affairs” in an area of research.

·     THESIS (paragraph 9): This enthusiasm may be misplaced, however. Empathy has some unfortunate features—it is parochial, narrow-minded, and innumerate. We’re often at our best when we’re smart enough to rely on it.

[RSS: Buddhism. We see in the Buddhist literature how emotions can get in our way of interpreting a situation in a rationale way.]

·     SUPPORTS THE THESIS: 

·     Alternative arguments in the literature states that our feelings of empathy need to be held in check;

o  Empathy works best at the interpersonal level (in our relationship to others)

SUMMARY STATEMENTS

Writers Workshop https://www.cws.illinois.edu/workshop/writers/tips/thesis/

RSS: These examples follow the deductive organizational style: thesis first (or argument first), supporting details second.

Does your thesis include a comment about your position on the issue at hand?

The thesis statement should do more than merely announce the topic;

·     it must reveal what position you will take in relation to that topic,

·     how you plan to analyze/evaluate the subject or the issue.

In short, instead of merely stating a general fact or resorting to a simplistic pro/con statement, you must decide what it is you have to say.

Tips:

• Avoid merely announcing the topic; your original and specific "angle" should be clear. In this way you will tell your reader why your take on the issue matters.
• Original thesis: In this paper, I will discuss the relationship between fairy tales and early childhood.
• Revised thesis: Not just empty stories for kids, fairy tales shed light on the psychology of young children.
• Avoid making universal or pro/con judgments that oversimplify complex issues.
• Original thesis: We must save the whales.
• Revised thesis: Because our planet's health may depend upon biological diversity, we should save the whales.
• When you make a (subjective) judgment call, specify and justify your reasoning. “Just because” is not a good reason for an argument.
• Original thesis: Socialism is the best form of government for Kenya.
• Revised thesis: If the government takes over industry in Kenya, the industry will become more efficient.
• Avoid merely reporting a fact. Say more than what is already proven fact. Go further with your ideas. Otherwise… why would your point matter?
• Original thesis: Hoover's administration was rocked by scandal.
• Revised thesis: The many scandals of Hoover's administration revealed basic problems with the Republican Party's nominating process.

Do not expect to come up with a fully formulated thesis statement before you have finished writing the paper. The thesis will inevitably change as you revise and develop your ideas—and that is ok! Start with a tentative thesis and revise as your paper develops.

Is your thesis statement original?

Avoid, avoid, avoid generic arguments and formula statements. They work well to get a rough draft started, but will easily bore a reader. Keep revising until the thesis reflects your real ideas.

 Tip: The point you make in the paper should matter:

• Be prepared to answer “So what?” about your thesis statement.
• Be prepared to explain why the point you are making is worthy of a paper. Why should the reader read it?

Compare the following:

• Original thesis:
• There are advantages and disadvantages to using statistics. (a fill-in-the-blank formula)
• Revised theses:
• Careful manipulation of data allows a researcher to use statistics to support any claim she desires.
• In order to ensure accurate reporting, journalists must understand the real significance of the statistics they report.
• [THE WHY]: In order to ensure accurate reporting….
• [POSITION]: ….journalists must understand the real significance of the statistics they report
• Because advertisers consciously and unconsciously manipulate data, every consumer should learn how to evaluate statistical claims.

Avoid formula and generic words. Search for concrete subjects and active verbs, revising as many "to be" verbs as possible. A few suggestions below show how specific word choice sharpens and clarifies your meaning.

• Original: “Society is...” [who is this "society" and what exactly is it doing?]
• Revised: "Men and women will learn how to...," "writers can generate...," "television addicts may chip away at...," "American educators must decide...," "taxpayers and legislators alike can help fix..."
• Original: "the media"
• Revised: "the new breed of television reporters," "advertisers," "hard-hitting print journalists," "horror flicks," "TV movies of the week," "sitcoms," "national public radio," "Top 40 bop-til-you-drop..."
• Original: "is, are, was, to be" or "to do, to make"
• Revised: any great action verb you can concoct: "to generate," "to demolish," "to batter," "to revolt," "to discover," "to flip," "to signify," "to endure..."

Use your own words in thesis statements; avoid quoting. Crafting an original, insightful, and memorable thesis makes a distinct impression on a reader. You will lose credibility as a writer if you become only a mouthpiece or a copyist; you will gain credibility by grabbing the reader with your own ideas and words.

A well-crafted thesis statement reflects well-crafted ideas. It signals a writer who has intelligence, commitment, and enthusiasm.

Argument

A form of expression consisting of a coherent set of reasons (facts, evidence) presenting or supporting a point of view; a series of reasons given for or against a matter under discussion that is intended to convince or persuade the listener.

For example, an argument by counsel consists of a presentation of the facts or evidence and the inferences that may be drawn there from, which are aimed at persuading a judge or jury to render a verdict in favor of the attorney's client.

An attorney may begin to develop an argument in the Opening Statement, the initial discussion of the case in which the facts and the pertinent law are stated. In most cases, however, an attorney sets forth the main points of an argument in the closing argument, which is the attorney's final opportunity to comment on the case before a judge or jury retires to begin deliberation on a verdict.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.  https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/argument

Deductive Reasoning Posted by: Margaret Rouse https://whatis.techtarget.com

https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/deductive-argument

A deductive argument is the presentation of statements that are assumed or known to be true as premises for a conclusion that necessarily follows from those statements. Deductive reasoning relies on what is assumed to be known to infer truths about similarly related conclusions.

In reality, few statements can be said to be true with 100 percent certainty. The classic deductive argument, for example, goes back to antiquity: All men are mortal, and Socrates is a man; therefore Socrates is mortal. However, although all men have historically been mortal (have died, that is), we cannot know if some man living now or in the future will live forever. Similarly, although it seems safe to assume that Socrates is a man, we cannot know for certain that he is not an extraterrestrial being or a phantom. Nevertheless, those premises are sufficiently strong to support the conclusion.

