Complex issues are not black and white; they are gradients with different shades of gray. Instead of just two sides to every story, there are multiple, more nuanced sides. They do not necessarily totally conflict with each other, and to completely understand an issue, a scholar must try to learn and represent all important views of an issue and the evidence and reasoning behind their points.
These views are called perspectives, or point of views conveyed through an argument. The perspectives of issues support their points with reasoning and evidence, and you must examine how their arguments relate with each other. You may form your own unique view that adapts certain valid elements of some views and rejects other. However, whether you are offering a new perspective, supporting another perspective, and/or refuting other perspectives, you must provide your own reasoning and evidence to support your points.
According to the 2017-2018 IWA rubric, a high-score (9 points) in ROW 3 (Understand and Analyze) means that:
The response evaluates multiple perspectives (and
synthesizes them) by drawing relevant connections
between them, considering objections, implications, and
limitations.
In this description about the high in Row 3 for the IWA, there are two essential parts.
First, a high-scoring response discusses "multiple perspectives" about an issue and examines how those perspectives are credible and relevant to the current research. Establishing credibility of an perspective is accomplished by representing it through an academic source with an attributive tag. Establishing relevance requires your own explanation on how the arguments supporting the perspective changes the dynamic of the current research. The credibility and relevance of perspectives can be accomplished by focusing on Row 5: Select and Use Evidence.
Second, after establishing credible and relevant perspectives, a high-scoring response then draws "relevant connections between them". A medium-scoring response may only identify irrelevant similarities and differences between the reasoning and evidence between perspectives. However, a high-scoring response identifies how one perspective may object or consider the implications or limitations another and why those connections are important to the strength of the paper's overall argument.
This article will focus on the second part of Row 3: drawing relevant connections between perspectives beyond the simple agreement and disagreement. We will explore how we can demonstrate that one perspective object to or consider the implications or limitations of another perspective.
Ways to Synthesize Perspectives
Quick tip: Imagine that researchers on your topic are at a table discussing with each other on their research. Image Source: Wikimedia Commons
If you are representing a perspective through a credible source, you must understand that it is incredibly rare, maybe even impossible, that two sources will have the exact some reasoning or procedure and the exact some conclusion. Simply stating that one source or perspective reached the same conclusion or that one source supports another one is both redundant and uninteresting. Here are multiple examples of the types of relevant connections you may see and use.
Qualification (Narrowing) of a Point
One perspective may agree with the conclusions of another but only to certain situations or to certain groups, which can be a geographic region, a demographic, etc. A perspective may also agree with only certain parts of a conclusion or solution. Qualifications demonstrate the limitations, or the barriers and restrictions, of a conclusion or solution. Explaining and addressing limitations also adds credibility to your own argument, which can help you in Row 4: Establish Argument. Qualifications may help narrow the scope from a broad topic to your specific research question, helping you reach the high in Row 2: Understand and Analyze Context.
Example: Researcher or politician A states that school-choice will help improve state assessment scores, but researcher B believes that the school-choice provisions from politician A would be effective in improving math scores but not reading scores. Researcher C then could further qualify politician A's school-choice solution by stating that the solution would only be effective in minority communities.
Amplification (Expanding) of a Point
In contrast to a qualifying perspective, an amplifying perspective broadens the application of the conclusions or solutions proposed by another perspective. Qualifying conclusions narrow by excluding other groups, while amplifying perspectives do not exclude any groups. They simply included other geographic regions, demographics, or general stakeholders, people are have a relevant interest to the currently researched issue.
Example: Scholar F argues that cyber attacks hurt the online economy of the United States. Scholar G then expands the economically harmful effects of US cyber attacks to another developed country or regions such as Western Europe. Scholar H then could still focus on the United States but extend Scholar F's effects of cyber attacks beyond the economics and to the politics of the United States. Note that Scholar G and H do not reject that there are economic effects or that cyber attacks happen in the United States; they simply add to the argument presented by Scholar F.
Application of a Theory or Hypothetical Solution
A perspective could offer a reasonable, evidence-based conclusion but does not directly test the validity of their conclusions. They may provide a theory to explain an phenomenon or a hypothetical solution to an ongoing issue but need direct experimentation to confirm the validity of their conclusions or solution. Another perspective could then directly test the validity of a theory or practicality and effective of a solution and may modify the premises of a conclusions or the conditions of a solution either though qualification or amplification.
