1705135495 In order to analyze a motion effectively, debaters must use evidence to construct arguments to support their case and to refute their opponents’ arguments. To construct and refute arguments, debaters must be adequately prepared and must already know something about the motion’s topic. How is this kind of preparation achieved? Debaters must conduct research in advance. Research is important in debate because it provides a basis for narrowing and focusing the scope of the motion, which can result in a better debate. Most importantly, research enables debaters to construct arguments with claims supported by evidence (as addressed in Chapter 16). Research can also be helpful when debaters choose to construct a model or counter-model. Since debaters will not always know the topic that they will be arguing prior to a debate, they need to be prepared to speak on a number of different subjects. A good starting point for most debaters involves developing good research habits, selecting appropriate information resources, learning to search for information, and knowing how to evaluate both the information and its source.

1705135496

1705135497

1705135498

1705135499 思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132432]

1705135500 12.1 Developing Good Research Habits

1705135501

1705135502 Not only will individuals come to debate with varying levels of public speaking and argumentation skills, but individuals will also have different levels of familiarity with current events and common debate topics. Effective debaters need to have competence in content (the “what” or substance of an argument) as much as they need to have competence in form (the “how” or reasoning behind an argument). One way that debaters can ensure competence in content is to develop good research habits.

1705135503

1705135504 First, debaters should read widely, and not just within their areas of study or personal interest. While having an area of expertise on which to draw in debate rounds is very useful, it is even more beneficial to have at least some familiarity with a significant number of current issues. To achieve that kind of knowledge about a broad number of current issues, debaters should read and become familiar with a variety of information sources. Newspapers, magazines, academic journals, blogs, websites, encyclopedias, non-fiction books—all these and other information sources have their own strengths and weaknesses. Some information sources will be better for supporting particular arguments and providing evidence than other information sources. Debaters must keep in mind the points they are likely to make and should use information sources accordingly. Knowing the types of information that are commonly found in various information sources will make research easier for debaters.

1705135505

1705135506 In addition to reading widely in terms of topic areas, debaters should read information sources that discuss the same topic from contrasting viewpoints. Knowing both sides of an issue means that a debater will be better prepared to argue either side. Obtaining information about both sides of an issue can be particularly important when using websites as information sources. The use of such websites is discussed further in the section on evaluating websites.

1705135507

1705135508 Debaters should also conduct background research on important governmental and financial organizations that are regularly mentioned during debates (e.g., the United Nations, the European Union, the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the International Criminal Court, NATO, OPEC, and the Arab League). Because these entities are frequently part of debate motions or are referenced by other debate teams during their cases, debaters with a good working knowledge of the history, goals, and scope of these entities stand to benefit. Similarly, debaters who are familiar with international treaties and agreements such as NAFTA, the Kyoto Protocol, SORT, the WIPO Copyright Treaty, or the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War will be better prepared for motions on issues of economic trade, environmental policy, arms reduction, intellectual property, and human rights. The United Nations Treaty Collection (http://treaties.un.org/) is one good source to locate this kind of background information.

1705135509

1705135510 Finally, debaters must recognize that bias exists in virtually all information sources. Because of those biases, debaters need to develop the habit of questioning the validity of what they read. Is the source of the information readily apparent? Can the information be verified through a second independent source? If information cannot be attributed or verified, or if it comes from a less credible source, debaters must be prepared for the possibility that the opposing team will attempt to discredit the information.

1705135511

1705135512 Beyond those rather general guidelines for developing good research habits, debaters will need to know how to locate and evaluate information. Access to information may vary based on the resources available through an institution’s library or via the Internet. Libraries may drop some subscription resources or add new ones based on curricular needs and budgetary constraints. Because the specific tools can change, this chapter focuses on more general strategies that can be used for research queries rather than on strategies for specific tools.