The provability of an argument through deductive reasoning relies on the truth of its assumed premises. The argument may be valid or invalid, independently of whether they are sound.

The argument’s validity depends on whether the conclusion naturally follows from the premises.

·     If the statements offered as premises are true,

·     and the conclusion follows naturally from those premises,

·     then a deductive argument is considered to be valid.

 From B & R, p. 125

Deductive Reasoning:

·     begins with a generalization

·     cites a specific case related to that generalization

·     conclusion

President Kennedy’s address: civil rights legislation

·     “ought to be possible”…for American students of any color to attend any public institution they select without having to be backed up by troops

o  (i.e., All Americans should enjoy certain rights.) (assumption, moral argument)

·     he provides specific examples (recent events in Birmingham) and statistics to show that this was not the case

o  Some Americans do not enjoy these rights (support, evidence that his moral thesis is not the case in the U.S.)

·     makes a moral argument (or elaborates on his moral argument)

·     what needs to be happen (i.e., legislation) (claim, what needs to happen; “We must…” to this and that)

Inductive Argument/Reasoning

In contrast, an inductive argument is sampled from instances of supporting evidence that can't be fully proven true but can be considered to supply support for the conclusion. An inductive argument can be disproven by a single negative sample. Where deductive reasoning takes existing premises to infer an existing or past condition,

·     inductive reasoning takes evidence from the past or present to support a conclusion of a future prediction.

RSS: Most academic arguments appear to be deductive:

·     thesis statement

·     evidence (from original research) & research in the literature

·     conclusion (thesis repeated)

Inductive or Deductive

Blooms example

·     issue, what is assumed to be true

·     examples of theses that abound regarding this issue

·     Bloom’s thesis (statement contrary to popular understanding of empathy)

o  deductive organization

·     evidence [research] and/or reasoning supporting his thesis

·     conclusion (summary/restatement of thesis, but now in the context of the evidence [research] he provided.

Inductive Reasoning (B & R, p. 125)

·     speaker begin not with a generalization, but with pieces of specific evidence

·     then draws a conclusion

(1) Statement of the Problem

·     [and/or] may begin with examples of the problem (e.g., young men being viciously murdered for a pair of sneakers)

(2) Evidence that this is a widespread problem

(3) Conclusion (ends with an argument, or advocating a position, that something should change.)

o  “Something has to change.” (Robert Byrd)

o  Bill (introduced in Congress) should be passed. (argument has already been supported by evidence, but evidence did not follow from any thesis. 

Writing Across the Curriculum

Making a Sociological Argument: Orienting Students to a New Field (Greta Krippner, Sociology)

Once you have developed a viable research question, your next task is to review the evidence in order to formulate an answer to your question.

The answer to your question is your thesis, or your argument. Typically, researchers do original research at this point—they analyze statistical data, go to the field, administer surveys, conduct experiments, etc. We don’t have time for that in the course of one semester, so we will use existing research (also called secondary research) as evidence. Even though we are not collecting our own data, the logic is the same:

you will use data (collected by others) to support your position.

This does not mean simply parroting another researcher’s results; the unique (and creative!) part of your research project comes in assembling evidence from a variety of sources.

So, for example, you may want to argue that birth order does not provide a good explanation of (conservative) social attitudes. You are taking the same position that Freese et al. do, but while you will report their findings, you will not limit yourself to their research. Rather you will look for other researchers who have considered the relationship between birth order theory and social attitudes. [asking as judge or jury]

·     How do their findings compare with the findings of Freese et al.? If they are also arguing against birth order theory, they support your argument, and you will include their findings as additional evidence in support of your position.

·     If they contradict Freese et al.’s position, you will also include them in your discussion, but here your task is to explain why Freese et al.’s findings are more persuasive.

[other ways of examining the data]: Perhaps you want to take another tack not by arguing for or against birth order theory with respect to a specific outcome per se, but rather by comparing how birth order theory “performs” as compared to the standard sociological variables (age, race, gender, etc.) across a variety of social outcomes.

Perhaps Freese et al. convinced you that birth order is not a good predictor of social attitudes, but does birth order do a better job predicting other social outcomes, including education, achievement, personality, etc.? In this case, you would still present the findings of Freese et al. as evidence about the effect of birth order on social attitudes, but then you would go on to examine research on birth order and education, achievement, and personality.

[ATTENTION]: Keep in mind the difference between summarizing and making an argument here. You are not merely summarizing Freese et al.’s paper; you are using their findings to make your own argument. The distinction is tricky,

…..because making an argument requires you to summarize the research of others,

but for your own purposes.

Two Strategies for Making a Sociological Argument

What you do in your argument depends a great deal on how your question is framed. Generally, there are two different tasks you can take on in making a sociological argument:

1. Establish a relationship between two or more phenomena (variables).

This is the mode of sociological thinking/argumentation we have stressed most in class. We have already discussed several questions that involve this kind of argument:

Example 1: Does birth order affect social attitudes?

Example 2: How does co-habitation prior to marriage affect the probability of marital success/stability?

Example 3: Is low voter turnout explained by the educational levels of the population?

Each of these questions asks about a presumed relationship: does a relationship exist between cohabitation and marital success? Between birth order and social attitudes? Between voting and educational levels? Presuming that the variables are measurable, these sorts of questions lend themselves to quantitative analysis: most of the relevant evidence will be of a statistical variety. Where variables aren’t measurable, though, qualitative research may be used to establish a relationship.

Example 4: Do families with only girl (or only boy) children exhibit more closeness?

