Drawing heavily on Larson's criticism of the undergraduate research paper as a "non-form" of writing, Davis and Shadle suggest several modes of "alternative research writing" that they believe can reinvigorate the research process and engage students in discovery. One of their "alternative research writing methods" is the research argument.

"The 'research argument' constructs the academy as a site for informed conversation. Writers of the research argument seek to become experts, taking in the research they need to formulate and support an intelligent position. They are not, however, charged with ending dialogue and establishing set truth. . . . the research argument pushes toward, then, an academic environment that values debate, and calls for the appropriate and strategic use of a wide rhetorical repertoire" (Davis and Shadle 428-429).

The research argument falls within the boundaries of the research essay precisely because it requires the author to contribute to a conversation relevant for the research project. This requirement of authorial contribution, the articulation of a position or an argument, potentially pits the research argument against important elements of hypertext. Argument and persuasion may demand linearity, what Kolb calls "a line." But hypertext is open-ended and nonlinear. This situation creates an important tension for the research argument (or essay) as hypertext.

As one model of the research essay, then, the research argument may be a productive place to explore the possibilities for what Joseph Janangelo calls "persuasive hypertexts."

Copyright © Enculturation 2002

Navigate Enculturation:
Home | Contents 4:2 | Editors | Issues
About | Submissions | Subscribe | Copyright | Review | Links