I am writing to you from what was originally the guidelines of a persuasive assignment, for my Writing 102 course, a letter to the English Department. Modified, I have altered this paper to suit a larger audience and to touch upon a more drastic change which I think needs to be made in the community and in the way writing is taught. I have been expressly invited by my Writing instructor to share my own thoughts on the inclusion of the research paper in First-Year Composition courses in order to achieve my goal of persuading the community of a pedagogical shift in the research paper’s formulation.
Over the past two semesters, I have become overwhelmingly drawn to current writing theory and practice. From my studies both inside and outside of my writing courses over the past year, I have become an avid subscriber to the primary ideas of writing which have been aptly taught to me: First, that writing is not a stagnant subject and that it is capable of change over periods of time in relation to the contexts of advances and changes in society. Secondly, writing is a consumable product— through interactions with this product as both consumers and creators, we also help to shape the ideas behind it and bring forth new ideas which help to implement this change in ideology over time. And finally, I have learned about genre, as it pertains to the writing classroom— genres can be defined for reference in this letter as, a definition pioneered by Carolyn Miller, “typified rhetorical actions based in recurrent situations” (159).
As a student, I would like to inform and also attempt to persuade you of the social implications corresponding to the so-called “research paper.” Through in-depth studies and comparisons of those who have made a name for themselves in the field, I have determined my stance on the research paper: I agree that, as Richard Larson, one of the first scholars to address the issue in a speech he gave at the Conference on College Composition and Communication way back in 1984, that “the ‘research paper,’… has no formal identity” (814). I also agree with Rebecca Moore Howard, primary author of the Citation Project and an important figure in the writing field, as she claims that it is a “troubled genre” (231). However, I also believe that this is in a large part due to the stereotypical conventions of Writing and English which were put into place by those with power far too long ago.
As both Elizabeth Kleinfeld and Rebecca Moore Howard refer to, when asked the first question, professors gave overwhelmingly vague answers, depending on the clinical definition of a research paper and not on their own efforts or experience with the genre. Howard presents the knowledge that “Students and instructors hold different ideals for the research paper, and pedagogy may not resonate with instructors’ goals for the assignment,” providing a central pedagogical theory which focuses on professorship in the realm of research writing (234). Lee-Ann Kastman Breuch and Brian N. Larson propose a similar claim, summarizing the differences between student writing and published work; these two go hand in hand, both rely on their own research which reveals a separation between the way a professor or a professional researcher would write a “research paper” and the way that a (first year) student would write one (188). I will, in the coming pages, define the “research project” in my own terms to provide a more accurate summary of what I will be arguing.
Richard Larson’s original claim is that the research paper is “the subject of no distinctly identifiable kind of writing.” Rebecca Moore Howard and Sandra Jamieson disagree partially with Larson– They argue that the research paper, through it’s lack of use outside of the classroom has actually become more so a byproduct most specifically of the first year composition classroom (813; 232). While there are many questions as to whether this genre is defined or not, this theory of Howard and Jamieson’s leads to a very different perception of what the research paper is, where it belongs, and how it is applicable in the Writing field. The idea that this is a much more specific genre to exist in the first year composition classroom, however, raises even more questions about the actual function and purpose of the genre: If the genre’s only purpose is to cater to a non-specific audience of first-year students, is the product of the research paper irrelevant? Is its only function to “[familiarize] students with the library and with online databases and research” (Howard 233)? I will argue that yes, the finished product of this assignment, when relying on these guidelines, is in fact irrelevant. Rather, it is about the process it takes to locate and evaluate the research which goes into this subject.
[]
However, I do agree with Larson’s ideology to an extent. I believe that, as both he and Kleinfeld propose in their research, the current pedagogy surrounding this genre is very vague and unsupported by professors which can lead to students experiencing significant difficulty with these assignments throughout the duration of the course (Larson 816). Kleinfeld’s study of students’ research methods shows that many are incapable of forming their own opinions and of effectively writing a "research paper"(235). This further supports my point that many of the ideas of research being perpetuated by and taught by the writing departments are not appropriate or helpful at all in regards to student learning. Rather, they are []. Research, however, is the basis for a lot of assignments in fields both in and out of writing which a student will undoubtedly need to explore in their experience of learning as scholars and academics. This evaluation of research, thus, should function primarily as a skill which will be elaborated on in other such practices. The way I see it, inferring from Howard, Kleinfeld, and Brent, the current pedagogical theories by which professors attempt to teach from are inherently flawed and do not put enough (if any) emphasis on the learning of the skills that are used to write a research paper. Because of this, students are left in the dark on the processes which they need to rely on for their continued success in writing programs. The process of research is the ultimate goal of the research paper, as Howard theorizes, and although this may not be the ultimate goal of the student or the professor, it is the only thing being achieved in the formulation of this assignment. Thus, it is important for this process to be aptly taught.