Regardless of whether the research you are using is quantitative, qualitative, or a mixture of both, if your question is about establishing a relationship then your argument will generally involve adjudicating contradictory findings. You will find research that both supports and contradicts the existence of the relationship you are assessing. You must first decide, based on all the evidence you have reviewed, where YOU come down on the issue: are you persuaded that the posited relationship exists?

(1) You will then systematically make a case in support of your position, citing the relevant findings as evidence.

(2) You will also discuss findings that contradict your position, explaining why you find them less credible. Eliminating alternative explanations is an important component of making a convincing sociological argument. More on this in a moment. . . .

1. Establish a mechanism.

 We haven’t talked about this a lot in class, but there is another type of research question in sociology. These are “how” and “why” questions—rather than attempting to establish (and quantify) a relationship between two variables, this kind of research question is oriented towards explaining how something works or why a particular phenomenon is occurring. These are questions about process. Often (but not always!) qualitative research is better suited to addressing process questions than quantitative research.

Example 5: What explains the recent influx of Latino immigrants to the United States?

Example 6: Why aren’t third parties successful in the United States?

 Note that this kind of question can’t be expressed as easily or naturally in the language of independent and dependent variables. This difficulty reflects the fact that while this type of question does specify an “outcome” (dependent) variable (e.g., Latino immigration, third party success),

·     independent variables (causes) are left open.

The task here is to provide a plausible explanation for an event. The relevant evidence may be more institutional or structural than statistical in nature. For example, in order to explain the influx of Latino immigration, relative levels of socio-economic development in the United States and Latin America might be relevant to your argument. Perhaps political events in Latin countries in recent years, or changes to U.S. immigration law are important.

Here the task of constructing a sociological argument consists of weighing these factors in order to determine which are most important. As before, you will want to consider and eliminate alternative explanations. If you believe, for example, that the most fundamental reason for third party failure in the United States is the structure of campaign finance laws, then you may want to argue against an alternative (contradicting) explanation for that failure, such as the position that the existing two-party system effectively meets the needs of a wide variety of Americans.

Finally, note that some arguments accomplish both of these tasks:

·     they establish a relationship and

·     posit a mechanism.

For example, research on the cohabitation question could first establish that there is a relationship between cohabitating prior to marriage and marital success and then try to explain how that relationship works. (e.g.,)

Does cohabitating allow couples a “trial” period in which to determine if they are truly compatible prior to marriage? Does it enable couples to negotiate difficult issues before committing to a permanent relationship? Does cohabiting provide couples an opportunity to practice interpersonal skills that, once acquired, strengthen the marital relationship? Establishing a relationship and explaining how the relationship works will often involve combining quantitative and qualitative research.

Making Your Argument Convincing

Your goal is to convince a skeptical reader of the correctness of your claim. Some things to keep in mind:

1.    Making a sociological argument involves selecting and prioritizing key factors or causes from a multitude of possible factors or causes. A paper in which you argue that everything under the sun is related to your problem is not particularly useful or informative. Instead, your task is to simplify a complex reality by telling the reader which factors or causes are most important for a given phenomenon you are trying to explain. It is not your task to be exhaustive; it is your task to convince readers as to what is most central. So, for example, “Residential segregation is a key cause of urban poverty,” is a stronger, more interesting claim than, “Social, political, and economic factors contribute to urban poverty.” In general, strong (specific) claims are preferable to weak (non-specific) ones.

2.    However, if your claim is too strong for you to defend with believable evidence, you are better off backing down to a thesis you can squarely defend with the available evidence.

3.    Use the facts, figures, statistics, interview data, etc. of other researchers to support your points. Don’t just recite the claims that others make based on their data, show the evidence behind their claims.

4.    Depending on your question, you may want to introduce and refute counter-arguments or alternative explanations. This strengthens your claims, because instead of allowing the reader to come up with counter-arguments, you are saying, “you might be thinking my thesis isn’t true because of x, well let me tell you why it’s true despite” By eliminating alternative explanations, you are heading off your critics at the pass.

RSS: school failure of many students of color (weighing different argument, both conservative, and liberal-progressive);

·     Which one carries more weight.

·     Introducing a new framework and causal processes that may have a number of advantages

5.    The quote from Marx is intended to remind you that while the process of working out your argument is (necessarily) messy, the presentation of your argument in your paper shouldn’t be. In other words, avoid writing your paper as a blow-by-blow of your thought process while you were working out your argument. Rather, in writing, you begin where you ended in thought—with a clean, concise statement of your argument. You then use your argument to guide and structure the paper. We will deal more specifically with organizational issues in sociological writing in a few weeks.

“Blow by blow.” I use a “’blow by blow’ method” for guiding myself through my writing:

·     I have my notes from my lit review

o  findings, theses, analyses taken from the literature

o  my thoughts and evaluations of what I read

·     Initial skeleton of my paper (“outline”) (Does not have to complete, or set in concrete. Always in flux, development, or reconstruction.)

·     [Headings] and subheadings (and bullet points)

o  To announce to myself the purpose of what I’m going to write.

o  To inform myself the purpose of what I wrote.

Finding a Research Question

How to Read a (Quantitative) Journal Article

Note: This handout refers to Jeremy Freese, Brian Powell, and Lala Carr Steelman, “Rebel Without Cause or Effect: Birth Order and Social Attitudes,” American Sociological Review 64 (1999): 207-231.

Writing Across the Curriculum

Supporting faculty and teaching assistants as they teach with writing

https://writing.wisc.edu/wac/from-topic-to-thesis/

From Topic to Thesis Tisha Turk, Women’s Studies 101

A well-constructed thesis statement helps hold an essay together by showing the reader where the paper is going to go. It defines not just a paper’s topic but its argument, and

·     introduces the kinds of evidence or mode of reasoning that will be used to back up that argument.

·     It does not merely summarize the points that will be made; rather, it shows the relationship between those points.

