This is Part One of a Four Part series on doing research to support papers and

speeches.

Information, ideas and opinions surround us, most of which we never question. In
fact, we have to ignore most of them or suffer from brain burnout. However, when we
do pay attention we usually accept it as it comes in from whatever source. Fo r
example, do you ever wonder if you're getting the whole story from TV news shows
or newspapers? Do you wonder what's been left out, if anything? Or why? However, if
we wish to understand something, not just accept someone else's word for it but
actually understand it, and in turn pass on our understanding to someone else, we must
question opinion and assumption and theory and speculation. The purpose of the
questions is to gather evidence.

WHAT IS RESEARCH?
Research is finding out what you don't already know. No one knows everything, but
everybody knows something. However, to complicate matters, often what you know,
or think you know, is incorrect.
There are two basic purposes for research: to learn something, or to gather evidence.
The first, to learn something, is for your own benefit. It is almost impossible for a
human to stop learning. It may be the theory of relativity or the RBIs of your favorite
ball player, but you continue to learn. Research is organized learning, looking for
specific things to add to your store of knowledge. You may read SCIENTIFIC
AMERICAN for the latest research in quantum mechanics, or the sports section for
last night's game results. Either is research.
What you've learned is the source of the background information you use to
communicate with others. In any conversation you talk about the things you know, the
things you've learned. If you know nothing about the subject under discussion, you
can neither contribute nor understand it. (This fact does not, however, stop many
people from joining in on conversations, anyway.) When you write or speak formally,
you share what you've learned with others, backed with evidence to show that what
you've learned is correct. If, however, you haven't learned more than your audience
already knows, there is nothing for you to share. Thus you do research.
THREE TYPES OF RESEARCH

There are three types of research, pure, original, and secondary. Each type has the goal
of finding information and/or understanding something. The difference comes in the
strategy employed in achieving the objective.
Pure Research
Pure research is research done simply to find out something by examining anything.
For instance, in some pure scientific research scientists discover what properties
various materials possess. It is not for the sake of applying those properties to
anything in particular, but simply to find out what properties there are. Pure
mathematics is for the sake of seeing what happens, not to solve a problem.
The fun of pure research is that you are not looking for anything in particular. Instead,
anything and everything you find may be joined with anything else just to see where
that combination would lead, if anywhere.
Let's take an example. I was reading a variety of books and magazines once. There
were a some science fiction novels, Jean Auel's THE CLAN OF THE CAVE BEAR,
Carl Sagan's BROCA'S BRAIN, several Isaac Asimov collections of science essays
and two of his history books, ADVERTISING AGE and AD WEEK magazines, some
programs on PBS, a couple of advertising textbooks I was examining for adoption in
my class, and several other things I can't even remember now. This was pure research;
I was reading and watching television for the sake of reading and watching about
things I didn't know.
Relating all of the disparate facts and opinions in all of these sources led me to my
opinions on stereotyping and pigeonholing as vital components of human thought,
now a major element in my media criticism and advertising psychology classes. When
I started I had no idea this pure research would lead where it did. I was just having
fun.
Original Research
Original, or primary research is looking for information that nobody else has found.
Observing people's response to advertising, how prison sentences influence crime
rates, doing tests, observations, experiments, etc., are to discover something new.
Orginal research requires two things: 1) knowing what has already been discovered,
having a background on the subject; and 2) formulating a method to find out what you
want to know. To accomplish the first you indulge in secondary research (see below).

For the second, you decide how best to find the information you need to arrive at a
conclusion. This method may be using focus groups, interviews, observations,
expeditions, experiments, surveys, etc.
For example, you can decide to find out what the governmental system of the Hittite
Empire was like on the basis of their communication system to determine how closely
the empire could be governed by a central bureaucracy. The method to do this original
research would probably require that you travel to the Middle East and examine such
things as roads, systems of writing, courier systems without horses, archeological
evidence, actual extent of Hittite influence (commercial, military, laws, language,
religion, etc.) and anything else you can think of and find any evidence for.
Secondary Research
Secondary research is finding out what others have discovered through original
research and trying to reconcile conflicting viewpoints or conclusions, find new
relationships between normally non-related research, and arrive at your own
conclusion bas ed on others' work. This is, of course, the usual course for college
students.
An example from recent years was the relating of tectonic, geologic,
biologic, paleontologic, and astronomic research to each other. Relating facts from
these researches led to the conclusion that the mass extinctions of 65 million years
ago, including the dinosaurs, was the result of an asteroid or comet striking the earth
in the North Atlantic at the site of Iceland. (For a full explanation see THE GREAT
EXTINCTION by Michael Allaby and James Lovelock.) Later research based on the
above has found a potential crater for the impact on the Yucatan Peninsula.
Secondary research should not be belittled simply because it is not original research.
Fresh insights and viewpoints, based on a wide variety of facts gleaned from original
research in many areas, has often been a source of new ideas. Even more, it has
provided a clearer understanding of what the evidence means without the influence of
the original researcher's prejudices and preconceptions.
DIRECTED AND NONDIRECTED RESEARCH
Research can be directed or non-directed. Non-directed research is finding out things
for the sheer fun of finding them out. Reading a newspaper or the entire Encyclopedia
Britannica, or asking several people how they feel about something is non-directed
research. It has no specific purpose beyond increasing your store of knowledge about
the world (or everything in general). Watching television is non-directed research, as
is reading a magazine, science fiction, mysteries, historical fiction, or anything else.