In the scope of writing, then, research papers are seen almost as a form of “housekeeping” by which the department is required to oversee. To clarify further, the writing field is tasked with the assignment of preparing students for all other types of “researched” projects not in the scope of writing. Thus, the writing department becomes the babysitter for the first year students who need to learn how to write, becoming inferior in regards to the other departments. This leads to questions [which, from my experience and conversations with those in the field, I am sure you have been asked,] like “so if my student took your first-year comp. class, why can’t she write for my chemistry class?” This type of question is blatantly mislabeling and miscategorizing the writing field as a classroom which can cover every genre type in order to make life easier for those in more specific fields such as chemistry or history.
When researching any type of topic for a major specific course, it is very important to pay attention to the genre conventions expected and regularly used within that specific subject’s existence. One of the most recognized areas of conflict within the research paper’s formulation is the apparent lack of any subject-specific ideas or guidelines. I believe this genre was created, as mentioned before, specifically as a function of the first year classroom in order to promote and support the ideas of research and not to focus on the overall outcome of the assignment.
This relates back to the idea, proposed by Kleinfield, that professors and students see research papers differently (229); Professors wish to teach students as academics and they desire to see their pupils retain and evaluate the information given to them as they, the professors, would do. This is an inherently flawed line of reasoning due to the students, particularly undergraduate students, determined capabilities in the classroom. Kleinfeld notes furthermore that first-year students are not typically capable of the in-depth analytical processes that a professor or even a fourth-year student would be capable of. They, however, are treated as if they do. This can cause students to have an unawareness of their own capabilities which can lead to things such as patchwriting, which, similar to plagiarism, is defined as “restating a phrase, clause, or one or more sentences while staying close to the language or syntax of the source” (“What is Plagiarism?”), overuse of sources, or even blatant plagiarism.
This is particularly an issue when dealing with the current ideas that professors have in considering the ideas surrounding the research project. Kleinfield’s piece on the specific pedagogy behind the ideas of research writing proposes the idea that students and professors view the research project from two completely different stances (229). This can lead to many problems when considering student perspectives including confusion and a misguided dislike of the genre. When considering this, it is also extremely important to ask what the professor’s pedagogical rationale behind the assignment is. Arguing for many, Brent Douglas, a scholar, implies that it is only the professor’s desire to “‘get students to think in the same… mode as professors do’” (43). This outlines an underlying issue with many professors perceptions of the paper as it is seen merely as a way to get students to emulate them when that is not a plausible response for first-year students to be capable of as they are not as advanced in the modes of thinking or in the ways of design as college professors are.
The rationale behind the current pedagogy of the research paper is inherently flawed and is, therefore, a very hard subject for students (and others) to fully grasp. While professors have the knowledge and experience of the genre, research suggests they no longer share the understanding of an undergraduate’s current position and perspective. Research has actually found that it is not easy for students, especially first-year students, to grasp the concept of “research” (Breuch 198). It is even harder to do so when some professors are not clearly and coherently able to elaborate on any pedagogical reasoning behind their assigning of this particular paper. This is in large part due to the discourse surrounding the research paper and its instability within the field. I would like, therefore, to encourage all of you to embrace the idea that the current pedagogy surrounding research writing is flawed, and that the “Research Paper” is an undefined and overwhelmingly vague genre which needs to be taught and re-evaluated by you: the professors and the people actively participating in the discussions within the discourse community. I believe that just a small change can affect a whole community if it is given enough support.
Based on my review of the research being presented I would like to ask you, as professors, writing scholars, and others, to ponder your answers to the following questions about research papers:
Can you accurately define what a research paper is?
What is the purpose of a research paper?
Why do you assign research papers? What is your pedagogical rationale?
What do students usually gain from this type of assignment? What do you hope students will gain from this type of assignment? Are the answers to these questions the same?