·     A thesis may need to be more than one sentence in order to do all these things; it may turn out to be a “thesis cluster” rather than a “thesis statement.”

As we all know, “construct an argument” is easier said than done. Many papers merely describe texts in the introduction rather than articulating a specific thesis that makes an argument about those texts. Sometimes the paper simply hasn’t foregrounded an argument that shows up elsewhere in the paper. Sometimes the paper makes lots of good individual points without figuring out the relationship between those points, so that the thesis is more like a list than an argument.

In order for us to examine what an argument actually looks like and look at some ways we can push on a topic to get to one, I’ve provided a couple of sample take-home essay prompts and a series of increasingly specific thesis statements or clusters (based on past student essays) addressing those questions. I’ve included some commentary on each sample thesis so you can get a sense of what kinds of questions (mostly “why?” and “how?”) I ask when I’m reading.

Example: Assignment #1

Analyze hooks and any other two authors we’ve read in terms of their use of the concept of denaturalization. What behaviors or beliefs do they denaturalize, and what specifically do they hope to accomplish by doing so? You may also consider negative examples, in which an author fails to denaturalize a behavior or belief that is historically or culturally situated.

1.    hooks, Mackler, and Sepanski all address the issue of denaturalization.

[SELF TALK]: Well, yeah. The question assumes that the concept is relevant to some of our readings. I need to see the paper make a claim about the essays in relation to the concept.

2.    hooks is successful at denaturalizing certain behaviors; Mackler and Sepanski are not.

[SELF TALK]: Okay, this is starting to look more like a thesis; there’s a claim being made about the authors’ success at doing the denaturalization thing. But I want more specificity: what are the “certain behaviors” being denaturalized.

3.    While hooks successfully denaturalizes the idea of women as inherently non-violent in her essay “Feminism and Militarism: A Comment,” Carolyn Mackler’s essay “Memoirs of a (Sorta) Ex-Shaver” fails to denaturalize the idea that women are hairless, just as Diane Sepanski’s essay “The Skinny on Small” fails to denaturalize the idea that women are quiet.

[SELF TALK]: Much better, because now I know what the issues are that we’re going to be discussing. But: what are the criteria for “successful denaturalization”?

4.    Using hooks’ argument that “the personal is political,” denaturalization should be seen as a complex process that involves acknowledging the stereotyped behavior, personally overcoming it, and, ultimately, collectively resisting the stereotyped behavior in the political arena. While hooks successfully denaturalizes the idea of women as inherently non-violent in her essay “feminism and militarism: a comment,” Carolyn Mackler’s essay “Memoirs of a (Sorta) Ex-Shaver” fails to denaturalize the idea that women are hairless, just as Diane Sepanski’s essay “The Skinny on Small” fails to denaturalize the idea that women are quiet.

[SELF TALK]: Aha! This explanation of denaturalization is especially sharp because, while totally in line with the concept as discussed in class, there’s actually an extra claim embedded in it: denaturalization can be usefully connected with the idea that “the personal is political.” (Incidentally, the author was able to come back to this connection in the essay’s conclusion and offer further commentary on its importance—a strategy that made for an interesting and effective final paragraph that didn’t just reiterate the intro.)

I think the thesis could still be pushed further, though; I want to know how Mackler’s and Sepanski’s projects fail to meet the criteria that have been established, and whether they fail for similar reasons.

5.    Using hooks’ argument that “the personal is political,” denaturalization should be seen as a complex process that involves acknowledging the stereotyped behavior, personally overcoming it, and, ultimately, collectively resisting the stereotyped behavior in the political arena. While hooks successfully denaturalizes the idea of women as inherently non-violent in her essay “feminism and militarism: a comment,” Carolyn Mackler’s essay “Memoirs of a (Sorta) Ex-Shaver” fails to denaturalize the idea that women are hairless, just as Diane Sepanski’s essay “The Skinny on Small” fails to denaturalize the idea that women are quiet. Both Mackler and Sepanski begin the process of denaturalization in that each author shows the transformation of her own consciousness, but their actions have not yet fully contradicted the stereotypes of which they have become aware.

[SELF TALK]: Yup, I’ll take that. I’m not entirely sure that I actually agree with this argument, but the logic behind it is clear and sound and has been effectively presented. Now, of course, the rest of the essay has to follow through on this argument and do the actual work of proving the claims, but since the thesis cluster sets up such a specific set of criteria for analyzing and evaluating the essays, it should be fairly easy to check back and answer the question “is the essay really doing what I said it was going to do?”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xkSpSCdE_8

This clip is from the movie, "My Family/ Mi Familia" directed by Gregory Nava

Crafting a Thesis Statement        Professor David Zimmerman, English

https://writing.wisc.edu/wac/crafting-a-thesis-statement/

Crafting a thesis is hard work. A successful thesis is typically the result of a long process of trying out different claims, selecting a few to refine and elaborate, and choosing an especially promising one to perfect. Here’s an example of this trial-and-error process as it moves from first attempt to a developed thesis:

In “Benito Cereno,” Herman Melville suggests

In “Benito Cereno,” Herman Melville argues that

In “Benito Cereno,” Herman Melville argues that black slaves are equally capable of political symbolism as whites.

In “Benito Cereno,” Herman Melville shows how whites fool themselves if they think they alone possess the capacity to enact political theater

“Benito Cereno” exposes the racism that makes blacks the passive

In “Benito Cereno,” the white

In “Benito Cereno,” Captain Delano represents white Americans who confuse authority and power

Herman Melville’s “Benito Cereno” is a powerfully subversive work. On first glance, it seems to

Herman Melville’s “Benito Cereno” is a powerfully subversive work. It exposes the idiocy and blindness of white antebellum racists who imagine that black slaves are incapable of using political symbolism.