Everything you don't think of yourself contains information you don't have, and is
thus research.
Directed research, on the other hand, is done with a specific purpose in mind. The
purpose could be to make a point, write a paper or speech, or simply know more about
a specific thing. It is directed since it deals with something specific, and someone
decides what to try next. It simply doesn't have a specific outcome in mind. For
example, directed research in microelectronics is not trying to achieve a specific goal.
It does, however, deal specifically with microelectronics, be it the conducting
properties of alloys and compounds, electron etching, or dual bonding. It does not
concern itself with anthropology. There is also a researcher or project director who
decides what is worth pursuing and what is not.
Directed research is what you want to do when you are preparing a report. You have a
specific goal in mind, to communicate what you want your audience to know about
your topic. Thus, you direct your research toward finding what you can about your
topic, not to find out what there is to know about whatever you come across.
#
Research, pure, original or secondary, carries with it an inherent danger to those who
are close-minded or comfortable in their preconceptions and prejudices. In case you're
wondering, that includes everybody. However, there are people who, having arrived at
a conclusion by whatever means, reject anything that contradicts, or at least doesn't
support, their preconceptions and prejudices. Research has at its essence the shakeup
of what you already know (if you already know it, it isn't research, it 's selfcongratulation for perspicacity). Let's take a look at how this works.
Research may show that what you already know isn't correct. This is a hard thing for
many people to accept. You will, on occasion, come across a piece of evidence that
contradicts your a priori assumptions (those that you hold as self-evident, some thing
is simply because it is), and that is at best disconcerting and at worst traumatic. For
example, you may hold an a priori assumption "all men are created equal". You may
then find an article that states "it is a basic fact of life that all men are inherently
unequal" (people raised in the caste system in India would find that statement so true
it wouldn't need to be said). Which statement is correct? Think about it for a moment.
...
If you've actually thought about it, you should have come to the conclusion that both
statements, "all men are created equal," and "all men are unequal," are correct. They

are also both incorrect. They are also both meaningless noises as evidence. They are,
by nature, unprovable and thus not evidence.
What is evidence in this case? Your first step must lie in defining your terms.
What are "men"? Do you mean the male sex of the human species? Do you mean
human beings in general: male, female, regardless of age, race, economic or social
position, all socio-economic systems and governments?
What do you mean by "all"? All "men" (whatever that means) that are like you? That
are not like you? That are like anything at all? The word "all" connotes "without
limit". You put no limits on what are "men"? Are women "men"? Are children,
whatever sex, "men"? Are you discussing sociology, biology, politics,
historicity, economics? In what context? Are you discussing war, voting, pay rates,
restrooms?
What do you mean by "created"? Born through biological processes? Through
technological procedures (test tube babies, cloning, genetic engineering)? By some
supernatural intervention with universal entropy? By government decree?
What do you mean by "equal"? Under the law? Under the sun? Under the divinity of
your choice? Equal to what? You? Others?
If you find these questions confusing, good. You're thinking about them.
If you find these questions irritating and/or ridiculous ("everyone know what "All men
are created equal" means!"), then you're being close-minded and will limit your
research to only what agrees with your own prejudices and will discount or totally
ignore anything that contradicts your own narrow ideas. (If you find the above
sentence insulting, you either have an over-developed sense of empathy or you prove
my point.)
Let us assume that you define "All men are created equal" as "Every human being,
without exception, is born exactly the same as every other human being" ("all" as in
totality, "men" as human beings, "created" as born, "equal" as in 2 + 2 = 4). Is that
what you mean by "All men are created equal"? All humans are born physically,
biologically, socially, economically, politically, geographically, intellectually, etc., the
same? One needs only enter a maternity ward to realize that such a case is ridiculous.
Let us change the definition slightly. "Every human being, without exception, is
spontaneously invented by God exactly the same as every other human being". The

question becomes, "Which God?" Yahveh, the Christian God, Allah, Zeus, Wodin,
Osiris, etc.? This definition also leaves the above questions intact.
Perhaps the word that needs defining is "equal". "Every human being, without
exception, is born evenly balanced with every other human being." Does this mean
that for every poor human there's a wealthy? For every fat human there's a thin? For
every tall human there's a short? Is any of those what you mean by the phrase?
What has happened to the phrase "All men are created equal" as evidence to prove a
point you wish to make? The answer to this question is, "It's disappeared." The
sentiment is just that, a sentiment. Semantically, it's meaningless. Emotionally, it's
extremely effective. As evidence, it doesn't exist.
#
The research you do is designed to give you the ammunition you need to back up what
you have to say even with those that disagree with you and question what you say.
That ammunition is evidence that your opponent can, or has no choice except to agree
with.
You will, of course, have those that disagree with what you say; nobody agrees with
anybody on everything. Thus, if you make a point, you must back it up with evidence
that even those that disagree must accept. Such evidence must be what is termed
objective; that is, evidence that even those that disagree can discover for themselves.
For example, Galileo said that objects, regardless of their weight, fell at the same
speed. Aristotle said that heavy objects fell faster than light objects. Giovanni
Benedetti did experiments that demonstrated his ideas. Those that disagreed with him
finally stopped arguing "common sense" and ran the same experiments -- and
demonstrated Benedettis ideas. Such objective evidence could not be argued away
and thus the evidence was accepted.
EVIDENCE
One thing that many people leave out of their discussions of just about anything is
evidence. They often rely more on volume or force of personality rather than proof to
back up their ideas. They shout down their less forceful opponents so opposing ideas
or evidence are either not heard or disregarded. Imagine one of these people in a court
of law: they say "that man is guilty". "Why?" "Because I say (or think or affirm)
so." How about someone who says "The Holocaust never happened, because I don't
believe it happened." Or "Blacks (women, Chicanos, whites, Jews, Catholics, Greeks,
et cetera ad nauseam) are inferior because they are." Would you be willing to accept
their statements, simply on the basis that they said them? I doubt it.

