To begin the book, there are preliminary thoughts about becoming a researcher as a prologue to forthcoming topics that elaborate upon what it is to develop research as a craft. As the authors set about laying the groundwork for the practice of research, they draw our attention to research itself and its researchers through interaction among readers who are engaged with the subject matter.
Immediately before consideration of the roles between researchers and readers, the authors first define what research is and how to understand it as a discipline. As it is formed and delivered by means of a formal paper, the written work of the researcher isn’t only for the readers but for the researcher himself. The work of research includes written expressions of thought, understanding, rationale, and remembrance to convey ideas, discoveries, and conversations worth exploring. To ask questions and answer them or to encounter problems and seek resolution can involve the formation of projects where a pertinent subject matter of interest is developed as a topic of concern.
The work and product of research together form the body of research projects that have a bearing on readers’ views about topics as either questions or problems that further an overall community conversation about a subject. While the research material itself is central to the work of research and the written labors of researchers, a larger conversation is likely occurring about the topic at hand. The inputs to research, in the form of source materials, experiments, and data analysis, correspond to outputs researchers produce as they together become processed in a coherent fashion. The process by which research inputs are transformed into outputs in the form of answered questions, problems solved, recommendations, or advancements in the total conversation, bears out a range of methods to arrive at practical, abstract, or theoretical solutions. This book guides the student through what it looks like to ask questions, state problems, understand topics, and develop an interest in a research subject among readers.
An essential method of turning a question into a problem involves three steps (pg 49).
- Topic: I am studying __________
- Question: because I want to find out what / why / how __________,
- Significance: in order to help my reader understand __________.
Whether the topic of study is a research problem or a conceptual problem, the distinctions between them should be clearly understood to solve what is relevant about a specific matter of interest. So as researchers work with problems, questions are formed either of practical concern or as a prospective and conceptual interest in an effort to arrive at solutions. Questions that researchers transform into problems to solve must be those problems readers think are worth solving. Meaning, there must be significance or merit to questions answered and problems solved in order to understand the research work undertaken.
The book points out that research supports answering questions and solving problems to satisfy the community. That is the end object to the practice of research according to the authors rather than for personal understanding, worship, or God’s glory for the work performed while seeking truth according to general or special revelation through Scripture. In this regard, the practice of research as a discipline doesn’t belong to the community or society, as the authors insist. In fact, it is subordinate to the purpose and practice of research that individual researchers bear fruit by what questions are answered and problems are solved. Individual exceptionalism for its own end, with or without benefit to society, is of far greater concern. As many individuals, in their pursuit of research excellence, produce work that bears upon society as a by-product, the community stands to gain from that. Otherwise, societies, communities, the State, etc., might not be valuable enough for research endeavors of more meaningful value (whether purely theoretical or applied). Researchers must love objective truth directed to something of much greater weight or more lasting significance over themselves or the spectacle of corrupt societies and communities for research work and its outcomes. This book places too much emphasis on the supremacy of society and the researcher’s role within it as a fulfillment of some “social contract.” As if the researcher’s first and overriding obligation to anyone and anything is to that of society.
While the book offers meaningful rationale about how to structure problems and frame questions around matters of interest, the authors set up statements and examples of very basic conditions and responses that guide students through the work of understanding a problem. Questions formed and reshaped to problems that set up a “so what?” form of inquiry. To derive problems from questions to answer where research opportunities arise of interest to readers. The effort is not to purely find new problems to solve but to derive them and set them up as valid with defensible premises and data to support their investigation. Coherence to truth and resolution for a specific purpose doesn’t necessarily correspond to what’s of value to answer a “so what?” question. The book begins with these chapters to set the means by which research techniques come together for students to understand questions and problems, form them, and derive answers for research. As a sort of call-and-response approach to research, the authors write of linear thinking to deductively adduce factors that have explanatory power as evidence to form conclusions or pursue research to answer “so what?” questions.