Herman Melville’s “Benito Cereno” is a powerfully subversive work. It shows how keenly aware black slaves are of the strategies white slaveholders use to terrify and oppress them. At the same time, it shows how whites refuse to see

Herman Melville’s “Benito Cereno” is a powerfully subversive work. It shows how blind white slaveholders are to the imaginative capacities of black slaves

Herman Melville’s “Benito Cereno” is a powerfully subversive work. It shows not only that black slaves are keenly aware of the symbolic strategies white slaveholders use to safeguard white power, but also that black slaves can exploit these strategies to secure their own emancipation and authority over their masters.

Herman Melville’s “Benito Cereno” is a powerfully subversive work. It demonstrates that black slaves are keenly aware of the symbolic strategies white slaveholders use to safeguard the slave regime. Moreover, it shows how black slaves are capable of exploiting these same strategies to secure their own emancipation and authority at the expense of their former masters.

Herman Melville’s “Benito Cereno” is a powerfully subversive work. It shows how the very strategies white slaveholders depend on to safeguard their power over their slaves

Herman Melville’s “Benito Cereno” is a powerfully subversive work. It studies how white slaveholders depend upon certain kinds of symbolic displays to safeguard their power and to make their authority over slaves seem natural. It shows not only how black slaves are keenly aware of the ways whites use these displays, but also how slaves are capable of exploiting these displays to fool their masters and to secure their own emancipation.

Teaching Revision https://writing.wisc.edu/wac/teaching-revision/

Rebecca Lorimer and Rebecca Schoenike Nowacek

Writing Across the Curriculum

Revision, revision, revision: the term is nearly a mantra in Comm-B and Writing-Intensive (WI) courses. Indeed, the university criteria for Comm-B and Writing-Intensive courses mandate that instructors build the revision process into their courses—and for good reason. Research has consistently shown that the best, most experienced writers regularly revise their writing in substantive ways.

Why spend time teaching students how to revise their writing?

Benefits for students:    

• Students’ writing, as well as their understanding of content, improves from sustained thinking over time.
• Students can experiment and take chances with low-stakes writing early on in a revision process and engage more comfortably in high-stakes writing when a paper is due.
• Students practice their academic and professional planning skills.

Benefits for you:

• You can evaluate how well students understand course concepts by watching how they teach each other during revision activities.
• You might better leverage your time by receiving quality work that actually takes less time to evaluate.

Why do students resist revision?

Even when they recognize these benefits, one of the most common laments we hear from Comm-B and WI instructors is that they can’t get their students to undertake substantial revisions from one draft to the next. It is surely true that some students choose not to revise because it is demanding work. But there may be other reasons as well.

Some students may not meet our expectations for revision because they understand the term very differently than we do. When Nancy Sommers, a researcher at Harvard, asked student writers and professional authors what “revision” meant to them, they gave her wildly divergent answers:

“…just using better words and eliminating words that are not needed. I go over and change words around.”

“…cleaning up the paper and crossing out. It is looking at something and saying, no that has to go, or no, that is not right.”

“…on one level, finding the argument, and on another level, language changes to make the argument more effective.”

“…a matter of looking at the kernel of what I have written, the content, and then thinking about it, responding to it, making decisions, and actually restructuring it.”

Whereas the students described revision as a process of making adjustments at a more superficial level (“just using better words” and “cleaning up”), the professional authors described revision as a process of making fundamental changes to a paper (“finding the argument” and “actually restructuring”). Instructors of Comm-B and WI courses, no doubt, have the latter definitions in mind. But when students and instructors understand the term revision so differently, it is no surprise that many students don’t undertake the kinds of revisions instructors have in mind.

Students may be willing to revise and may comprehend the kinds of revision that their instructors have in mind, but still make only superficial corrections to their drafts because they lack specific strategies to help them successfully undertake more fundamental revisions. With these possible explanations in mind, we offer the following suggestions—based on our own experiences and our conversations with instructors across the campus—for encouraging and teaching students to revise:

Make clear what you mean by “revision.”

• Be explicit about your definition of revision. Write your definition in your syllabus and discuss it in class with students. One definition we particularly like:

“True revision involves:

o  reseeing, rethinking, and

o  reshaping the piece,

o  resolving a tension between what we intended to say and

o  what the discourse actually says” (Erika Lindemann, A Rhetoric for Writing Teachers).

• Model for students what you have in mind by sharing a before-and-after example of a revised paper; some instructors give examples from previous students, others share examples of revisions undertaken by famous authors.
• Consider sharing a piece of your own drafts and revised writing.

Address the common belief that good writing comes naturally and does not need to be revised.

• Have your class read Donald Murray’s short piece, “The Art of Revision,” or an excerpt from Anne Lamott’s book Bird by Bird, which discusses the author’s struggles with revision and the value of extremely rough drafts.

Focus your comments on the revisions that will be most beneficial.

Faced with lots of commentary on a draft, some students miss the big points or are simply too overwhelmed to engage in revision at all.

• In your conferences or in written comments, set priorities. Although a paper could be improved in many ways, you might set one or two “main goals” for revision.
• Try to make sure your marginal comments reflect those priorities. If 70% of the marks students see on a page are grammar-related and they find only one comment in the endnote advising them to restructure the organization, they may well assume that grammatical revisions are the most pressing revisions.

 Avoid abstract terms when giving feedback.

Just as you need to establish with your students a common understanding of the term “revision,” you will need to establish common understandings of other terms you use to define what needs to be revised—including “flow,” “analysis,” and “thesis.”

• Plan activities in class that allow students to apply your criteria. Pass out your criteria or grading rubric before the assignment is due and ask students to use the criteria to evaluate a sample essay.
• Have students spend time generating their own criteria for the assignment. Ask them to finish the sentence starter “I will succeed in this assignment by writing a paper that is…” It’s surprising how close to your own criteria students often come.

Provide your students with specific strategies and models.