Nonetheless, people accept such statements all the time because getting evidence to
support them is not typical. For example, if your friend (father, mother, teacher, etc.)
tells you something, do you ask for evidence, or do you accept what they say? After
all, why would or should they lie to you? When you consider that most of the
information you get comes from friends (family, teachers, etc.), then the habit of
demanding evidence or proof for statements is not formed. Nonetheless, the habit of
demanding evidence is necessary to avoid making mistakes, being misled or duped, or
passing errors on to others.
Ideas, opinions, beliefs, and theories abound. You merely need to stand around at a
party to hear how everyone has an opinion about anything under discussion: politics,
religion, the new TV season, Star Wars (movie or defense system), the skill (or lack of
skill) of any team in any sport. Sometimes these discussions can reach a volume level
only found in overpopulated animal shelters or auto wrecking yards.
However, how many of them are worthy of respect? How many should you agree
with? For example, someone may say, "Women are inferior." Do you agree?
Disagree? Why?Inferior how? Inferior to what? Define inferior. Define women. All
women? Some women? Your mother? Your sister? Who says? What is their motive for
saying that? What makes them think so? Why should you agree with them? Did they
answer any of these questions? Finally, when you hear the sentence, "Women are
inferior," do you ask yourself these questions? Do you ask any of these questions?
Why? More, if you didn't, why not?
If you did ask the questions, congratulations: you're using your head for something
besides keeping your ears apart. If you didn't, don't feel bad--you're like the majority
who don't think about what they don't think about (why not? They don't think about
it).
Evidence is also the key to understanding your subject. A way to understand
something is to break it down into its component parts, examine each one, and put it
back together.
For example, your subject is state income tax. First you break the subject down into
the component parts: state budget, current tax base, current tax methods -- sales,
property, excise, cigarette and alcohol, B&O, etc., and anything else you can think of.
Second, you find evidence, actual information about each component part. It might be
the percentages of the total tax income provided by each method, how the tax base
fluctuates according to economic conditions, and/or what budget elements are
provided by which tax method.

Third, you put the subject back together again, only now with a full understanding of
each component and how it relates to each other component. Thus you have a more
complete understanding of your topic.
Finally, evidence is the key to having others accept your ideas. To communicate your
understanding of a topic you give your audience the same evidence that you found to
understand it yourself. Remember that if you don't give your audience any reasons
why what you have to say should be believed, then there is no reason why they should
believe you.

WHAT IS EVIDENCE?
Evidence is a piece of information that supports a conclusion. The classic example is
from the law court: means, motive and opportunity. If the defendant had the means to
commit the crime (say, owned a weapon to commit the murder), a motive or reason
why he or she would want to commit the crime (would inherit $50,000,000 with the
victim dead), and the opportunity to commit the crime (was alone with the victim
when he died with the expectation of getting away undetected), and the evidence
(there's that word again) proved the above, then it would be a reasonable conclusion
that the defendant committed the crime. Of course, the court requires more evidence:
for example, that the crime was committed with the weapon (which requires forensic
and ballistic evidence), and that the defendant was the one that used the weapon
beyond reasonable doubt. Nonetheless, the point is clear. For a conclusion to be
acceptable as true, there must be evidence to support it.
It's too bad the above is so idealistic. In point of fact, most of what people believe is
unsupported by evidence. Nevertheless, ideas are stronger when backed by
information that your audience accepts. The section on research below will go into
greater depth on this.
What can you use as evidence? As stated above, for some people it is sheer volume or
force of personality: "if I say it (whatever "it" is) louder than anybody else, or with
greater confidence or charisma, I must be correct." One needs only see the effect of
the oratory of Hitler to see how well this approach can work. However, for those who
do not aspire to demagoguery, evidence based on objectivity, evidence that even those
who disagree with you must, if they are not bigots, agree with, must be found.
Examples and Illustrations

