Research Papers

Considering the potential value of such assignments, their products are often more disappointing to teachers than any other kind of writing students produce. And disappointment is almost guaranteed if we leave students entirely to their own devices, without guidance in the process or opportunities for revision. Those plump documents we receive at the end of the term might look finished on the surface--with catchy titles and graphics, bold headings, and gestures of order and authority in the opening paragraph. Not far beneath this surface, more often than not, we find a rough draft: clumps of information and quotation loosely assembled around a topic too broad and unfocused, the voices and ideas of cited authors ambiguously mingled with those of the writer whose own voice and position shift enigmatically, afflicting the reader with nagging suspicions of plagiarism. If these papers are due at the end of the semester, their weaknesses are unredeemable.

Some of these weaknesses result from procrastination, the complexity of the task, or unfamiliarity with writing based on research and reference. But there is a more fundamental obstacle that most of our students can move beyond only with our help. When scholars begin a research project they identify an interesting question within an elaborate frame of reference. This frame of reference, based on years of investigation, tells them which questions will be meaningful and answerable, how broad the question should be, where they can find the information they need, and the most promising lines of inquiry they might follow.

When they begin to work on a research paper, by contrast, undergraduates rarely have this frame of reference, and research becomes a process of building one. They reach the point at which they can identify a viable question or position only when they have completed research on the "topic" they have chosen. In high school, furthermore, most of our students developed sequential methods that discourage them from going back to revise their initial approach:

This series of procedures does not include occasions for narrowing the focus, thinking about the research material, or developing a position and voice as a real author. When students who use this method reach the writing stage, they write about whatever happens to be recorded on their note cards, based on the sources they located before they knew much about the topic. Substantial revision of their approach would require further research, and much of the material they initially found would become irrelevant. When they have already become invested in the material at hand, and when the clock is ticking, they will usually ignore second thoughts and write about the information in their notes.

Papers written directly from the research notes therefore look to us like drafts: preparations for writing the real research paper. And this is why really interesting questions or arguments are often buried somewhere on page ten or in the conclusion. As Geoffrey Chester observed when he had assigned research papers in Physics 454 (Solid State Physics), "They want to tell you what the territory looked like as they walked over it." They often end up where the paper should begin.

What to do?

Geoffrey Chester abandoned the research paper, as a misbegotten form of student writing, and instead developed very focused writing exercises, specific tasks, that required analysis and comparison of primary sources. For example, he asked students to read an old, important theory of specific heats and then analyze the change in "fit" between theory and fact using original and recent data sets. One goal of the exercise was to make students aware that theories are not just true or false. Their validity and significance change, gradually or suddenly, with new research concepts, instruments, and results.

From this perspective, the "research paper" is an ambiguous genre, a bundle of poorly defined hopes that few students can fulfil. Chester's alternative was to define specific learning goals that a research paper aspires to reach and build more focused assignments around those goals instead.

Another, related approach is to give the genre itself greater definition, connected with established forms of writing in the field. Chris Henley, Chester's successor in Physics 454, used the model of a "review article," published commonly in science journals. Much shorter than the typical student research paper, these articles discuss the contributions of a few recent publications to a specific area of research. This form preserves some of the functions of a research paper. It engages students in what Henley called "the Frankenstein work of synthesis" without creating such monsters, and it also requires literature searches and documentation. Yet there are professional models for this writing, which also encourages students to identify central questions. Several other teachers have used this form in science courses, but its value is not limited to the sciences. Professional journals in the social sciences and humanities also publish thematic reviews of three or four related publications.

Staged assignments

Other teachers, in and outside Writing in the Majors, have continued to assign full research papers with good results, by assigning work on the paper in stages. Although their methods vary, stages are necessary for three fundamental reasons:

This intervention and guidance is probably most crucial toward the beginning, when students choose topics and begin to gather references. Partly because undergraduates developed methods for research in small library systems, and because they initially feel that have too little to say, the research topics they first choose are almost invariably too broad. Investment in getting these topics focused as early as possible, with a few key references, will save enormous amounts of time and frustration later on.

The most common method for establishing focus is to assign a brief research proposal that includes some initial references. In their comments, teachers can then help to narrow the topic, identify real research questions, and suggest promising readings. But teachers in the program have used other strategies as well:

At the next stage, teachers sometimes assign outlines, an introduction, or a brief (2-5 page) version of the paper. While outlines of the whole paper might appear to be the most useful of these alternatives, they are probably the least effective, and in some ways they can undermine further development. Outlines create appearances of order, but they do not ensure real cohesion and flow. At this stage they can also create a premature form of organization that discourages further thought. Once you have approved the outline, the writer will almost certainly follow it. If the paper turns out to be shallow and disconnected, you are implicated. For these reasons, a piece of exploratory writing will usually give you a better idea about the direction the project is taking.

Whether they assign this brief version or not, teachers who assign research papers in stages almost always ask for a full draft some weeks before the final version is due. This gives you a chance to point out major or minor problems, or to suggest a different approach. This stage is in some ways the best time to ask for an outline, submitted with the draft, to make the structure of the paper visible. Once they have completed a draft, students will hope to change as little as possible, and reference to an outline can help to break apart and reorganize the overall structure. Comments on drafts should also emphasize the largest issues, preferably with questions the paper needs to answer. If you suggest large-scale revisions and also recommend small changes within a passage, students will tend to choose correction over revision.

Should you grade these drafts? Some teachers do, and either average the two grades or ignore the first. Others grade the draft with a check system or some other code, simply to register the effort at this stage. And many teachers feel that grading conflicts with the status of a draft as a piece of unfinished writing, still open to feedback and change rather than judgment. Grades also distract writers from paying attention to comments.

Because student research offers potential learning opportunities for the class, a number of teachers have scheduled oral presentations toward the end of the process. Students who are working on related projects sometimes develop these presentations in groups. As a rule, students really do want to know what others in the class are doing, partly because they are more interested in one another than they are in us. Impending presentations also tend to raise the standards for the research projects. To a limited extent, peer reviews of drafts have the same effects.

All of these strategies help to elevate the miserable histories and fates of research papers assigned toward the beginning of the term, ignored for the rest of the semester, turned in during the last week of classes, read by an audience of one, and returned into a box where most of them languish until we finally decide to throw them away. How can we expect anyone to take that kind of task seriously?