Using Source Material

Today's topic: Using Sources Effectively

This is a massive topic, and I couldn't possibly cover it all in one post (or even two or three).  This will probably not be my last post on this topic, so why don't we think of it as part I in a series?

First of all, a lot of writers struggle to find the best and most effective ways to incorporate source material.  It's something that takes practice and careful thought, and it goes far deeper than simply picking out a few choice quotations, or a few interesting passages to paraphrase.  Here are a few things to keep in mind when using outside sources:

I.  Let YOUR ideas drive the bus, not those of your source authors.

This is probably the Golden Rule.  It is crucial to ensure that your own assertions and ideas are the primary focus of your paper, and that you are using the source material to support those points, not to make them for you.  Many writers make the mistake of "putting the cart before the horse" in that they let their source material be the driving force of the paper. This is backwards.

So what role should source material play in a well-written paper?  Here are just a few examples of what source material can do:

    *Support your ideas with evidence (e.g., See?  I'm not the only one who believes this.  In   their article "Blah blah blah," Jones and Doe (2012) argued that...)

    *Provide an example to illustrate your idea (particularly effective when you need to express a difficult or complex idea)

    *Help you to develop your idea more thoroughly/add a new dimension to your idea

What you can't and shouldn't do is simply string together a series of quotations or paraphrased/summarized ideas from other sources, intersperse them with a few sentences of your own, and let that stand as your paper.  Why not?  Because that isn't writing; it's like making a quilt in which the squares are your quotes and paraphrases and the stitches are your handful of original sentences (usually tossed in to introduce or link together the source material).  Using sources in this way robs you of the opportunity to really engage with what you've read, and use it to meaningfully enhance your reader's understanding of your topic.  It also almost always results in a boring piece of writing.

What do I mean by "engage with what you've read?"  It means making sure that your source material contributes more than information.  It means making sure to comment on/react to/develop your source material; don't just plunk it down and move on to the next thing.  It means asking questions about what you have read, thinking about its implications--for practice, for further research, etc.  It means addressing the "so what?" question: Why is this important?  Why are you telling us this?  What can we learn from this?  Why do we need to learn it?  What more do we need to know?  What, if anything, might be missing from this information?  It means comparing and contrasting your source material with other source material, and with your own experience and ideas:  How does this author's view compare with the views of other authors I have read?  How does this information jibe with the other things we know about this topic?

It also means getting a "bird's eye view."  For example, this is pretty much the main purpose of a literature review; you gather the most relevant and interesting articles on a particular topic, you read and evaluate them individually, and then you synthesize what you've learned by considering what we can learn from taking ALL these articles into consideration, rather than just reading one or two.  You consider how the conclusions drawn by all these authors relate to one another.  Have you ever seen those amazing pointilist paintings, made up of thousands of tiny dots?  If you look at those paintings up close, you just see dots.  However, if you stand back you see the picture emerge.  That is a good analogy for synthesis.  The individual articles you read for a lit review are like those dots.  The picture you get when you stand back far enough from the canvas is your synthesis, the conclusions you draw from a bird's eye view.

To an extent, this kind of critical thinking is necessary any time you use outside source material.  Remember that each quotation or paraphrased idea you incorporate is only one small piece of the whole puzzle.  It is your job to show readers how all this source material relates to the purpose of your paper, how everything you chose to include helps you to make your point.

This is one good reason to make an outline before you sit down to write.  In an outline, you can make a list of your main points, the main ideas you want to express.  Then you can decide which quotations or paraphrased ideas from your sources will work best to support, illustrate, or develop those ideas.  You can also build your analysis of your source material, and your transitions from idea to idea, into your outline.  Most importantly, make sure that every section of your outline contains a topic sentence that expresses one of your own original ideas, and that ultimately those topic sentences (and the source material you use to support them) will form the "big picture" of your paper--your purpose statement or thesis, the main point you wish to make.

