Synthesizing Information

As you gather information, you must find a way to make all the facts, ideas, points of view, and quotations you have encountered work with and for you. The process involves not only reading information and recording data carefully (paying “infotention”), but also pondering and synthesizing it — that is, figuring out how the sources you’ve examined come together to support your specific claims. Synthesis, a form of critical thinking highly valued by business, industry, and other institutions — especially those that reward innovation and creative thinking — is hard work. It almost always involves immersing yourself in your information or data until it feels familiar and natural to you.

At that point, you can begin to look for patterns, themes, and commonalities or striking differences among your sources. Many students use highlighters to help with this process: mark in blue all the parts of sources that mention point A; mark in green those that have to do with issue B; and so on. You are looking for connections among your sources, bringing together what they have to say about your topic in ways you can organize to help support the claim you are making.

You typically begin this process by paraphrasing or summarizing sources so that you understand exactly what they offer and which ideas are essential to your project. You also decide which, if any, sources offer materials you want to quote directly or reproduce (such as an important graph or table). Then you work to introduce such borrowed materials so that readers grasp their significance, and organize them to highlight important relationships. Throughout this review process, use “infotention” strategies by asking questions such as the following:

439

Remember that yours should be the dominant and controlling voice in an argument. You are like the conductor of an orchestra, calling upon separate instruments to work together to create a rich and coherent sound. The least effective academic papers are those that mechanically walk through a string of sources — often just one item per paragraph — without ever getting all these authorities to talk to each other or with the author. Such papers go through the motions but don’t get anywhere. You can do better.

Paraphrasing Sources You Will Use Extensively

In a paraphrase, you put an author’s ideas — including major and minor points — into your own words and sentence structures, following the order the author has given them in the original piece. You usually paraphrase sources that you expect to use heavily in a project. But if you compose your notes well, you may be able to use much of the paraphrased material directly in your paper (with proper citation) because all of the language is your own. A competent paraphrase proves you have read material or data carefully: you demonstrate not only that you know what a source contains but also that you appreciate what it means. There’s an important difference.

440

Here are guidelines to help you paraphrase accurately and effectively in an academic argument:

441

Here is a passage from linguist David Crystal’s book Language Play, followed by a student’s paraphrase of the passage.

Language play, the arguments suggest, will help the development of pronunciation ability through its focus on the properties of sounds and sound contrasts, such as rhyming. Playing with word endings and decoding the syntax of riddles will help the acquisition of grammar. Readiness to play with words and names, to exchange puns and to engage in nonsense talk, promotes links with semantic development. The kinds of dialogue interaction illustrated above are likely to have consequences for the development of conversational skills. And language play, by its nature, also contributes greatly to what in recent years has been called metalinguistic awareness, which is turning out to be of critical importance to the development of language skills in general and literacy skills in particular (180).

Paraphrase of the Passage from Crystal’s Book

In Language Play, David Crystal argues that playing with language—creating rhymes, figuring out riddles, making puns, playing with names, using inverted words, and so on—helps children figure out a great deal, from the basics of pronunciation and grammar to how to carry on a conversation. This kind of play allows children to understand the overall concept of how language works, a concept that is key to learning to use—and read—language effectively (180).

442

Summarizing Sources

Unlike a paraphrase, a summary records just the gist of a source or a key idea — that is, only enough information to identify a point you want to emphasize. Once again, this much-shortened version of a source puts any borrowed ideas into your own words. At the research stage, summaries help you identify key points you want to make and, just as important, provide a record of what you have read. In a project itself, a summary helps readers understand the sources you are using.

Here are some guidelines to help you prepare accurate and helpful summaries:

443

Following is a summary of the David Crystal passage:

In Language Play, David Crystal argues that playing with language helps children figure out how language works, a concept that is key to learning to use—and read—language effectively (180).

Notice that the summary is shorter than the paraphrase shown above.

Using Quotations Selectively and Strategically

To support your argumentative claims, you’ll want to quote (that is, to reproduce an author’s precise words) in at least three kinds of situations:

Consider, too, that charts, graphs, and images may also function like direct quotations, providing convincing evidence for your academic argument.

In an argument, quotations from respected authorities will establish your ethos as someone who has sought out experts in the field. Just as important sometimes, direct quotations (such as a memorable phrase in your introduction or a detailed eyewitness account) may capture your readers’ attention. Finally, carefully chosen quotations can broaden the appeal of your argument by drawing on emotion as well as logic, appealing to the reader’s mind and heart. A student who is writing on the ethical issues of bullfighting, for example, might introduce an argument that bullfighting is not a sport by quoting Ernest Hemingway’s comment that “the formal bull-fight is a tragedy, not a sport, and the bull is certain to be killed” and then accompany the quotation with an image such as the one on the next page.

