色色啦

Have you ever had the maddening experience of arguing with someone who twisted your words to make it seem like you were saying something you weren鈥檛? Novice writers sometimes inadvertently misrepresent their sources when they quote very minor points from an article or even positions that the authors of an article disagree with. It often happens when students approach their sources with the goal of finding snippets that align with their own opinion. For example, the passage above contains the phrase 鈥渕easuring teachers鈥� performance by student test scores is the best way to improve education.鈥� An inexperienced writer might include that quote in a paper without making it clear that the author(s) of the source actually dispute that very claim. Doing so is not intentionally fraudulent, but it reveals that the paper-writer isn鈥檛 really thinking about and responding to claims and arguments made by others. In that way, it harms his or her credibility.

Academic journal articles are especially likely to be misrepresented by student writers because their literature review sections often summarize a number of contrasting viewpoints. For example, sociologists Jennifer C. Lee and Jeremy Staff wrote a paper in which they note that high-schoolers who spend more hours at a job are more likely to drop out of school.⁵ However, Lee and Staff鈥檚 analysis finds that working more hours doesn鈥檛 actually make a student more likely to drop out. Instead, the students who express less interest in school are both more likely to work a lot of hours and more likely to drop out. In short, Lee and Staff argue that disaffection with school causes students to drop-out, not working at a job. In reviewing prior research about the impact of work on dropping out, Lee and Staff write 鈥淧aid work, especially when it is considered intensive, reduces grade point averages, time spent on homework, educational aspirations, and the likelihood of completing high school鈥�^6. If you included that quote without explaining how it fits into Lee and Staff鈥檚 actual argument, you would be misrepresenting that source.

Another error beginners often make is to drop in a quote without any context. If you simply quote, 鈥淪tudents begin preschool with a set of self-regulation skills that are a product of their genetic inheritance and their family environment鈥� (Willingham, 2011, p.24), your reader is left wondering who Willingham is, why he or she is included here, and where this statement fits into his or her larger work. The whole point of incorporating sources is to situate your own insights in the conversation. As part of that, you should provide some kind of context the first time you use that source. Some examples:

Willingham, a cognitive scientist, claims that 鈥�

Research in cognitive science has found that 鈥� (Willingham, 2011).

Willingham argues that 鈥淪tudents begin preschool with a set of self-regulation skills that are a product of their genetic inheritance and their family environment鈥� (Willingham, 2011, p.24). Drawing on findings in cognitive science, he explains 鈥溾�︹��

As the second example above shows, providing a context doesn鈥檛 mean writing a brief biography of every author in your bibliography鈥攊t just means including some signal about why that source is included in your text.

Even more baffling to your reader is when quoted material does not fit into the flow of the text. For example, a novice student might write,

Schools and parents shouldn鈥檛 set limits on how much teenagers are allowed to work at jobs. 鈥淲e conclude that intensive work does not affect the likelihood of high school dropout among youths who have a high propensity to spend long hours on the job鈥� (Lee and Staff, 2007, p. 171). Teens should be trusted to learn how to manage their time.

The reader is thinking, who is this sudden, ghostly 鈥渨e鈥�? Why should this source be believed? If you find that passages with quotes in your draft are awkward to read out loud, that鈥檚 a sign that you need to contextualize the quote more effectively. Here鈥檚 a version that puts the quote in context:

Schools and parents shouldn鈥檛 set limits on how much teenagers are allowed to work at jobs. Lee and Staff鈥檚 carefully designed study found that 鈥渋ntensive work does not affect the likelihood of high school dropout among youths who have a high propensity to spend long hours on the job鈥� (2007, p. 171). Teens should be trusted to learn how to manage their time.

In this latter example, it鈥檚 now clear that Lee and Staff are scholars and that their empirical study is being used as evidence for this argumentative point. Using a source in this way invites the reader to check out Lee and Staff鈥檚 work for themselves if they doubt this claim.

Many writing instructors encourage their students to contextualize their use of sources by making a 鈥渜uotation sandwich鈥�; that is, introduce the quote in some way and then follow it up with your own words. If you鈥檝e made a bad habit of dropping in unintroduced quotes, the quotation sandwich idea may help you improve your skills, but in general you don鈥檛 need to approach every quote or paraphrase as a three-part structure to have well integrated sources. You should, however, avoid ending a paragraph with a quotation. If you鈥檙e struggling to figure out what to write after a quote or close paraphrase, it may be that you haven鈥檛 yet figured out what role the quote is playing in your own analysis. If that happens to you a lot, try writing the whole first draft in your own words and then incorporate material from sources as you revise with 鈥淭hey Say/I Say鈥� in mind.

Some student writers are in a rut of only quoting whole sentences. Some others, like myself as a student, get overly enamored of extended block quotes and the scholarly look they give to the page.⁷ These aren鈥檛 the worst sins of academic writing, but they get in the way of one of the key principles of writing with sources: shaping quotes and paraphrases efficiently. Efficiency follows from the second principle, because when you fully incorporate sources into your own explicit argument, you zero in on the phrases, passages, and ideas that are relevant to your points. It鈥檚 a very good sign for your paper when most quotes are short (key terms, phrases, or parts of sentences) and the longer quotes (whole sentences and passages) are clearly justified by the discussion in which they鈥檙e embedded. Every bit of every quote should feel indispensable to the paper. An overabundance of long quotes usually means that your own argument is undeveloped. The most incandescent quotes will not hide that fact from your professor.