You can also help students begin to revise by being concrete about how to revise and showing them step-by-step what revision looks like.

• Model a topic sentence, explain exactly what is “awkward” about a sentence, or write out a more effective transition and explain what makes it so. Often such explanations are more easily and efficiently conveyed in one-on-one conferences.
• Practice reverse outlining in class—a strategy particularly useful for organizational revision. (A detailed explanation of reverse outlining can be found in this sourcebook.) Outline a draft for students first and then have them work on another classmate’s draft.
• Lead a whole-class workshop of a model paper. Pass out a sample that is very successful, needs revision, or exhibits a particular quality you want to discuss. Give students time to write marginal or endnotes and then discuss it as a class.

Motivate students to revise.

• Acknowledge how difficult—even discouraging—the revision process can be.
• When commenting on drafts, point out what is good in students’ work, so that students can learn not only from other people’s model work, but also from what they themselves have already successfully done. For example, if a student regularly neglects to analyze his evidence, praise the one instance where he does and point out how it strengthens the paper. Then urge the student to revise other sections of the paper based on that positive example.
• Consider adopting and making explicit the following policy: although revision will not automatically improve a grade, students who undertake a major revision (even an unsuccessful one) will not be penalized. Some instructors grade drafts and the improvements on those drafts as a way to motivate students.
• Many students are also motivated to revise when they sense a genuine interest on the part of the instructor: interest in their ideas, arguments, research—and in their progress as writers.

Make sure there is adequate time for the hard work of revision.

• Build the revision process into your syllabus; for examples of how to pace drafts and revision throughout the semester see the syllabi in the “Sequencing Assignments” section of this book.
• Consider using a final portfolio to grade students. (See examples in this sourcebook.)

Encourage / require students to get feedback on drafts from multiple sources. Sometimes hearing similar responses from various sources can confirm for students the need to revise. Other times, one respondent can explain a point of confusion in a way that suddenly makes sense. There are many possible sources of feedback: student-teacher conferences, peer groups, the Writing Center, a Writing Fellow, and even student-writers themselves. You may, however, want to talk with your students about what to do if they get contradictory advice about revising.

How to Build a Theoretical Model   March 20, 2017

Posted by: Mike Rucker  https://unstick.me/build-theoretical-model/

It is often expected that you will include a theoretical model with your dissertation. This requirement might leave many students struggling, wondering how to build a theoretical model. You should know many people find building a solid theoretical model challenging. Many academic papers fail to provide a good theoretical framework, so it can be difficult for the reader to understand what the research is trying to achieve. If you succeed in getting this part right, your research will gain a solid foundation and your dissertation’s purpose will become a lot more comprehensible to whomever reads your work.

When talking about theory, you might sometimes also hear the term “conceptual framework”. This term is more commonly used in qualitative research, while the term theoretical model usually appears as a tool in quantitative research.

·     They both refer to the key theories, models and ideas that exist in relation to your chosen topic. They give your research a direction and set boundaries for the reader. Also, they can provide justification for your project – by identifying knowledge gaps in the scientific literature – and show your reader you are building your investigation on sound scientific principles.

A good theoretical model should link your hypotheses with theories and concepts that were discussed in the literature review section of your work. If you feel you need more general information on the focus of your literature review, it might be helpful to read the post describing the three different types of literature review.

Developing a Theoretical Model

To build a good quality theoretical model, you can use the following strategies:

1. Look at your research title and your research problem – this should be the basis for your study and the theory you want to present.
2. Think carefully about which variables are key to your research. You can group these variables according to their dependent or independent status.
3.  Conduct a comprehensive literature review to ensure your model in novel and truly contributes to your field of study.
4.  In the course of your reading, identify a theory or theories that you think best describe the link between different variables found in your research project.
5. Discuss the predictions of this theory (e.g. how it explains human behavior) and make a clear connection to your research.

What Does a Theoretical Model Entail?

Your theoretical model should include:

• Main theories that inform your research,
• concepts you are exploring in your research,
• interactions between your identified theories and concepts.

How to Structure a Theoretical Model

Your theoretical model can be structured in different ways; there are no fixed rules regarding its layout and length. Some opt for a more visual representation of concepts and their links, while others prefer to write out their model in a text format. You could, for example, devote a paragraph or two to each research question or hypothesis and include all the relevant theories and concepts. The benefit of a visual model is it tend to be more memorable.

An important thing to remember is to keep your theoretical model logical and concise. Your model should serve as a road map for you (as well as your readers) to help quickly understand the theoretical underpinnings of your study.

 A Brief Overview of Three Types of Literature Review

 Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper: Theoretical Framework

The purpose of this guide is to provide advice on how to develop and organize a research paper in the social sciences. https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/theoreticalframework

 Theories are formulated to explain, predict, and understand phenomena and, in many cases, to challenge and extend existing knowledge within the limits of critical bounding assumptions. The theoretical framework is the structure that can hold or support a theory of a research study. The theoretical framework introduces and describes the theory that explains why the research problem under study exists.

Abend, Gabriel. "The Meaning of Theory." Sociological Theory 26 (June 2008): 173–199; Swanson, Richard A. Theory Building in Applied Disciplines. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers 2013.

A theoretical framework consists of concepts and, together with their definitions and reference to relevant scholarly literature, existing theory that is used for your particular study. The theoretical framework must demonstrate an understanding of theories and concepts that are relevant to the topic of your research paper and that relate to the broader areas of knowledge being considered.

The theoretical framework is most often not something readily found within the literature. You must review course readings and pertinent research studies for theories and analytic models that are relevant to the research problem you are investigating. The selection of a theory should depend on its appropriateness, ease of application, and explanatory power.