The following guidelines can help you quote sources accurately and effectively:

444

Framing Materials You Borrow with Signal Words and Introductions

Because source materials are crucial to the success of arguments, you need to introduce borrowed words and ideas carefully to your readers. Doing so usually calls for using a signal phrase of some kind in the sentence to introduce or frame the source. Often, a signal phrase will precede a quotation. But you need such a marker whenever you introduce borrowed material, as in the following examples:

According to noted primatologist Jane Goodall, the more we learn about the nature of nonhuman animals, the more ethical questions we face about their use in the service of humans.

446

The more we learn about the nature of nonhuman animals, the more ethical questions we face about their use in the service of humans, according to noted primatologist Jane Goodall.

The more we learn about the nature of nonhuman animals, according to noted primatologist Jane Goodall, the more ethical questions we face about their use in the service of humans.

In each of these sentences, the signal phrase tells readers that you’re drawing on the work of a person named Jane Goodall and that this person is a “noted primatologist.”

Now look at an example that uses a quotation from a source in more than one sentence:

In Job Shift, consultant William Bridges worries about “dejobbing and about what a future shaped by it is going to be like.” Even more worrisome, Bridges argues, is the possibility that “the sense of craft and of professional vocation . . . will break down under the need to earn a fee” (228).

The signal verbs worries and argues add a sense of urgency to the message Bridges offers. They also suggest that the writer either agrees with — or is neutral about — Bridges’s points. Other signal verbs can have a more negative slant, indicating that the point being introduced by the quotation is open to debate and that others (including the writer) might disagree with it. If the writer of the passage above had said, for instance, that Bridges unreasonably contends or that he fantasizes, these signal verbs would carry quite different connotations from those associated with argues.

In some cases, a signal verb may require more complex phrasing to get the writer’s full meaning across:

Bridges recognizes the dangers of changes in work yet refuses to be overcome by them: “The real issue is not how to stop the change but how to provide the necessary knowledge and skills to equip people to operate successfully in this New World” (229).

As these examples illustrate, the signal verb is important because it allows you to characterize the author’s or source’s viewpoint as well as your own — so choose these verbs with care.

447

Note that in APA style, these signal verbs should be in a past tense: Blau (1992) claimed; Clark (2001) has concluded.

Using Sources to Clarify and Support Your Own Argument

The best academic arguments often have the flavor of a hearty but focused intellectual conversation. Scholars and scientists create this impression by handling research materials strategically and selectively. Here’s how some college writers use sources to achieve their own specific goals within an academic argument.

Establish context. Taylor Pearson, whose essay “Why You Should Fear Your Toaster More Than Nuclear Power” appears in Chapter 8, sets the context for his argument in the first two sentences, in which he cites a newspaper source (“Japan Nuclear Disaster Tops Scale”) as representative of “headlines everywhere” warning of nuclear crises and the danger of existing nuclear plants. Assuming that these sentences will remind readers of other warnings and hence indicate that this is a highly fraught argument with high emotional stakes, Pearson connects those fears to his own argument by shifting, in the third sentence, into a direct rebuttal of the sources (such fears are “nothing more than media sensationalism”) before stating his thesis: “We need nuclear energy. It’s clean, it’s efficient, it’s economic, and it’s probably the only thing that will enable us to quickly phase out fossil fuels.” It will be up to Pearson in the rest of the essay to explain how, even in a context of public fear, his thesis is defensible:

For the past month or so, headlines everywhere have been warning us of the horrible crises caused by the damaged Japanese nuclear reactors. Titles like “Japan Nuclear Disaster Tops Scale” have fueled a new wave of protests against anything nuclear—namely, the construction of new nuclear plants or even the continued operation of existing plants. However, all this reignited fear of nuclear energy is nothing more than media sensationalism. We need nuclear energy. It’s clean, it’s efficient, it’s economic, and it’s probably the only thing that will enable us to quickly phase out fossil fuels.

448

Review the literature on a subject. You will often need to tell readers what authorities have already written about your topic, thus connecting them to your own argument. So, in a paper on the effectiveness of peer editing, Susan Wilcox does a very brief “review of the literature” on her subject, pointing to three authorities who support using the method in writing courses. She quotes from the authors and also puts some of their ideas in her own words:

Bostock cites one advantage of peer review as “giving a sense of ownership of the assessment process” (1). Topping expands this view, stating that “peer assessment also involves increased time on task: thinking, comparing, contrasting, and communicating” (254). The extra time spent thinking over the assignment, especially in terms of helping someone else, can draw in the reviewer and lend greater importance to taking the process seriously, especially since the reviewer knows that the classmate is relying on his advice. This also adds an extra layer of accountability for the student; his hard work—or lack thereof—will be seen by peers, not just the instructor. Cassidy notes, “[S]tudents work harder with the knowledge that they will be assessed by their peers” (509): perhaps the knowledge that peer review is coming leads to a better-quality draft to begin with.

