My experience with written academic essays was left behind in high school, where I last wrote one. It mainly consisted of conforming to a set series of guidelines, a template, for creating an end product. Researching was part of this process, a large part to be sure, but I never believed it to be an integral part to creating the actual essay. I’ve always prided myself in my writing, specifically presenting my ideas as eloquently as possible. This is what I believed to be the most important, and to this end I believe I excelled. However, what I have come to realize is that an essay is only as strong as the information behind it. My research into a topic was important, but it was more important than I was aware of. I used to follow a convention, finding sources which agreed with my point of view or said what I wanted to say and simply quoting them directly or rephrasing what they said into my own words; wrapping their opinions as my own, a legal form of plagiarism. This approach worked well for high school, but once I realized that my opinions mattered, that my thoughts have changed from getting a grade to being heard and understood, I knew that this pre-made format for research wasn’t enough for me.
Overcoming the obstacles which prevented me from writing for myself was challenging. I first began analyzing sources by simply reading what they had to say, not looking deeper into the meaning or comparing it to what I have experienced. Now when I read a potential source, I immediately test the information with what I know of the subject and how my thoughts form around it, if it makes sense the way it is presented. This initial screening is effective at reducing the number of outlying sources, those which present an extreme point of view. My reasoning for excluding them is simple: the world is a mess, a mixture of good and evil, and nothing in this world is polarized completely to one side. Therefore it stands to reason that any source which says it is polarized is lying or misinformed. This screening process is also an effective format for me to reevaluate my thoughts. I might find a source which presents the opposite view of where I stand, but in a reasoned and eloquent manner. I find in this situation that I question why I hold the beliefs I do and I force myself to consider the opposing ideas and their perspective, creating a balance between my ideas and those that contradict them.
What I look for next in a source is motivation: why write this way about this subject? Originally I would ignore motivation altogether and focus entirely on the words of the author. This is a major mistake; while the source might say something great, incorporating only what was said and not what was meant proves to be a pitfall. For instance, I could quote some fantastic rhetoric from Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh; these men know how to frame their thoughts and language to state their point. However, it is well known that they are politically biased in one direction (I would argue that direction is down, but they say it’s to the right). Their position is so well defined that anything useful I would have to say would be eclipsed by association. However, my own motivation can lead me to an equally ineffective writing style: factual omission. I need to understand my own motivation well enough to know if I am discarding inaccurate or useless information, or if I am deliberately leaving contradictory facts out to make my research match my position. Motivation is the foundation for any action, understanding it is vital to understanding the intended message of any author.
Sometimes it is more difficult to perceive the authors intent based on the material itself. Topics which are extremely complicated for the average person need to be simplified in order to be read and understood. However, this can lead to more confusion if not used correctly. Using simple language to relate a complex idea usually ends with the idea not being fully expressed. It can be impossible to properly convey meaning when the language used is limited in some way. This problem can be best illustrated when you ask someone to describe God. The variety of answers is proof enough, but words themselves are ineffective no matter how they are strung together. An idea is only as tangible as the words used to describe it, simple words convey simple ideas. Complicate the idea and by necessity you must complicate the language. This is the area where I believe I excel. My thoughts are by nature complicated and multidimensional. I understand that there are many facets to an issue and I try to encompass as many as possible within my thoughts. The expression of my thoughts then becomes an exercise in expressing my verbal flexibility. Dutifully representing every perspective to its own merit is a linguistic challenge, a challenge I examine every source with. This means that for a thought to be taken seriously and be understood by those reading it, it must be balanced and solid in its arguments. Being able to deliver reasoned discourse on a topic is more difficult in the information age, ideas spread worldwide instantly through social media: the internet, blogs, cell phones, networking sites and twitter.
One of the most difficult aspects for me to take into account now is the effect that our medium will have on my writing. The ability to reach the entire population of the world, while unrealistic given our assignment, imparts a sense of responsibility to use this power wisely, to present myself and the organization I am writing for as best I can. I have noticed an immediate change from my previous essays which were written for limited distribution, the “voice” I used in them was more opinionated and less restrained than the current ideas I am forming. One possibility is that I am very opinionated about the topic, but that is only part of it. Being under scrutiny of readers creates a desire to be taken seriously: I want those who read me to understand what I am trying to say and where I am coming from. Posting to a blog is an entirely new method of publishing for me, one which places added stress to adhere to the points above: accurate analysis, motivation and language. Because this blog can be read by any interested party, I am more inclined than ever to make sure my postings fulfill my expectations of excellence.
It was in this class that I actually was able to put words to these thoughts. I was able to understand about forming my own ideas and supporting them with source material, not supporting the source material with my ideas. Unfortunately, as I was only trained in subjective research, I found it difficult to break away from that pattern of source searching. I have to express these thoughts in my own words because they are unique to me. I couldn’t find research that completely agreed with what I had to say; only a variety that could support what I had to say. I first noticed it happening to me when I started writing about current events, my life experiences have forced me to form my own unique opinions, ideas and thoughts on subjects. Framing my questions about the issue, asking pointed and intelligent questions has come slowly, but I am able to better analyze and focus my research efforts because of it. Even more useful, I can understand the motivation behind a source based on how they write their subject, specifically the intensity of their rhetoric and how much of what they write is based on factual evidence or personal conjecture. Using motivation to evaluate a source’s information as well as my own objectivity (or lack thereof) is extremely useful when organizing my thoughts and preparing to commit them to paper. The most improved section of my researching however is in my analysis of how a subject is written. The language choice of the author does more than convey the idea, it displays the author’s knowledge of the material, it shows their prejudices and most importantly, it shows their assumptions.
All of these facets of the writing language combine to paint a portrait of the author and the intent of the message. Now all I have to do is use the source and discuss it my ideas with it, where we agree, where we disagree and why. This would be accomplished using the other sources in the same manner. It is, in effect, circular logic. However, instead of having the sources speak for me while I reiterate their thoughts and support them from below, I now have them as a foundation for speaking my own ideas and building my own thoughts.
No comments:
Post a Comment