Example: Therapy institute A hypothesizes that personal disclosure during family therapy contributes to more success in treating family problems. Therapy institute A supports their hypothesis through reasoning based off of scientific facts or conclusions from a multitude of studies testing similar but not exact hypotheses. Therapy institute B then tests the hypothesis presented by Therapy institute A by conducting a study with the experimental group experiencing personal disclosure and a control group. Therapy institute B's results qualify Therapy institute A's speculations as the experimental group had only improve significantly compared to the control under the condition that the tested families had extremely severe family issues.
Addressing (Or Solving) Gaps
A single solution presented by one researcher would probably not solve the entirety of the issue and may leave important parts of the issue unaddressed. However, combining such a solution or conclusion with another researcher's solution or conclusion could then adequately address or solve all aspects of a problem and leave very little gaps. Note that it is important to be specific on the flaws of one solution or conclusion and how exactly those flaws are addressed in another solution and conclusion. You must also ensure that these two solutions are indeed compatible with each other. If they are not, then you could have a move for Row 4: Establish Argument.
Example: School administrator F proposes that an increased focus on college-preparedness in American high schools could help decrease the dropout rates for high schools. However, college-preparedness may become a challenge to high schools in low-income neighborhoods. School administrator G then solves the possible financial gap in F's solution by claiming that college-student-led college-preparedness in these low-income neighborhoods would be both cheap and just as effective.
Examining Unintended Effects
This type of conversation is similar to Addressing (Or Solving) Gaps but entirely focuses on positive or negative implications, or the possible effects or results of a proposed solution. Note that describing the implications of solution does not necessarily constitute agreement or disagreement to the solution. The researchers could just objectively evaluate the effects of a solution without any expression of opinion.
Example: United Nations environmentalist X believes that a viable carbon market could both continue the economic development of developing countries and reduce the carbon emissions of both the developed and developing world. Eco-Politician Y then explores through the political implications of Environmentalist X's carbon market and concludes that a carbon market could also serve as a form of diplomacy between poor and rich nations. Y argues that the economic leverage of a carbon market proposed by X would yield a political leverage between nations.
Refuting a Point
One perspective may present conclusions or evidence that objects or contradicts to the conclusions of another perspective. Objections are different from simple disagreements because objections require evidence and reasoning to support a conclusion or solution and refute opposing conclusions or solutions. It is up to you to explain how a perspective objects to another and refutes the reasoning supporting the opposing perspectives. You must also ensure that those objections between sources help progress your argument, or else you may simply be pointing out irrelevant differences between arguments. This type of conversation is the hardest to execute out of all of the conversations in this list since it is easy to fall into explaining irrelevant and simple disagreements. However, skillfully representing and possibly refuting an objection purposefully would help add complexity to your argument and help in Row 4: Establishing Argument.
Example: Computer scientist Q argues that computer processing power will soon level off as the size of processors are reaching to the size of electrons. However, computer scientist R debunks Q's claim about the limits of processing power by pointing out that quantum computers may store more information in one processor using superposition. The computer processing power would then continue to progress not by decreasing the size of the processor but by increasing the amount of information in one processor.
Anything Else Purposeful
If you believe that you found a type of connection between perspectives not in this list that you could easily explain and use to help progress your argument, then go ahead and use it! Writing an argumentative research paper is a creative medium, and there are simply too many complex issues to classify all the possible types of conversations in one post. You may also find that two sources can connect through multiple types of conversations, which demonstrates a high proficiency in synthesizing perspectives.
Row 3 in the IWA rubric is one of the hardest to hit because the concept of perspectives and synthesis may seem novel to those new to conducting research. However, learning and reading multiple example papers that demonstrate effective connections between perspectives will help you give a better understanding and provide with more tools to conquer Row 3. Always remember to be specific in your discussions about the connections between perspectives.
Thank you for reading, and happy synthesizing!
AP Seminar PT2 Rubrics: https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/ap/pdf/ap18-sg-seminar-pt2.pdf
Comments