The various examples and conditions authors set up help students work with problems they can find and solve. There doesn’t seem to be support for canvasing a subject matter of interest to traverse at some level topically. To find answers to good research problems, authors begin with the notion that researchers must answer questions toward practical applications with a level of high granularity to benefit readers. There is a top-down approach to practical applications (“so that” or “so what”) from the course of research at a narrowing perspective to arrive at conclusions stemming from a chosen topic and its significance. This is an A + B + C must equal D framework of reason that begins with the end in mind. An overarching upper-level topic is selected with conceptual questions and significance to follow in support of questions to answer and problems to solve. Where the effort is not purely for purposes of defensible rationale but a justification for conclusions formed. Rather than follow where research leads, the authors advocate the derivation of questions transformed into problems that appeal to readers by answering “so what?” questions in their interest or that of society.
As the reading and review of these chapters cover the subject matter of interest, it must be said that much of the material is very basic, with principles and facts grounded by common sense. The range of content extends from basic ideas about what research is, why it’s important to write about it, and the roles of both you as a writer and your readers. Understanding research and how to produce it as written material is about developing organized thinking for the clarity of meaning about the subject matter of interest. The authors of this text make a clear connection between research as a practice and discipline to the total effort of conversing with readers.
The book further considers the topic of sources, which involves a bibliography with annotations that pertain to the research material. An argument constructed from reading during research takes shape to form a thesis or a statement in the form of a problem or proposition. Arguments developed from claims become supported by source materials of differing levels of credibility in proximity to the subject of interest. A body of rationale about the subject matter constitutes the research carried out to develop an understanding of statements or propositions that support a research project to draw conclusions and arrive at an understanding of facts or assertions related to material of interest.
As research development progresses and the material is committed to writing, claims are made from developed reasoning and evidence constructed through sources. Claims and arguments are supported by sources and external facts or assertions from cited references, or they’re directly refuted or indifferent to those claims. The book makes a clear link between the researcher’s work and his claims to sources that support those claims. As questions are asked with answers sought during the course of the research, they are concentrated on the problems and propositions made evident to readers, where logic and rationale are made to withstand counter-claims or counter-productive assertions that contradict the research.
Further research effort is placed around the assembly of reason and evidence in support of a research project. The organization and planning around reason and evidence involve order, structure, layout, and evaluation as research is performed to identify and build it for proper consideration. Arguments supported by sources and evidence are then reinforced by arguments using acknowledgment, observation, reason, and logic to settle understanding. It is one thing to acknowledge and understand claims and arguments supported by evidence and sources, but another to accept them or internalize understanding by comprehension and a new awareness concerning the research subject matter.
Before planning a paper and drafting it, a final subject of warrants bears attention. As it is necessary to connect reasons to claims, readers might not understand arguments, or readers may challenge reasoning that supports claims made, so warrants are developed and explicitly stated to trace a line of argument. As a cause-and-effect line of reasoning forms as circumstances give rise to consequences, connections are made between reasoning and claims. Implications and inferences are developed between general and specific circumstances to general and specific consequences that support acceptance of claims made from arguments that stem from logic and reason. To further examine the merits of warrants as they are applied to reasoning and claims, they are tested to assess their validity or how well they apply to arguments as they become challenged. There are several criteria for acceptance of a warrant that researchers investigate in the form of questions. The book offers these questions in the following outline (pg 160), with further explanation to follow.
- Is the warranty reasonable?
- Is it sufficiently limited?
- Is it superior to any competing warrants?
- Is it appropriate to this field?
- Is it able to cover the reason and claim?
When asking if the warrant is reasonable, the researcher inquires about the acceptability of its consequence from its circumstance. If readers cannot accept a consequence, warrants then must become claims as having their own arguments while supported by reasons and evidence.
It follows that a warrant is reasonable if it is limited. The book specifies “most warrants” as the scope or limits to assertions, but exceptions cannot then exclude reasons and claims. Sufficiently limited warrants with equivocations and qualifications have to consider exceptions where they cannot exclude reasons for claims made.