449

The paragraph is straightforward and useful, giving readers an efficient overview of the subject. If they want more information, they can find it by consulting Wilcox’s works cited page.

Introduce a term or define a concept. Quite often in an academic argument, you may need to define a term or explain a concept. Relying on a source may make your job easier and enhance your credibility. That is what Laura Pena achieves in the following paragraph, drawing upon two authorities to explain what teachers mean by a “rubric” when it comes to grading student work:

To understand the controversy surrounding rubrics, it is best to know what a rubric is. According to Heidi Andrade, a professor at SUNY-Albany, a rubric can be defined as “a document that lists criteria and describes varying levels of quality, from excellent to poor, for a specific assignment” (“Self-Assessment” 61). Traditionally, rubrics have been used primarily as grading and evaluation tools (Kohn 12), meaning that a rubric was not used until after students handed their papers in to their teacher. The teacher would then use a rubric to evaluate the students’ papers according to the criteria listed on the rubric.

Note that the first source provides the core definition while information from the second offers a detail important to understanding when and how rubrics are used — a major issue in Pena’s paper. Her selection of sources here serves her thesis while also providing readers with necessary information.

Present technical material. Sources can be especially helpful, too, when material becomes technical or difficult to understand. Writing on your own, you might lack the confidence to handle the complexities of some subjects. While you should challenge yourself to learn a subject well enough to explain it in your own words, there will be times when a quotation from an expert serves both you and your readers. Here is Natalie San Luis dealing with some of the technical differences between mainstream and Black English:

The grammatical rules of mainstream English are more concrete than those of Black English; high school students can’t check out an MLA handbook on Ebonics from their school library. As with all dialects, though, there are certain characteristics of the language that most Black English scholars agree upon.

450

According to Samy Alim, author of Roc the Mic Right, these characteristics are the “[h]abitual be [which] indicates actions that are continuing or ongoing. . . . Copula absence. . . . Stressed been. . . . Gon [indicating] the future tense. . . . They for possessive. . . . Postvocalic-r. . . . [and] Ank and ang for ‘ink’ and ‘ing’ ” (115). Other scholars have identified “[a]bsence of third-person singular present-tense s. . . . Absence of possessive ’s,” repetition of pronouns, and double negatives (Rickford 111-24).

Note that using ellipses enables San Luis to cover a great deal of ground. Readers not familiar with linguistic terms may have trouble following the quotation, but remember that academic arguments often address audiences comfortable with some degree of complexity.

Develop or support a claim. Even academic audiences expect to be convinced, and one of the most important strategies for a writer is to use sources to amplify or support a claim.

Here is Manasi Deshpande, whose proposal argument appears in Chapter 12, making the following claim: “Although the University has made a concerted and continuing effort to improve access, students and faculty with physical disabilities still suffer from discriminatory hardship, unequal opportunity to succeed, and lack of independence.” See how she weaves sources together in the following paragraph to help support that claim:

The current state of campus accessibility leaves substantial room for improvement. There are approximately 150 academic and administrative buildings on campus (Grant). Eduardo Gardea, intern architect at the Physical Plant, estimates that only about nineteen buildings comply fully with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). According to Penny Seay, PhD, director of the Center for Disability Studies at UT Austin, the ADA in theory “requires every building on campus to be accessible.”

Highlight differences or counterarguments. The sources you encounter in developing a project won’t always agree with each other or you. In academic arguments, you don’t want to hide such differences, but instead point them out honestly and let readers make judgments based upon actual claims. Here is a paragraph in which Laura Pena again presents two views on the use of rubrics as grading tools:

Some naysayers, such as Alfie Kohn, assert that “any form of assessment that encourages students to keep asking, ‘How am I doing?’ is likely to change how they look at themselves and what they’re learning, usually for the worse.” Kohn cites a study that found that students who pay too much attention to the quality of their performance are more likely to chalk up the outcome of an assignment to factors beyond their control, such as innate ability, and are also more likely to give up quickly in the face of a difficult task (14). However, Ross and Rolheiser have found that when students are taught how to properly implement self-assessment tools in the writing process, they are more likely to put more effort and persistence into completing a difficult assignment and may develop higher self-confidence in their writing ability (sec. 2). Building self-confidence in elementary-age writers can be extremely helpful when they tackle more complicated writing endeavors in the future.

451

In describing Kohn as a “naysayer,” Pena may tip her hand and lose some degree of objectivity. But her thesis has already signaled her support for rubrics as a grading tool, so academic readers will probably not find the connotations of the term inappropriate.