A strong type of evidence is examples. In an example you show precedents for what
you say, that you are not making things up as you go along, but that what you are
using as support for a conclusion is not a fantasy. If you can show how your
conclusion is the result of, results in, or derives from certain facts or events that
anyone, even those who disagree with your conclusions, can see or experience
for themselves, then you have strong evidence that your conclusion is correct. For
example, look through much of this paper: you will find it liberally sprinkled with
actual occurrences in which I have applied the ideas I am presenting to you, and the
results of those applications. Those anecdotes are examples, and I use them in support
of the efficacy of the methods I am urging you to try. They are evidence that the
methods are viable.
However, not all examples are true-life. Some are hypothetical, i.e., not anecdotes
about actual occurrences, but fictional accounts of what might happen if the ideas
presented were applied. Such examples are illustrations, showing what might or might
not occur if the ideas are used or not used. They are more used to clarify a position or
point, and are left to the reader or listener to carry out to verify their truthfulness or
effectiveness. Nonetheless, illustrations are useful since, when supported by other
evidence, they often do not need verification as to their effectiveness as evidence.
They can simply stand as is.
Analogy and Comparison
Analogy
An analogy is drawing comparisons between different factors in two dissimilar things
to help illustrate or clarify one of the two. One of the two is usually chosen because it
is basically understood by the audience, and thus the one that is not understood can be
made clear.
For example, you can draw an analogy between football and war. Both deal with
offense and defense, ground gaining to win the war, downs that are the equivalent of
battles, have platoon systems, generals (coaches), officers (quarterbacks and defensive
callers), soldiers (linemen), etc. Thus the audience can get a clear, if perhaps
simplistic idea of war through the analogy.
There are, of course, problems with using analogies. First, when deciding on the
analogy you must choose one in which the similarities far outweigh the differences.
For example, an analogy between producing a theatrical play and football would be
ridiculous, since there are virtually no similarities (the director might be considered
the coach, but there is no offense or defense, linemen or backs, there is a set script
while a football game never goes according to plan).

Second, be certain your audience knows the elements of your analogy. You could, of
course, draw an analogy between football and war for Australians, but all you would
do is confuse the hell out of them. They do indeed have football, but it is a game that
bears very little resemblance to the game played in North America or Europe. If you
mentioned quarterbacks, linemen, downs, first and ten, or huddles, they wouldn't
know what you were talking about; they are not elements of their game of football.
Their game of football more closely resembles a gang rumble than a war. Thus, be
certain your audience knows what you're talking about.
Third, analogies cannot stand alone. They are a wonderful way of clarifying points,
but they do not actually prove anything. If you use an analogy, you must back it up
with other types of evidence that support the analogy as being valid.
Comparisons
Comparisons are much like analogies without the complexity. When making a
comparison, show how one thing is like or not like something else. Comparisons are
particularly useful when explaining to your audience a concept out of the ordinary or
not clear by "common sense". The difference between waste generated by coal-fired
versus nuclear plants is more clearly made by making a comparison between amounts
of waste created in, say, a year. A 1000 megawatt nuclear plant creates one cubic yard
(two wheelbarrow loads) of waste per year; a 1000 megawatt coal-fired power plant
creates 5,256,000 tons (105,000 truckloads) of waste per year. (Note the two
comparisons made: one between quantity (cubic yards vs. tons) and the other between
wheelbarrow loads and truckloads.) This use of comparisons to make a piece of
evidence clearer is extremely useful when dealing with unfamiliar or uncommon
ideas.
The same caveats you must observe when doing analogies apply when doing
comparisons: likenesses far outweigh differences, audience familiarity with one of the
elements of the comparison, and they cannot stand alone.
WHERE TO FIND EVIDENCE
There are many types of evidence: illustrations, statistics, testimony,
analogies, comparisons. However, if you don't know where to find it, you can't use it.
Personal Experience
The first place to look, and one of the best, is your personal experience. After all, who
knows better how to do something than someone who has done it successfully? If you
can say and show, "This is how I did [whatever]," most would agree that is a way to

do "whatever". For example, if you wish to tell your audience how to rig a model ship,
you could begin by telling them what materials you use, such as the thread and
tweezers, glue and pins. Then show them how to tie and stretch and attach the thread
to the ship, explaining the techniques as you go. Once the audience sees what happens
when you do it your way, they will agree you know what you're doing (assuming that
you do) and they can do it that way too.
Observation
The second place to look for evidence, if you haven't done it yourself, is to watch
someone else do it. In other words, observation: "I didn't do it myself, but I saw it
done, and this is what he/she/it did." This approach is useful when you need to support
a complex technique that you have not had to opportunity to do yourself. Operating a
nuclear plant control room is something that few people have done, but you can
observe it and then describe what you saw.
Interviews
If, of course, you can't watch something happen, you can talk to someone who has.
The interview is a major source of information to support any contention you may
wish to make. There is always someone, somewhere, who knows something that
would help you, and is willing to talk to you.
An interview places an onus on you, as the interviewer, that you must not overlook.
Many people are willing to talk to you, but not to teach you how to understand what
they are saying. In other words, do your homework. If you wish information on
nuclear power, know what questions to ask and have the vocabulary to understand the
answers. If you have to ask what an atom is, or how to generate nuclear power, then
you don't have the necessary background. You will also quite probably try the patience
of your interviewee. Remember the purpose of an interview is to get fresh
information, insight and proof unavailable from other sources, not background.
#
Of course, background is absolutely vital not only to understand but to communicate
that understanding to others. Personal experience and observation are excellent
sources of background, but no one can experience everything. Thus it is always a goo
d idea to look in other places for background.
Books