1705135513

1705135514 思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132433]

1705135515 12.2 Selecting Appropriate Resources & Formulating Searches2

1705135516

1705135517 When conducting research, debaters can use many different kinds of information resources. Regardless of the type of resource, debaters need to keep a few important principles in mind. At the forefront, debaters need to consider the type of information they are trying to find and where it is likely to be located. For example, when looking for information to support the claim that all children under the age of 16 should be required to attend school, debaters need to think about which types of information would best support that claim. Statistics demonstrating that people with more education earn more money could be useful in advancing a debater’s argument. But where might a debater find such information? Many possibilities exist—for instance, a government agency might compile this information regularly and make that data available to the public on its website, an education advocacy organization might produce an official report, or economic researchers at a university might publish a study in a journal. Debaters should also realize that the format of information might play a role in the ease with which it can be found and interpreted. Although many valuable resources are available electronically, some information is still easier to locate in print, and some materials are still only available in print.

1705135518

1705135519 Finding information resources is only the start of the process. Equally important is knowing how to use the resources. Libraries offer many different kinds of resources, from generalized to subject-specific, in both print and electronic formats. Some resources can be complicated to use, and debaters would be wise to take advantage of any user tutorials offered by an institution’s library. Additionally, many resources have help menus built into them that offer tips on advanced searching, subject headings used within the resource, how to narrow searches to retrieve only peer-reviewed materials, idiosyncrasies of searching within the resource (such as whether searches are case-sensitive), and how to save search queries and create alerts. Sometimes, consulting an expert who is familiar with the resources is more useful as well as more efficient; debaters may want to schedule an appointment with a librarian who can help refine specific strategies for searching within databases. Taking time to create a search strategy up front often saves time in the end.

1705135520

1705135521 Whether debaters are searching in a subscription database from their institution’s library, browsing in a subject directory, or using a search engine on the Internet, they will need to pay careful attention to formulating searches so they are successful. Each tool will have its own features, as well as a unique algorithm for displaying results. Once debaters have identified what information they are trying to find and what types of resources are likely to have that information, the time has come to consider how to construct a search.

1705135522

1705135523 First, debaters should identify the primary keywords from the query. For example, if the information being sought is to support a claim that nations should reduce their dependence on nuclear energy, then primary keywords might include “nuclear energy,” “reduction,” and “dependence.” Debaters should also think of common synonyms for these keywords, as well as related terms that might produce relevant results when searching. In the example given, synonyms for nuclear energy might include “nuclear power,” “atomic energy,” and “atomic power,” while related terms might include “thermonuclear,” “nuclear fission,” “nuclear fusion,” or “cold fusion.” Debaters should select the terms that are most important to the query and begin searching there. By keeping track of which terms produce successful searches and which terms send the search veering off on tangents, debaters can avoid wasting time during subsequent searches. Limiting vague or generic terms as much as possible is also a good strategy, as less specific terms often add “noise” to the search and clutter the results list. Meta-search tools such as Dogpile, Yippy, or Ixquick, that search multiple tools simultaneously, can sometimes be a useful way to begin a search.

1705135524

1705135525 Many databases and search engines allow the use of Boolean search terms (AND; OR; NOT) or quotation marks around phrases to help refine searches. Unfortunately, these features are not standardized among tools, making it necessary to look at the help pages for a given tool to determine what search refinements or command searches are supported. Truncation (using a wildcard character, such as an asterisk, at the end of a root word) enables searching multiple variations of a term. In the previous example about requiring children under the age of 16 to attend school, a truncated search for “child*” would return results that included the terms child, children, and childhood. However, truncation is not supported by all search tools, nor is the wildcard symbol standard among search tools. Debaters should take advantage of both the standard “simple” search as well as the advanced search that is offered for many search tools. Features often found in advanced search include searching by specific languages, domains, date ranges, location, and more.

1705135526

1705135527 In addition to standard search engines and databases, subject directories use standardized subject headings to organize information into categories. This alternate method of searching for information can be highly useful, particularly when initial searches may not be focused enough to retrieve relevant results. Debaters must also understand that not all search tools (particularly Web search engines) are created equally. Different search tools will produce different results, and it is a good strategy to try the same search on more than one tool to see the differences.