The theoretical framework strengthens the study in the following ways:

1. An explicit statement of theoretical assumptions permits the reader to evaluate them critically.
2. The theoretical framework connects the researcher to existing knowledge. Guided by a relevant theory, you are given a basis for your hypotheses and choice of research methods.
3. Articulating the theoretical assumptions of a research study forces you to address questions of why and how. It permits you to intellectually transition from simply describing a phenomenon you have observed to generalizing about various aspects of that phenomenon.
4. Having a theory helps you identify the limits to those generalizations. A theoretical framework specifies which key variables influence a phenomenon of interest and highlights the need to examine how those key variables might differ and under what circumstances.

By virtue of its applicative nature, good theory in the social sciences is of value precisely because it fulfills one primary purpose: to explain the meaning, nature, and challenges associated with a phenomenon, often experienced but unexplained in the world in which we live, so that we may use that knowledge and understanding to act in more informed and effective ways. 

The Conceptual Framework. College of Education. Alabama State University; Corvellec, Hervé, ed. What is Theory?: Answers from the Social and Cultural Sciences. Stockholm: Copenhagen Business School Press, 2013; Asher, Herbert B. Theory-Building and Data Analysis in the Social Sciences. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press, 1984; Drafting an Argument. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Ravitch, Sharon M. and Matthew Riggan. Reason and Rigor: How Conceptual Frameworks Guide Research. Second edition. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2017; Trochim, William M.K. Philosophy of Research. Research Methods Knowledge Base. 2006; Jarvis, Peter. The Practitioner-Researcher. Developing Theory from Practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1999.

Strategies for Developing the Theoretical Framework

I. Developing the Framework

 Here are some strategies to develop of an effective theoretical framework:

1. Examine your thesis title and research problem. The research problem anchors your entire study and forms the basis from which you construct your theoretical framework.
2. Brainstorm about what you consider to be the key variables in your research. Answer the question, "What factors contribute to the presumed effect?"
3. Review related literature to find how scholars have addressed your research problem. Identify the assumptions from which the author(s) addressed the problem.
4. List the constructs and variables that might be relevant to your study. Group these variables into independent and dependent categories.
5. Review key social science theories that are introduced to you in your course readings and choose the theory that can best explain the relationships between the key variables in your study [note the Writing Tip on this page].
6. Discuss the assumptions or propositions of this theory and point out their relevance to your research.

A theoretical framework is used to limit the scope of the relevant data by focusing on specific variables and defining the specific viewpoint [framework] that the researcher will take in analyzing and interpreting the data to be gathered. It also facilitates the understanding of concepts and variables according to given definitions and builds new knowledge by validating or challenging theoretical assumptions.

II. Purpose

Think of theories as the conceptual basis for understanding, analyzing, and designing ways to investigate relationships within social systems. To that end, the following roles served by a theory can help guide the development of your framework.

• Means by which new research data can be interpreted and coded for future use,
• Response to new problems that have no previously identified solutions strategy,
• Means for identifying and defining research problems,
• Means for prescribing or evaluating solutions to research problems,
• Ways of discerning certain facts among the accumulated knowledge that are important and which facts are not,
• Means of giving old data new interpretations and new meaning,
• Means by which to identify important new issues and prescribe the most critical research questions that need to be answered to maximize understanding of the issue,
• Means of providing members of a professional discipline with a common language and a frame of reference for defining the boundaries of their profession, and
• Means to guide and inform research so that it can, in turn, guide research efforts and improve professional practice.

Adapted from: Torraco, R. J. “Theory-Building Research Methods.” In Swanson R. A. and E. F. Holton III , editors. Human Resource Development Handbook: Linking Research and Practice. (San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler, 1997): pp. 114-137; Jacard, James and Jacob Jacoby. Theory Construction and Model-Building Skills: A Practical Guide for Social Scientists. New York: Guilford, 2010; Ravitch, Sharon M. and Matthew Riggan. Reason and Rigor: How Conceptual Frameworks Guide Research. Second edition. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2017; Sutton, Robert I. and Barry M. Staw. “What Theory is Not.” Administrative Science Quarterly 40 (September 1995): 371-384.

Structure and Writing Style

The theoretical framework may be rooted in a specific theory, in which case, your work is expected to test the validity of that existing theory in relation to specific events, issues, or phenomena. Many social science research papers fit into this rubric. For example, Peripheral Realism Theory, which categorizes perceived differences among nation-states as those that give orders, those that obey, and those that rebel, could be used as a means for understanding conflicted relationships among countries in Africa. A test of this theory could be the following: Does Peripheral Realism Theory help explain intra-state actions, such as, the disputed split between southern and northern Sudan that led to the creation of two nations?

However, you may not always be asked by your professor to test a specific theory in your paper, but to develop your own framework from which your analysis of the research problem is derived. Based upon the above example, it is perhaps easiest to understand the nature and function of a theoretical framework if it is viewed as an answer to two basic questions:

1. What is the research problem/question? [e.g., "How should the individual and the state relate during periods of conflict?"]
2. Why is your approach a feasible solution? [i.e., justify the application of your choice of a particular theory and explain why alternative constructs were rejected. I could choose instead to test Instrumentalist or Circumstantialists models developed among ethnic conflict theorists that rely upon socio-economic-political factors to explain individual-state relations and to apply this theoretical model to periods of war between nations].

 

The answers to these questions come from a thorough review of the literature and your course readings [summarized and analyzed in the next section of your paper] and the gaps in the research that emerge from the review process. With this in mind, a complete theoretical framework will likely not emerge until after you have completed a thorough review of the literature.

Just as a research problem in your paper requires contextualization and background information, a theory requires a framework for understanding its application to the topic being investigated.