These examples suggest only a few of the ways that sources, either summarized or quoted directly, can be incorporated into an academic argument to support or enhance a writer’s goals. Like these writers, you should think of sources as your copartners in developing and expressing ideas. But you are still in charge.

Avoiding “Patchwriting”

When using sources in an argument, writers — and especially those new to research-based writing — may be tempted to do what Professor Rebecca Moore Howard terms “patchwriting”: stitching together material from Web or other sources without properly paraphrasing or summarizing and with little or no documentation. Here, for example, is a patchwork paragraph about the dangers wind turbines pose to wildlife:

Scientists are discovering that technology with low carbon impact does not mean low environmental or social impacts. That is the case especially with wind turbines, whose long, massive fiberglass blades have been chopping up tens of thousands of birds that fly into them, including golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, burrowing owls, and other raptors in California. Turbines are also killing bats in great numbers. The 420 wind turbines now in use across Pennsylvania killed more than 10,000 bats last year—mostly in the late summer months, according to the State Game Commission. That’s an average of 25 bats per turbine per year, and the Nature Conservancy predicts as many as 2,900 turbines will be set up across the state by 2030. It’s not the spinning blades that kill the bats; instead, their lungs effectively blow up from the rapid pressure drop that occurs as air flows over the turbine blades. But there’s hope we may figure out solutions to these problems because, since we haven’t had too many wind turbines heretofore in the country, we are learning how to manage this new technology as we go.

452

The paragraph reads well and is full of details. But it would be considered plagiarized (see Chapter 21) because it fails to identify its sources and because most of the material has simply been lifted directly from the Web. How much is actually copied? We’ve highlighted the borrowed material:

Scientists are discovering that technology with low carbon impact does not mean low environmental or social impacts. That is the case especially with wind turbines, whose long, massive fiberglass blades have been chopping up tens of thousands of birds that fly into them, including golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, burrowing owls, and other raptors in California. Turbines are also killing bats in great numbers. The 420 wind turbines now in use across Pennsylvania killed more than 10,000 bats last year—mostly in the late summer months, according to the State Game Commission. That’s an average of 25 bats per turbine per year, and the Nature Conservancy predicts as many as 2,900 turbines will be set up across the state by 2030. It’s not the spinning blades that kill the bats; instead, their lungs effectively blow up from the rapid pressure drop that occurs as air flows over the turbine blades. But there’s hope we may figure out solutions to these problems because, since we haven’t had too many wind turbines heretofore in the country, we are learning how to manage this new technology as we go.

But here’s the point: an academic writer who has gone to the trouble of finding so much information will gain more credit and credibility just by properly identifying, paraphrasing, and quoting the sources used. The resulting paragraph is actually more impressive because it demonstrates how much reading and synthesizing the writer has actually done:

Scientists like George Ledec of the World Bank are discovering that technology with low carbon impact “does not mean low environmental or social impacts” (Tracy). That is the case especially with wind turbines. Their massive blades spinning to create pollution-free electricity are also killing thousands of valuable birds of prey, including eagles, hawks, and owls in California (Rittier). Turbines are also killing bats in great numbers (Thibodeaux). The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that 10,000 bats a year are killed by the 420 turbines currently in Pennsylvania. According to the state game commissioner, “That’s an average of 25 bats per turbine per year, and the Nature Conservancy predicts as many as 2,900 turbines will be set up across the state by 2030” (Schwartzel). It’s not the spinning blades that kill the animals; instead, DiscoveryNews explains, “the bats’ lungs effectively blow up from the rapid pressure drop that occurs as air flows over the turbine blades” (Marshall). But there’s hope that scientists can develop turbines less dangerous to animals of all kinds. “We haven’t had too many wind turbines heretofore in the country,” David Cottingham of the Fish and Wildlife Service points out, “so we are learning about it as we go” (Tracy).

453

Works Cited

Marshall, Jessica. “Wind Turbines Kill Bats without Impact.” Discovery News, 25 Aug. 2008, news.discovery.om/20111112-turbinebats/.

Rittier, John. “Wind Turbines Taking Toll on Birds of Prey.” USA Today, 4 Jan. 2005, usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-01-04-windmills-usat_x.htm.

Schwartzel, Erich. “Pa. Wind Turbines Deadly to Bats, Costly to Farmers.” Post-Gazette.com, 17 July 2011, www.post-gazette.com/business/businessnews/2011/07/17/Pa-wind-turbines-deadly-to-bats-costly-to-farmers/stories/201107170197.

Thibodeaux, Julie. “Bats Getting Caught in Texas Wind Turbines.” PegasusNews.com, 9 Nov. 2011, www.pegasusnews.com/2011/11/09/bats-getting-caught-in-texas-wind-turbines/.

Tracy, Ryan. “Wildlife Slows Wind Power.” The Wall Street Journal, 10 Dec. 2011, www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203501304577088593307132850.