avoid “ armadillo roadkill ,” direct quotes always require attributive tags W r i t i n g

Showing multiple viewpoints and connecting them to your own your own view

Synthesis means “putting together.” In this Viewpoint Synthesis paper, you will flesh out your own view on your research question in the context of what you have discovered about other perspectives through your research. This paper is not a researched argument or an objective report; rather, it is a brief overview of how your perspective fits in the wider social conversation going on between three significant perspectives, ways of thought and belief, about your question. All of your work in unit 3 is designed to help you with this task.

REQUIREMENTS:

1. 1000-1250 words (4-5 pages).
2. Identify and explain 3 views of your issue using sources to objectively explain each perspective. Each viewpoint will have a claim and supporting evidence. Really, you are writing 4 short (1-page) position summary papers each with a claim and supporting reasons.
3. Your conclusion of the paper will be your own view of the issue. It might be a fourth perspective on the issue if you don’t fundamentally agree with any perspective.Carefully contextualize your views with and against the research you have found.
4. Use your rhetorical analysis of these sources from your Research Journals and the debate itself to make an argument about credibility of the sources
5. Use attributive tags (As Johnson argues… OR In contrast to Johnson….) to situate your view amongst your sources

GUIDELINES:

As you write, consider the following guidelines:

1. Remember that this is a paper, not a Research Journal. This is a paper that is meant to show us the range of positions on the issue as well as the position you take and your reasons/evidence for this position.
2. Finding an organization that shows the complexity of the issue is part of the learning task for this paper. Do not just transfer your annotations into this paper; think, instead, about grouping them to show similarities and differences in various positions. For each view, you will likely have several sources that speak to the view.
3. The rhetorical analysis you did in the Research Journals does not show up in this paper as such. You may certainly point out flaws in arguments, and you can indicate you think a source is very credible in the way you introduce it. For example, you might say, “Noted psychologist and professor at Harvard University, John Bramble, argues that … ”
4. If you do not introduce your sources within your text, use parenthetical in-text citations (Bramble 27) after any ideas or short paraphrases you use. Rely on paraphrase and quote sparingly, but ALWAYS signal to the reader when you are summarizing someone’s viewpoint. In order to avoid “armadillo roadkill,” direct quotes ALWAYS require attributive tags (Johnson notes, “Blah blah blah…”)
5. Remember that while this paper is meant to show you understand some of the viewpoints of your issue, it is also meant to give you the chance for you to “put in your oar” as Graff and Birkinstein say. Do everything inyour power to be credible and persuasive in giving your reasons for your position. Make sure toinclude evidence that adds to your ethos and logos.

ORGANIZATION:

You must show at least three viewpoints plus your own informed viewpoint about your issue

SAMPLE OUTLINE:

Introduction: Give context and explain the issue.

synTHESIS statement: Summarize the views.

View One: Explain the position with supporting evidence. One source isn’t enough evidence. Look for multiple sources to summarize the perspective.

View Two: Explain and support with a variety of evidence. (Ask your instructor if personal interviews are appropriate sources!)

View Three: Explain and support with a variety of evidence.

Conclusion: Your view. Explain your perspective on the issue in relationship to the other views and sources.