What many people seem to think is the only place to look for information is in books.
Don't get me wrong: books are excellent. If I didn't think so, I wouldn't write them
myself. However, what you must always keep in mind is that any book, the moment it
hits the shelf, is out of date. It takes anywhere from six months to five or more years
to write a book. After it's written it takes up to two years to get it published and on the
shelf. Thus, particularly in some areas such as electronics, cybernetics, math, physics,
and other aspects of science and engineering, even the most current research
appearing in a book can be at best incomplete and at worst totally wrong.
If the book is old, the problem is even worse. After all, if you based your ideas on a
book written at the turn of the century, you could end up telling your audience that the
sun is a huge ball of burning coal that would burn out in a few thousand years. The
nuclear process of mass into energy, which powers the sun, was unknown much less
understood before 1905 and Albert Einstein. Thus, always check the copyright date -if it's more than a few years old, see if you can find something more current.
A second problem is that many people find one book and base all their evidence on it.
However, authors write books to express their ideas and interpretation of whatever, if
any, evidence the author has found to support them. A problem is that authors can be
misled, misapprehend, not do enough research, or even deliberately set out to mislead
their readers. If you don't believe the latter is possible, remember Hitler and Mao
and . . .. This, considering that the information in books can become outdated, requires
the careful researcher to look in more than one, or two, or three to check each one
against the other.
Let me give you an example from my own research. I was to determine whether or not
there was a raised stage in the 5th and 4th century B.C. Attic Greek theatre. I was
certain there was indeed a stage, and set out to prove it. However, believing that no
one source can tell me all nor be trusted as the only way to view any subject, I not
only read those books that agreed with me but those that didn't. Then I checked the
sources the authors had used, then checked those as far back and as well as I could.
From this cross checking, and other research, I found that I was wrong, that those
books that said there was a stage hadn't fully understood the evidence. I decided there
was not a raised stage in the Attic Greek theatre. At least that is my opinion based on
my research: there are many who, from their research, disagree with me. Fine: there is
more than one way to view just about anything. However, if you were writing or
speaking on the topic and only read what they wrote about it, you would be wrong.
You would be as wrong if you read only what I wrote. You must read both and form
your own opinion. Compare the evidence presented on all sides and weigh them
without prejudice against everything else you find. No one is the final word on
anything. Only you can be the final word for yourself.

Journals
If books are not the final word, where else can you look? Another fine source of
information is journals. People often ignore journals because they are magazines
written for specialists in a particular field. This is both their strength and their
weakness.
Almost any field you can think of has one or more journals. Medicine has THE NEW
ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE or THE LANCET. Theatre has THE
SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY and THE TULANE DRAMA REVIEW. Biology has
the QUARTERLY REVIEW OF BIOLOGY. Veterinarians have the VETERINARY
RECORD.
The strength of journals is that leading specialists in the fields write the articles in
them, sharing their latest research and insights. Thus you get the thinking of the
leading people to support your ideas. The weakness of journals is that leading
specialists in the field write the articles in them (sound familiar?). The specialists do
not write the articles for the average person to understand but for other specialists to
understand. Thus the language, syntax, vocabulary, etc. may approach opaque for
a nonspecialist. Here are some examples of how confusing it can be:
One of the remarkable and characteristic properties currently under intensive
laboratory study is that when a metallic receptacle is subjected to a careful and
continuous scrutiny of a deliberate nature, the mixture which it is the nature and
purpose of the said receptacle to contain will not, in point of fact, undergo a phase
change and permit entry into a gaseous form at any point in time within the duration
of the aforementioned scrutiny.
Meaning: A watched pot never boils
We have found that the individual under study should find the most feasible means
that will enable him or her, as the case may be, to enter into a rapid repose,
facilitating, as soon as possible, an actual somnolent condition along an interface as
well as a precocious cessation of the condition and re-entry into a scheduled plan of
activities that will maximize salubrious and/or salutary conditions, in addition to
factors which favor a rise in profits or, as the circumstances may dictate, greater
growth in the level of mental performance and achievement.
Meaning: Early to bed and early to rise . . .
Here is an example from the QUARTERLY REVIEW OF BIOLOGY.

A change elicited by an affect or effect or by an effectant in the affectee is a passive or

active response affect or response effect. If it counters the affect or effect of
the affectantwhich elicits it, is an active counter-affect or counter-effect. If it is an
active counter affect or effect, it is a counter active affect or effect, i.e., a reaction in
the strictest sense of the term as used by pathologists.
I wish you luck with this one. I haven't provided a translation because I can't figure
out what it says.
Nevertheless, don't let the above extreme examples frighten you away from using
journals. They are still an excellent source of information.
Journals have one other problem. Publishers issue them at long intervals, varying from
three months to a year. The articles are therefore four or five months to two years
removed from the end of the research the author has done. Thus, although not as outof-date as books must be, they are still not the latest word.
Magazines
Where else can you go, then? The answer is magazines. Publishers issue magazines
every month or even every week. The information in the articles is therefore quite
fresh, perhaps only one or two months old.
There is, of course, a problem with magazine articles as a source of information.
Unlike books or journals, reporters, not specialists in the field, write the articles. They
are not actually doing the research to generate the article, but are reporting what the
specialists are doing. Many magazines employ reporters with qualifications in the area
they are reporting. A science reporter for TIME magazine may write about anything
having to do with science. However, he/she cannot be an expert in rocketry, biology,
astronomy, and all the other areas of science he or she might cover.
Nonetheless, as a source of current background information, magazines are
invaluable.
Newspapers
To get the latest information available, the place to look is in newspapers. Their
information is from yesterday. However, the problem of reporters writing the articles
as explained above is exacerbated by three things. First, the reporter is even less likely
to be an expert on the subject. Editors often assign a story to a reporter because he/she
is available, not because of any particular qualifications in the area. It is true that
newspapers reporters are expert at gathering information through observation,