A warrant can be contradicted even if it is limited and reasonable. A contested warrant that requires one to prevail over another implies the necessity of further argument in support of the one offered superior to another. The book further explains that contested warrants can be reconciled by limiting them. Again, according to the book, without further strength of argument having reason and evidence, a warrant is reconciled by placing a limit on one or the other. There is no discussion about disproving the claims or evidence of a competing warrant, nor is there consideration given to the comparative weight of probability of one warrant over another.
As the strength of a warrant is put forward as reasonable, sufficiently limited, and superior to others, it must be narrowed to the particular area of research to which it pertains. If it does not pertain to the field of research of interest, it can be rejected on the grounds of inappropriate consideration.
The researcher must understand a warrant’s general circumstances and consequences is subordinate to or within the reason and claim asserted in support of an argument or proposition. The logic of arguments claimed and supported by reason and evidence with warrant may not be acceptable to a reader if it doesn’t cover what concerns the contested claim or warrant. Strict or pure logic is a relative proposition that pertains to the general circumstances and consequences to the reader who may accept or reject a warrant offered by a researcher. The topic of warrants is further developed in the book to explain when it is suitable for use and why it can test arguments made. Warrants can also be stood up to challenge others’ warrants against propositions or arguments made within a research project. Reasoning from arguments and propositions made is not always clear or obvious to readers, so warrants must be stated under the following occasions outlined in the book.
- Readers are outside the researcher’s field
- A new or controversial principle of reasoning is used in an argument or proposition
- If a reason or claim for an argument is rejected because readers don’t want it to be true, it becomes necessary to state warrants as further evidence and reason.
The researcher relies upon the reader’s rationality to accept arguments and claims based on logic to advance an understanding of a matter, even if the claims of an argument are unwanted, disbelieved, or confrontational.
Going further to understand the value of warrants, they can also be used to test arguments. As all arguments have implicit or explicit warrants, they are instruments by which a researcher can check the validity of an argument. Specific circumstances that do not fit a warrant’s general circumstances can invalidate an argument. Imagining the circumstances in which a warrant is applied can render further clarity about the viability of an argument to determine its acceptability and alignment with claims and whether or not they’re true. Justified claims made in support of an argument must accompany valid warrants. Instances of warrants that do not fit as evidentially valid of a warrant’s general circumstance can dismiss arguments.
Challenges to arguments can appear to claim endlessly, what about this? Or what about that? Under such circumstances, readers object to a researcher’s reasons that are not based on sound evidence. Or reasons that are not relevant to a claim should themselves be tested. Anecdotal evidence, dismissals, or counter-claims in support of the whataboutisms of readers who do not want to accept testable and sound evidence in support of arguments or propositions must bear the burden of rationale and evidence on the merits and truth of contested assertions. The book offers the notion that the researcher bears the burden of finding better evidence or providing a warrant that makes reasoning and rationale relevant to the reader. I reject this perspective from the book’s authors on the ground that reason with evidence and objective truth with valid warrants are sufficient for acceptance regardless of a reader’s interests. The book assumes readers are always purely objective and without bias or predisposition against the researcher’s material, worldview, or the researcher himself for personal reasons.
What a research community accepts is not the criteria by which arguments or propositions from reason and claims are understood as true with valid warrants. An entire research community or a subgroup of it can be incorrect about a matter concerning the research. The authors give further attention to challenges by categorizing them as types or as having conditions. Researchers who persuade and influence readers through arguments with associated claims and supporting evidence have clear methods of delivering facts and warrants. Still, some challenges come from beliefs or concerns outside of the various forms of reason and logic.
According to the book, warrants are challenged by:
- Experience
This attempt to challenge a warrant rests upon the reliability of the experience. If a reader can challenge the reliability of the experience stated within the research with valid evidence to its contrary, the warrant is dismissed or weakened. Conversely, special case counter-examples can have a detrimental effect on warrants.
- Authority
A source of a challenge based on the charisma, position, status, or expertise of a person or group is the easiest and doesn’t necessarily have all the evidence to support warrants. Even if all the evidence was in the possession of figures in positions of authority, that authority alone is not sufficient to challenge the warrants of a researcher. People in positions of authority who borrow on that authority and challenge warrants by consequence damage counterarguments, dismissals, or assertions to the contrary have less to contribute to the overall conversation concerning the research in question.