A good general outline for a paper might look something like this:

• Introduction: Establishes your topic, establishes that the topic is important, and includes a clear, specific purpose or thesis statement that tells readers what your main points are.
• Body of paper.  Uses topic sentences and transition sentences to guide readers logically from idea to idea.  Here is an example to show the structure of a well put-together paragraph:
  •  Main idea (topic sentence)
    • Supporting detail #1 (could be a quote from one of your sources that backs up your main idea, could be a paraphrased example from one of the articles you read that illustrates how another nurse implemented an idea like yours, etc.)
      • Your response to/commentary on supporting detail #1--as I said above, it's not enough to simply drop in a quote or example from one of your sources.  You have to then engage with that example, use it to help you develop your idea.  You can do this in a number of ways depending on the specifics of the situation. You might also have a supporting detail #2, and then you'd respond to it as you did with supporting detail #1.  You might even have three supporting details--it just depends on the subject.  There is no hard and fast rule for how much support you need for each point, but one good thing to keep in mind is that controversial or complex ideas often need the most support.
  • Lastly, you'd include a transition sentence to lead us from the idea in this paragraph to the idea you'll express in the next paragraph.  This ensures a smooth and logical flow to your paper.  In an outline you should go paragraph by paragraph (I'm just showing you one paragraph as an example--you would of course have many more).  Once you have completed the body of your paragraph, you need a...
• Conclusion: Provides a concise review of the paper's main points, and leaves us with something more to ponder.  This is often a good place to pose a few more questions, to look to the future.  Now that we know all this, what should we do about it?  What is the next step?  The conclusion is also a good place to discuss the implications of your subject, to wrap up the "so what?" question I mentioned earlier.

II.  Definitely make sure to back up your claims/assertions/main points with plenty of support, but go easy on the direct quotations.

You absolutely do have to use source material to do this (you'll almost always have to offer an evidence-based discussion).  That doesn't mean you have to use direct quotes, though.  Most writing manuals say to rely more on paraphrase and summary than quotations.  This is true for a couple of reasons, the main reason being that quotations tend to interrupt the flow of a paper.  It's okay to use quotes if you use them sparingly.  Use a quotation if you feel that the original author's wording is particularly elegant or persuasive, or if you just can't manage to paraphrase it successfully. 

III.  Paraphrase appropriately. 

In case you aren't familiar with the term, paraphrasing involves putting another author's idea into your own words.  There is an art to paraphrasing; in fact, I could make an entire post on this topic alone.  For now, since I have limited space, suffice it to say that paraphrasing is NOT simply changing around a few words from your original source.  If you use this method, you will almost certainly be guilty of plagiarism.  Instead, try this method:

1.) MAKE SURE YOU FULLY UNDERSTAND THE PASSAGE YOU PLAN TO PARAPHRASE.  I put that in all caps because, in my experience, this is the #1 reason why writers commit unintentional plagiarism; they try to paraphrase something they don't fully understand.  If you don't have a firm grasp of the idea you're trying to paraphrase, there is simply no way that you will be able to express that idea in your own words.  So. Read the passage carefully.  Read it a few times.  Then put the original source away.  Close the book, close the window on the computer, put the article underneath a notebook where you can't see it.  Now you're ready to move on to step 2.

2.) Talk to yourself.  Now that you've put the original source away where you can't see it, tell yourself what the author was trying to say.  I like to do this out loud, but if you really don't want to talk to yourself, just write it down.  The wording doesn't have to be perfect here; you are just telling yourself what the original author was saying, working it out for yourself to make sure that you understand what you've read. 

3.) Try paraphrasing.  Now that you are absolutely sure you understand the author's idea, try paraphrasing the passage.  Again, DON'T LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR'S WORDING.  If you look, you'll be a hundred times more likely to stick too closely to the wording of the original source.  Express the author's idea in your own words. 

4.) Check yourself.  Now you can look at the original source.  Compare what you've written to the original passage.  First make sure that you have expressed the original author's idea accurately, without missing any nuances of meaning.  Then make sure that your wording isn't too close to the original author's.  If it is, you'll need to repeat steps 2-4.  If you go through this process twice and you still end up sticking too closely to the original text, then you might just want to quote the author directly. 

I hope this has been helpful.  Please feel free to get in touch with any questions.  Happy scribbling! 

Whitney Kurtz-Ogilvie, MFAW