interviews and background research. However, they are not always experts in the
fields they are covering.
Second, newspapers reporters are always under the gun of a deadline. They often must
write the article within a very short time. They thus may have to take shortcuts or
forego more in-depth analysis or research to finish on time. Thus the article may not
be as informative or reliable as other forms of research.
Third, the writing style of newspapers is different from that of books, journals or
magazines. The inverted pyramid style works well to help you decide if you want to
read the article. Its opening paragraph contains the basics of the entire story and
following paragraphs go into greater and greater detail. However, you can lose some
of the organization necessary to see the relative importance of various points. In
addition, the editor, due to space restrictions, may cut paragraphs off the end of the
article. These paragraphs may contain just the details you need.
Feature stories, those written less to report the news than to provide the newspaper's
readers with information on a topic, don't have all of the above drawbacks. The
reporter who writes the story is often given the assignment due to some expertise in
the area; since there is no great rush to put the story before the public, the onus of the
deadline is reduced; and finally, the feature story does not have to use the inverted
pyramid style but can be written in expository style.
Nevertheless, don't disparage what you can find in newspapers. They are an excellent
source of background information and leads to other places to look for support.
The Internet
Finally, there is the Internet, the World Wide Web. Obviously, it is a source of
information: if it wasn't, what are you doing reading this? It is possible to get, in your
home, articles, information, books, opinions, etc., etc., ad nauseam, from millions of
people. However, everything should be taken with a grain of salt (including this!). The
net is loaded with everything from the top experts in their fields to the paranoid
ramblings of idiots (no comments!). Check out the credentials of those you cite. But
use the net -- it contains things that you won't or can't find elsewhere, and is often as
up-to-date as the daily newspaper. For those of you in media, I suggest:

Statistics
Things to Consider about Statistics

Who did the study?

What are the statistics measuring?
Who was asked?
How were they asked?
Compared with what?
Another form of evidence is statistics. Statistics are a favorite evidence of many
writers and speakers. They provide actual numbers in support of ideas and
conclusions. If you can show that 75% of high schools seniors cannot
find Washington State on a map of North America, then it is strong evidence for your
contention that high school seniors are not being taught the geography of the United
States. Such evidence is not only difficult to refute, it's often accepted as the final
word in what's true or not true.
Statistics are a prime source of proof that what you say is true. Statistics are based on
studies: a search for possible connections between disparate facts that nonetheless
have a connection. If you remember your math classes, you will recall the concept of
sets and subsets. Statistics are, in large measure, concerned with that concept. They
are basically telling you the proportion a subset represents in a set. To clarify this idea,
look at political polls. Candidate A receives 46% approval, Candidate B receives 43%
approval. Thus, the subset "responses favoring Candidate A" is 46% of the whole set,
"People asked about Candidates A and B."
Another example, from real life. William Chadwick, with his assistant William Farr,
during the great cholera plague in London in 1831, drew together factors on who was
getting the disease and where they were getting it in London. They were looking for
some common factor that would lead to what was the source of the disease. Their
statistics led them to the conclusion that the polluted waters of the Thames River was
the source, and there was a particular pump that supplied the water to certain
neighborhoods that was a prime source of infection. With these data they were able to
make recommendations which did much to reduce the incidence of cholera in London.
Statistics also use samples to obtain results, rather than doing actual "head counts".
Neilson ratings on how many of what kind of people watch a particular TV program is
not determined by the Neilson company asking all 300 million people in the United
States what they are watching every few minutes. What they use is a sample of the
population (called the Neilson families) that, demographically, represent the 300
million people. Neilson selects these families very carefully since each one represents
the viewing habits and desires of some 60,000 people. Nonetheless the statistics
generated by the Neilson measurements are used to make programming decisions and
set advertising rates and budgets, things that represent billions of dollars. Thus the

selection of the sample, whether Neilson's or incidence of AIDS in the US population,

is of paramount importance in the validity of the statistics thus generated.
The above is, of course, a simplistic view of an extremely complicated discipline. It is,
nonetheless, the essence of statistics.
Statistics are invaluable as evidence in support of conclusions. If you can either find
or generate statistics that show the truth of your conclusions, there are few that would
refute your ideas.
There are, of course, problems with using statistics as evidence. Let me remind you of
a famous saying: "There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and
statistics." What you must do is ask yourself some questions: who did the study that
came up with the statistics, what exactly are the statistics measuring, who was asked,
how were they asked, and compared with what? If one believes in the truth of
statistics (and there are many such), then how does one explain that the same
Presidential candidate can be 20 points ahead and 5 points behind his opponent in the
polls at the same time? After all, both polls are "statistics". What you must be
examine, if you wish to use statistics as evidence, are the above questions.
Who Did the Study
Let us examine first "who did the study." We live in a world of statistics: you can find
numbers in support of just about any idea. The problem arises when you find statistics
that support every way of viewing an idea. You can find statistics that show cigarettes
are killers and that they have no effect on anyone's health. You can find statistics that
say you should cut down on the consumption of dairy products and that dairy products
are good for you. You can find statistics that prove that so ft drinks will give you
cancer and that they have no effect on anything but your thirst (or even that they make
you thirstier). Every one of these sets of statistics is absolutely true.
The phrase "numbers don't lie" is true; what you need to examine is who is publishing
the numbers, and what are they trying to prove with them. Are the statistics provided
by the American Cancer Society or the American Tobacco Institute? Are they
provided by the American Medical Association or the American Dairy Association?
Are they provided by the Cancer Institute or the United States Food and Drug
Administration? (Did the latter give you pause? It should. Both are reputable. Yet both
have differing opinions based on statistics.)
Every point of view uses statistics to support their ideas. It's your job to examine all
statistics supporting all points of view, to arrive at your own conclusions based on all
of them. If you can't arrive at a conclusion, do your own study. An easier course,