- Systems of Knowledge
Irrelevant facts that come into question when warrants are challenged have no bearing on the systems of knowledge to the contrary. According to this book’s authors, warrants backed by systems definitions, principles, or theories often withstand challenges. Facts under these circumstances are irrelevant.
- Cultural Warrants
Social pressures, cultural traditions, and heritage can challenge warrants, but these challenges carry less weight or have a reduced strength of argument because “common sense” is rooted in social sensibilities. Readers who resist warrants from a position of beliefs stemming from cultural inclinations have very little bearing on the merits of well-crafted research and its results.
- Methodological Warrants
The means by which a researcher can arrive at warrants comes into question and could get challenged if argumentation is not supported by the practical implementation of generally accepted patterns of thought. Principles in support of a methodological warrant can fall apart when they are applied to specific cases.
- Articles of Faith
The authors of this book don’t allow for evidence that arises from faith (Hebrews 11:1). Meaning proofs are given in support of assured things through propositions or arguments from research unseen yet with facts and revelation attested through the testimony of witnesses and other forms of evidence. Warrants of belief that challenge warrants of research do not always come contrary to evidence as the authors of this book wrote. While that can be true in a general sense, it’s not true from correct biblical understanding about reasonable faith and associated merits of belief contrary to warrants from research contrary to faith claims upon evidence in numerous forms.
As compared to prior chapters of the reading of this book, the next two chapters concern the practical assembly of a research paper. More specifically, the paper is planned and drafted in an organized and coherent way suitable to the interest of readers. With attention to detail concerning the arguments made within the paper, the plan of a research document follows a thoughtful path that corresponds to the following draft. The plan in which a paper comes together corresponds to meaning that comports with the delivery of arguments, propositions, rationale, claims, reason, and warrants that offer compelling interest to the reader.
The book further delves into the introduction and body of the research paper to include storyboard sketches of what the subject matter concerns for each given paragraph that conveys a central idea. The introduction parses the sections of the paper where the reader is given a set of expectations about the subject matter ahead. As the paper groups together the major sections of the material, the researcher identifies key concepts early in the paper to run a thread of interest for the reader’s benefit. Once the introduction section is drafted with the sections and top-level ideas presented, the researcher turns his attention to the body of the paper itself.
The book continues to guide the researcher through suggestions concerning the body of the paper as it is structured to guide the reader. Rather than begin writing outright without a plan to construct a coherent series of part-by-part ideas or a cause-and-effect sequence of pointed interests, there is an order assembled by the researcher in which meaning is stitched together to support and develop an understanding of the arguments or propositions claimed. The order and complexity to which the body of the document is assembled depend largely upon the subject matter of the research and the intended reader. As the planning in this way is iterative to develop a draft, edits and refinement of the paper further support clear and coherent points partitioned by sections and subsections to guide the reader. Sections are organized in such a way as to present evidence for arguments and warrants for claims made. In anticipation of what readers might think about the subject matter, the researcher acknowledges them and responds accordingly.
Before the arguments are organized, further discussion is offered about how to avoid the development of flawed plans. As a researcher turns an organized plan into a draft document, sufficient support is needed concerning the substance of the document while supported by the format and layout for readability. The structured organization for the paper to include headers, spacing, positioning of argumentation, placement of claims, and reasons must flow for readability to the reader’s liking. Where the readability and organization don’t get in the way of the subject matter presented.
While the drafting and editing of the document consist of proper paragraph structure, dependent and independent clauses for sentence formation, correct punctuation, and so forth are the mechanics that are in service of the messages formed along the body of the paper. While there are numerous pitfalls in how a paper is written to convey its ideas, arguments, and propositions, the book offers guidance about how it is revised to improve organization and readability. Arguments strengthened in revisions of the paper from research has a significant bearing on both readability and the reader’s views about the researcher’s quality of research and how it is presented.
Comments are closed.