When writing and revising this part of your research paper, keep in mind the following:

• Clearly describe the framework, concepts, models, or specific theories that underpin your study. This includes noting who the key theorists are in the field who have conducted research on the problem you are investigating and, when necessary, the historical context that supports the formulation of that theory. This latter element is particularly important if the theory is relatively unknown or it is borrowed from another discipline.
• Position your theoretical framework within a broader context of related frameworks, concepts, models, or theories. As noted in the example above, there will likely be several concepts, theories, or models that can be used to help develop a framework for understanding the research problem. Therefore, note why the theory you've chosen is the appropriate one.
• The present tense is used when writing about theory. Although the past tense can be used to describe the history of a theory or the role of key theorists, the construction of your theoretical framework is happening now.
• You should make your theoretical assumptions as explicit as possible. Later, your discussion of methodology should be linked back to this theoretical framework.
• Don’t just take what the theory says as a given! Reality is never accurately represented in such a simplistic way; if you imply that it can be, you fundamentally distort a reader's ability to understand the findings that emerge. Given this, always note the limitations of the theoretical framework you've chosen [i.e., what parts of the research problem require further investigation because the theory inadequately explains a certain phenomena].

The Conceptual Framework. College of Education. Alabama State University; Conceptual Framework: What Do You Think is Going On? College of Engineering. University of Michigan; Drafting an Argument. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Lynham, Susan A. “The General Method of Theory-Building Research in Applied Disciplines.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 4 (August 2002): 221-241; Tavallaei, Mehdi and Mansor Abu Talib. "A General Perspective on the Role of Theory in Qualitative Research." Journal of International Social Research 3 (Spring 2010); Ravitch, Sharon M. and Matthew Riggan. Reason and Rigor: How Conceptual Frameworks Guide Research. Second edition. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2017; Reyes, Victoria. Demystifying the Journal Article. Inside Higher Education; Trochim, William M.K. Philosophy of Research. Research Methods Knowledge Base. 2006; Weick, Karl E. “The Work of Theorizing.” In Theorizing in Social Science: The Context of Discovery. Richard Swedberg, editor. (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2014), pp. 177-194.

Writing Tip

Borrowing Theoretical Constructs from Elsewhere

A growing and increasingly important trend in the social and behavioral sciences is to think about and attempt to understand specific research problems from an interdisciplinary perspective. One way to do this is to not rely exclusively on the theories in your particular discipline, but to think about how an issue might be informed by theories developed in other disciplines. For example, if you are a political science student studying the rhetorical strategies used by female incumbants in state legislature campaigns, theories about the use of language could be derived, not only from political science, but linguistics, communication studies, philosophy, psychology, and, in this particular case, feminist studies. Building theoretical frameworks based on the postulates and hypotheses developed in other disciplinary contexts can be both enlightening and an effective way to be fully engaged in the research topic.

Frodeman, Robert. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Undertheorize!

Do not leave the theory hanging out there in the introduction never to be mentioned again. Undertheorizing weakens your paper. The theoretical framework you describe should guide your study throughout the paper. Be sure to always connect theory to the review of pertinent literature and to explain in the discussion part of your paper how the theoretical framework you chose supports analysis of the research problem, or if appropriate, how the theoretical framework was found in some way to be inadequate in explaining the phenomenon you were investigating. In that case, don't be afraid to propose your own theory based on your findings.

Yet Another Writing Tip

What's a Theory? What's a Hypothesis?

The terms theory and hypothesis are often used interchangeably in newspapers and popular magazines and in non-academic settings. However, the difference between theory and hypothesis in scholarly research is important, particularly when using an experimental design. A theory is a well-established principle that has been developed to explain some aspect of the natural world. Theories arise from repeated observation and testing and incorporates facts, laws, predictions, and tested assumptions that are widely accepted [e.g., rational choice theory; grounded theory; critical race theory].

A hypothesis is a specific, testable prediction about what you expect to happen in your study. For example, an experiment designed to look at the relationship between study habits and test anxiety might have a hypothesis that states, "We predict that students with better study habits will suffer less test anxiety." Unless your study is exploratory in nature, your hypothesis should always explain what you expect to happen during the course of your research.

The key distinctions are:

• A theory predicts events in a broad, general context; a hypothesis makes a specific prediction about a specified set of circumstances.
• A theory has been extensively tested and is generally accepted among scholars; a hypothesis is a speculative guess that has yet to be tested.

Cherry, Kendra. Introduction to Research Methods: Theory and Hypothesis. About.com Psychology; Gezae, Michael et al. Welcome Presentation on Hypothesis. Slideshare presentation. https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/theoreticalframework

Scott Norton, Developmental Editing (book) on SCRIBD  Sept 18 & 19

Create a Content Summary of the Book (p. 39) (see photo)

The Thesis: Finding the Hook  (Chapter 3)

·     [from main subject] to main topic …we distinguish topics from theses

·     which of the theses will best serve as marketing hook

Cull theses from Topics

·     The first ingredient of a sharp thesis statement is a clear and compelling point of view. [from the range of options contained in the book’s concept]

·     The DE’s goal at this time is to identify as many workable theses as possible. [to winnow to a short list]

o  SUBJ for possible main subject (see page 54)

Beware of the Rehash (p. 55) 63  [using example of book on Mexican culture, Sánchez-Collingwood & Dominguez]

·     [A thesis has to be original, but borrowed. i.e., “derivative thinking”]

Choose the Main Thesis (statement that is central to all the material discussed substantively in the book—without generalizations. (p. 58)

o  Nesting logic

o  Nominate working thesis

o  Main thesis must serves the publisher’s marketing hook

[Coming up with a “thesis,” in the DE’s own words, that reflected the strongest implied thesis in the manuscript]

·     [It all came together with Bud’s conversation with the anthropologist—the final version of the main thesis] (p. 61 & 62)

https://www.scribd.com/read/23597368/Developmental-Editing-A-Handbook-for-Freelancers-Authors-and-Publishers

 

 

 

 

---

---

---

---

---

---

---