naturally, is to find out what all possible sides have to say and what other evidence
they have in support of their statistics.
Once you have determined whether or not there is prejudice involved in the statistics
(please recall that subjectivity is unavoidable), then it is time to move on to the next
question: what are the statistics measuring?
What are the Statistics Measuring
When asking yourself, "what are the statistics measuring," bear in mind the old saw
about measuring apples and oranges. Most people will say that you can't compare
apples and oranges. This is both true and false. It depends on WHAT YOU ARE
MEASURI NG. Color? No. Texture? No. Overall appearance? No. Acidity? Yes.
Sugar content? Yes.Vitamin, mineral, carbohydrate, or fat content? Yes.
As you can see, it is possible to compare apples and oranges, if you know what you
are measuring. Your job, in using statistics as evidence, is to determine what exactly is
being measured, and not simply spout numbers that seem to apply to your topic. If
your topic is "Nutritional Value of Oranges," statistics proving that apples are nothing
like oranges may be measuring the wrong things.
Who was Asked?
Once you've determined what the statistics are measuring, you next need to find out
how the research was done. Many studies, the results of which are disseminated using
statistics, are done by asking people their opinions or what they do or think or feel or .
. .. Such studies include political, sociological, consumer behavior, media audience,
and other areas which are based on individual people's ideas, opinions and/or
attitudes.
Such areas are often referred to as "soft sciences", as opposed to "hard sciences" that
do research designed to minimize as much as possible the human factor in the
evidence and conclusions. The "human factor" is, naturally, impossible to eliminate
totally as long as humans are involved, but the studies, to be "scientific," must be
repeatable and predictive in nature. That is, once a study has been done, equivalent
results must appear when the study is done again by other researchers who have no
connection with the original researchers, and the results should allow researchers to
say what will happen next.
Let us say that scientific statistics show meteors fall during a specific period (say,
August) at an average rate (say, 60 per hour). This study is repeated several years
during August and the rate stays the same. Thus the study is repeatable. From those

statistics it is possible to predict that in future years the average rate of shooting stars
in August will continue to be 60 per hour. In this case, "who is being asked" are the
impersonal forces of nature.
It is the soft sciences that most often, intentionally or unintentionally, misuse or
misapply statistics. The studies are often not repeatable and usually not predictive.
The reason for this is that people and what they say or do are the bases of t he
statistics. It seems axiomatic that people will perversely refuse to say or do the same
thing twice running, or let anyone predict what they will do. In fact, many people
consider themselves insulted when called predictable, and anything from the weather
to the time of day to who's asking the question can change what they will say or do
about something.
What does this mean to you as you examine the statistics you plan on using as
evidence? First, try to determine whether the statistics are hard or soft science based.
The simplest way to do this is simply find out if people or nature is being studied. If
nature it's hard science, if people it's soft.
Second, if the statistics are hard science, check to see what results other researchers
who have repeated the study obtained. If the second study has results that vary widely
from the first, find a third and/or fourth and use the results that are consistent overall.
Of course, hard science statistics often require that you examine who was asked.
Check the sample: if the statistics say that 30% of the US population has AIDS, what
was the sample? The entire population of the US? The population of New York or San
Francisco? The population of Otumwa, Iowa? Or a selection of towns and cities, rural,
urban and suburban, in all parts of the country? Statistics on the incidence of rape in
the US vary wildly depending on whether the study asks law enforcement or rape
counseling centers (one set is based on the number of reported rapes, the other on the
number of women needing counseling whether or not they reported the rape to law
enforcement). Both examples above appear to be hard science, since they are based on
"hard" facts, but nonetheless must be examined for who was asked.
Soft science statistics are even more slippery than hard science statistics. First, there
are few hard, repeatable, non-subjective facts on which to base the statistics. If you
wish to show how people react to violence, how do you define violence? And how do
the people in your study define violence (a victim of a mugging may define violence
as getting within five feet of him, while a mugger may define it as anything that
happens that causes him physical damage (what he does to others is simply high
spirits)).

