research ddix 2015 mtj lab. why research? good evidence wins debates topic knowledge short speech...
TRANSCRIPT
• Good evidence wins debates• Topic knowledge• Short speech times in PF: evidence allows for
efficiency and specificity• Improves speaking and argumentation• It’s not just cutting cards: scouting, finding out
what arguments people read against your aff, what a team reads as common neg positions, being up to date with current arguments
Good Researchers:• Work ethically a. appropriate citations b. fairly and accurately representing an author’s
argument c. responsibly producing evidenced. ask for cites!• Work efficientlya. know what you’re looking forb. develop arguments/potential arguments as you
research
• Evidence should always be the foundation of your argument (claim, data, warrant)
• All arguments should be supported by evidence
Qualities of Good Evidence
• Lots of warrants• Comparative claims• Conclusive• Assumes the other team’s evidence• Scholarly • Predictive • Recency (this matters to the point where you can explain
why)• Examples, studies, statistics are good• Explains something complicated (a K or a nuanced
argument)
Research Practices
• Broad investigatory work – assessing the literature• Figure out scope of the topic (aff/neg ground)• Figure out the “think tanks” of the topic
– Who the best authors are – What the best websites are – Civil unrest in the media
• Targeted and self-contained Research • Evidence against to specific affirmative cases, blocks
to typical neg arguments• Update files often• Being a research generalist vs. specialist
The Hierarchy
BooksScholarly Journals
Online JournalsGovernment Documents
Major PapersBlogs
News Aggregates
*Peer-reviewed sources make everything better*
7 Keys
1. Skim articles quickly2. Keep your ideas in one place3. Follow up on sources they cite 4. Read specific authors5. Find qualifications 6. Cite stuff as you go7. Know preferred search engine
Search Terms
• No key: start broad and narrow down• Change them• Develop list of search terms • Find those used by experts in the lit i.e. “terms of art” in
the relevant lit base – Find out who’s talking about your topic
• The Public Sector• Private Sector Databases • Non-profit sector/”think tanks”
– “.org” – Ex – pew research
• Universities and academia**• Blogs/Rest of Internet
-very questionable and depends on the qualifications of the author
Resources
• Ebsco• Galileo• LexisNexis• Google/Google Scholars/Google News• Project Muse• Jstor• Pen Scanner-Scan books and journals from paper in
the Dartmouth library• ABBYY Screenshot Reader – OCR • One Tab
Citations
• Full author names • Qualifications
– Most of the time if you just google the name, their qualifications should come up
– Can find faculty pages of what the author teachers if he/she is a professor
– Bloggers can be qualified • Date of publication• Name of article/source• Name of journal or periodical • Full URL or name of database • Date accessed
Writing Good Tags• Content – Briefly summarize the arg
• If it makes multiple args then you should split it up or maybe it’s not just a good card
– Must contain a warrant • Keep the warrants in your tags
• Length – Don’t want too long or too short – Label upfront can help you
• You should tag your cards as you work • Never tag a card – “more ev” – Cards should be distinguished – multiple different
warrants, sources
Underlining/Highlighting
• Underline complete paragraphs relevant to your argument
• Highlight warrants • Highlight in complete thoughts but efficiently• Time yourself, rehighlight as needed
• Follow up on cited sources• Cut different cards for the same argument:
multiple different warrants, sources • Think about the final product and the
components necessary• Don’t be afraid to research tangentially if you
see potential