Also, some student writers forget that quoting is not the only way to incorporate sources. Paraphasing and summarizing are sophisticated skills that are often more appropriate to use than direct quoting. The first two paragraphs of the example passage above do not include any quotations, even though they are both clearly focused on presenting the work of others. Student writers may avoid paraphrasing out of fear of plagiarizing, and it鈥檚 true that a poorly executed paraphrase will make it seem like the student writer is fraudulently claiming the wordsmithing work of others as his or her own. Sticking to direct quotes seems safer. However, it is worth your time to master paraphasing because it often helps you be more clear and concise, drawing out only those elements that are relevant to the thread of your analysis.

For example, here鈥檚 a passage from a hypothetical paper with a block quote that is fully relevant to the argument but, nevertheless, inefficient:

Drawing on a lifetime of research, Kahneman concludes our brains are prone to error:⁸

System 1 registers the cognitive ease with which it processes information, but it does not generate a warning signal when it becomes unreliable. Intuitive answers come to mind quickly and confidently, whether they originate from skills or from heuristics. There is no simple way for System 2 to distinguish between a skilled and a heuristic response. Its only recourse is to slow down and attempt to construct an answer on its own, which it is reluctant to do because it is indolent. Many suggestions of System 1 are casually endorsed with minimal checking, as in the bat-and-ball problem.

While people can get better at recognizing and avoiding these errors, Kahneman suggests, the more robust solutions involve developing procedures within organizations to promote careful, effortful thinking in making important decisions and judgments.

Even a passage that is important to reference and is well contextualized in the flow of the paper will be inefficient if it introduces terms and ideas that aren鈥檛 central to the analysis within the paper. Imagine, for example, that other parts of this hypothetical paper use Kahneman鈥檚 other terms for System 1 (fast thinking) and System 2 (slow thinking); the sudden encounter of 鈥淪ystem 1鈥� and 鈥淪ystem 2鈥� would be confusing and tedious for your reader. Similarly, the terms 鈥渉euristics鈥� and 鈥渂at-and-ball problem鈥� might be unfamiliar to your reader. Their presence in the block quote just muddies the waters. In this case, a paraphrase is a much better choice. Here鈥檚 an example passage that uses a paraphrase to establish the same points more clearly and efficiently:

Drawing on a lifetime of research, Kahneman summarizes that our brains are prone to error because they necessarily rely on cognitive shortcuts that may or may not yield valid judgments.⁹ We have the capacity to stop and examine our assumptions, Kahneman points out, but we often want to avoid that hard work. As a result, we tend to accept our quick, intuitive responses. While people can get better at recognizing and avoiding these errors, Kahneman suggests that the more robust solutions involve developing procedures within organizations to promote careful, effortful thinking in making important decisions and judgments.

Not only is the paraphrased version shorter (97 words versus 151), it is clearer and more efficient because it highlights the key ideas, avoiding specific terms and examples that aren鈥檛 used in the rest of the paper. If other parts of your paper did refer to Kahneman鈥檚 System 1 and System 2, then you might choose to include some quoted phrases to make use of some of Kahneman鈥檚 great language. Perhaps something like this:

Drawing on a lifetime of research, Kahneman summarizes that our brains are prone to error because they necessarily rely on cognitive shortcuts that may or may not yield valid judgments.¹⁰ System 1, Kahneman explains, 鈥渄oes not generate a warning signal when it becomes unreliable.鈥� ¹¹ System 2 can stop and examine these assumptions, but it usually wants to avoid that hard work. As a result, our quick, intuitive responses are 鈥渃asually endorsed with minimal chec办颈苍驳.鈥� ¹² While people can get better at recognizing and avoiding these errors, Kahneman suggests, the more robust solutions involve developing procedures within organizations to promote careful, effortful thinking in making important decisions and judgments.

Whether you choose a long quote, short quote, paraphrase or summary depends on the role that the source in playing in your analysis. The trick is to make deliberate, thoughtful decisions about how to incorporate ideas and words from others.

Paraphrasing, summarizing, and the mechanical conventions of quoting take a lot of practice to master. Numerous other resources (like those listed at the end of this chapter) explain these practices clearly and succinctly. Bookmark some good sources and refer to them as needed. If you suspect that you鈥檙e in a quoting rut, try out some new ways of incorporating sources.

It鈥檚 time to get beyond the all-purpose 鈥渟ays.鈥� And please don鈥檛 look up 鈥渟ays鈥� in the thesaurus and substitute verbs like 鈥減roclaim鈥� (unless there was actually a proclamation) or 鈥減ronounce鈥� (unless there was actually a pronouncement). Here鈥檚 a list of 15 useful alternatives:¹³

More precise choices like these carry a lot more information than 鈥渟ays鈥�, enabling you to relate more with fewer words. For one thing, they can quickly convey what kind of idea you鈥檙e citing: a speculative one (鈥減ostulates鈥�)? A conclusive one (鈥渄etermines鈥�)? A controversial one (鈥渃ounters鈥�)? You can further show how you鈥檙e incorporating these sources into your own narrative. For example, if you write that an author 鈥渃laims鈥� something, you鈥檙e presenting yourself as fairly neutral about that claim. If you instead write that the author 鈥渟hows鈥� something, then you signal to your reader that you find that evidence more convincing. 鈥淪uggests鈥� on the other hand is a much weaker endorsement. As I鈥檒l discuss in Chapter 8, saying more with less makes your writing much more engaging.