They Say, I Say Ch 1 & 2

They Say, I Say Ch 1 & 2

Chapter 1 highlights the importance of stating a clear thesis. Again the authors urge us to start with their basic framework and master it before departing from it. I feel like this is good advice and follows the way that I generally learn new skills. Specifically the goal outlined in this chapter is to start a conversation that will be clear to the reader what has been said on a given topic and then introduce what we think, see or have researched on the same or similar topic. Recently I heard about an argumentative tactic called “steel manning” which is the reverse of the common fallacy of “Straw manning” someone's argument. To Steel Man, one restates the strongest points of another person's position on an issue and then attacks it at its strongest. I understand that in research we are not always disagreeing with other researchers but I do see how using the strongest and clearest positions will improve the introduction of my own paper.  

The sentence framework examples given will be very helpful to forming a conversation in my papers. I appreciate the variety given by the authors. I am however having a little bit of trouble understanding the concept of the return sentences. On the face of it I can see why it is important to link back to past research and the thoughts of others on the topic in introducing the ideas. The authors urge us to make a genuine response to others views (this makes sense) but I feel like we are trying to find our own viewpoints, or own research, for our context…. Perhaps I am reading too much into this last portion of the chapter…

Chapter 2 urges an economy of words when summarizing the arguments that others have made. This summary should still be true and accurate to the original author while at the same time highlighting where their research meets our own. I really appreciate the idea of “temporary suspension of disbelief” when summarizing the arguments of others. This is a difficult yet important skill when getting into any conversation whether it be on education research, politics or religion, temporarily taking the other side and inhabiting their way of thinking is as the book suggests, “the hallmark of good actors.”

The authors urge us to find a balance between giving an accurate yet concise portrayal of the others work while at the same time “spinning” their arguments or work in the direction of our own. I initially found the “spin” suggestion and the satirical summary to be slightly disingenuous ways of “conversing” but I think I get the author's points here. I do not see myself using these tactics in any kind of formal research paper however. Finally, as someone who does not consider himself to be a good writer, I really appreciate all of the example sentence frames and word banks given throughout this book. I know I will refer back to them often.