1705135528

1705135529 思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132434]

1705135530 12.3 Evaluating Websites3

1705135531

1705135532 Websites can be a handy source of information for debaters, but debaters should learn to evaluate a website before using that information to build an argument. When evaluating a website, debaters need to consider authority, bias, accuracy, currency, scope, and relevance or usability. Sometimes the information needed to evaluate a website is not as easy to find as it would be for a printed resource. However, as a rule, debaters should apply the same level of evaluation to websites as they would to printed resources.

1705135533

1705135534 Authority refers to the author’s or publisher’s credentials. Who is responsible for the website’s content? Consider whether an individual has authority in the topic area—where does the person work? What credentials does the person hold? Has the person published other material on this topic? What do other people have to say about the person’s work? Do external reviews exist that discuss what the person has written? Sometimes websites are maintained by organizations rather than by individuals. In that case, consider the type of organization–is it a professional or trade association? A lobbying organization? A governmental or educational institution? A commercial business? Is there an “About” page that describes the purpose of the website? Domain name extensions (.com, .cn, .edu, .gov, .org, and so on) can often provide clues to the type of organization, which can lead to clues about potential bias.

1705135535

1705135536 Bias refers to the point of view and degree of objectivity expressed by the author. Is the website sponsored by a corporation or other entity? Is the website promoting or selling a product? Does the website advocate a particular political viewpoint? If advertising is included on the website, does the information appear to be influenced in any way by the advertisers? Does the author have any inherent bias (for example, a conflict of interest)? If biases exist, are they clearly stated? What kinds of websites are linking to this website, and what might that say about potential bias?(The “link” feature in many search engines can be used to find this information.)4

1705135537

1705135538 In addition to authority and bias, debaters must evaluate accuracy. Accuracy refers to the reliability and correctness of the information. Since debaters should avoid using inaccurate information to advance their arguments in a debate, this is one of the most important elements to evaluate. Is the information on the website correct? Consider whether the website lists the sources of its information (perhaps in a bibliography), whether the information is fact or opinion, and whether the information can be verified from external, independent sources.

1705135539

1705135540 Currency is related to issues of accuracy. It refers to the date of publication and/or the time period covered by the information on the website. Is the information up to date? Do links work? When was the website created, and when was it last updated? Does the page update automatically on a daily basis, or is it manually updated when information is added or revised? A regularly updated website is not inherently more reliable than one which is updated less frequently, but this information may be important when researching some topics. Debaters must ask themselves if currency of the information they are trying to find matters.

1705135541

1705135542 Scope refers to the coverage area of the website. It can relate to currency that can be thought of as chronological scope. Consider whether the website is directed at a particular audience (for example, a website intended for pregnant mothers, or a website aimed at educators in China). If there is a printed equivalent to the information, does the website offer the same information? Is the website (or an individual document available through the website) a primary, secondary, or tertiary resource? Primary resources contain firsthand accounts of information or original data. An example of a primary resource is the text of Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty(1996). Primary resources require debaters to use the information on the website to draw their own conclusions. Secondary resources are derived from primary resources and the description or analysis of that information. An example of a secondary resource is a policy analysis report published in 1999 by Kathleen C. Bailey for the Cato Institute, “The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: The Costs Outweigh the Benefits” (http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/ pa330.pdf). Debaters may need to compare and contrast secondary resources to get a complete understanding of an issue and to ensure that they are familiar with all sides of the topic. Tertiary resources are based on secondary resources rather than on original research; occasionally they are written by staff writers rather than by experts in the field. While useful for presenting overviews of topics, tertiary resources may not have the same depth of information that primary and secondary resources do. Encyclopedias (including Wikipedia) are often considered tertiary resources. Debaters may begin learning about a topic through tertiary resources, but will be able to make more compelling arguments by using primary and secondary resources.

1705135543

1705135544 Finally, debaters must evaluate a website’s relevance. Relevance, sometimes called usability, refers to the value of the information for a researcher’s needs. Consider whether the information is appropriate—can the information be understood easily, or is the website intended for use by experts in the field? Is the website well organized so that information can be located quickly? Does the website cover the topic adequately, or are there obvious omissions in content?

[ 上一页 ]  [ :1.705135495e+09 ]  [ 下一页 ]