Also bear in mind that any study that uses human subjects is almost impossible to
conduct under laboratory conditions, in which all factors that could effect the outcome
of the experiment are controlled, including the variable under study. For a truly
statistically valid study showing the effects of television violence on children, the
children would have to isolated from all other factors that could have an influence.
These other factors would include contact with other human beings, with other
expressions of violence (people, reading, radio, movies, newspapers, video games,
etc.). This would obviously work to the social and developmental detriment of the
children.
As a matter of fact, a recent controversy arouse over using medical data collected by
the Nazis in the concentration camps. These data were collected with absolutely no
regard for the fact that the test subjects were human beings; they were treated much
worse than any laboratory animal in the world today. Ethical and moral considerations
aside, the data are viewed as valuable. However, there are people who believe that the
ethical and moral considerations are paramount, and that the data, no matter how
valuable, should be destroyed because of the way they were gathered.
#
In addition to the fact that any study involving humans must take into account human
and humane considerations, you should never underestimate the perversity of a human
being. In studying comedy one of the first things I learned was never tell the audience
I was going to be funny. The moment a comedian says to an audience, "You're really
going to find this funny," the same audience that moments before was falling out of
their chairs laughing will turn cold and silent, with an "Oh, yeah? Show me" attitude.
In the same vein, a truism in advertising is that fifty percent of advertising works; the
problem is no one can figure out which fifty percent. The reason is that no one can
really figure out what will influence people to buy products.
To try to understand "soft" statistics, let's take a look at advertising research and
consumer behavior, both of which are subsets of socio- and psychological research. In
particular, we'll look at some basic axioms of consumer research that apply to any soft
statistics.
First is the realization that all people are different. No two people, not even identical
twins, are exactly the same background and upbringing, have had the same
conversations in the same words, have read the same books or magazines or
newspapers at exactly the same time, or done anything the same as anyone else. This
fact is precisely the opposite of what is necessary to statistics -- that there are
similarities that give significance to the variables.

There are, of course, some factors that many people have in common with other
people, and upon them statistics depend. These factors can include the society in
which they live, their social class, whether they are urban, suburban or rural; their
relationships -- most people have had a mother and father, perhaps siblings, friends of
the same or opposite sex; and their interests: sports, television, reading science fiction
or mysteries or romances. Of course, not everybody fits into all categories. Again, all
people are different, but they do have some things in common.
What the above means is that no statistic has any application to an individual, but can
have an application to the group. However, the statistics are determined on the basis of
studying individuals in the group, not studying the group. Now recall the problems
with individuals. First, individuals change, not only from year to year but from
moment to moment.
Second, individuals are inconsistent. What they like today they may hate the next. You
may love spaghetti, but eat it five days in a row, and you may find the thought of
eating it again nauseating.
Third, individuals often don't know what they want, and even if they do, they don't
know or can't tell you why.
#
Then there are a few problems involved in surveying individuals to gather the
information to formulate the statistics. First, people often can't remember information
about themselves and thus the background can be incomplete. If you don't believe
this, recall exactly when you got your last tetanus booster shot, or the grade you got in
freshman English in high school.
Second, there is a prestige bias. Answers a person gives involve the person personally
-- his or her pride, self-esteem and self-image are involved. Thus people will often
give an answer that will heighten their image. According to TV viewing diaries,
nobody watches professional women's wrestling, but Masterpiece Theatre has a 50
rating. In some classes a few years ago I ran a survey that, as a part of the background,
asked "How many hours do you watch television during an average week." The
average answer was seven hours per week (please recall that the national average is
seven hours per day). Granted, college students do not usually have a great deal of
time to devote to watching TV, but the classes in which I gave this survey were
advertising and mass media criticism, both of which require watching television.
What's more, for people who avowed little interest in television, these same students
had a near encyclopedic knowledge of details about programs and/or commercials that
were discussed, in many cases rivaling my own (I watch television an average of eight

hours per day). It was clear that the responses on the survey bore little relationship to
reality. Nonetheless, I was not surprised at the responses. Television watching
traditionally has a prestige problem, and prestige bias clearly influenced how people
answered the question.
Third, people lie. That may seem a bit blunt, but there is no reason to sugarcoat.
People not only stretch the truth, fib or misspeak themselves. They lie. Ask them a
question and, just for the hell of it they may lie. They may lie because they find the
truth uncomfortable or embarrassing, or because they simply want to screw up your
results. With lying a virtual social necessity (do you really tell your best friend that his
or her breath could knock a buzzard off a honey wagon?), the fact the people lie when
responding to studies should come as no surprise.
Finally, many studies not only try to find out what people do, but why they do it. Here
the problem lies in respondents' inability to articulate or explain their true feelings and
motivations. Many people do things because it "feels" like the thing to do, but they
cannot explain what that feeling is or how it arose. They will do the best they can, but
since so many such feelings are subconscious and/or based on a priori assumptions,
they have never been examined and put into words.
How Were They Asked?
It is not only the respondents but the questioners that contribute their own prejudice to
the gathering of facts.
Two things that are used in surveys and statistical studies are questions and answers.
First, let's examine the questions.
Researchers generally have an idea what their research is looking for. They thus
formulate questions that will illuminate their research, either pro or con. Prejudice can
creep in when a researcher unconsciously words questions in such a way that the
answers support his or her contention or opinion. Various questions of this type are
leading questions, loaded questions, and double-barreled questions.
Leading questions are those that tell the respondent how to answer. Attorneys
sometimes use them. For example, "Is it not true that on the night of the 27th you
were drunk?" Such a question leads the respondent to say yes. Asking instead, "Were
you drunk on the night of the 27th?" does not tell the witness how to respond.
Loaded questions are those that, no matter how they are answered, the respondent
loses. "Are you still beating your wife?" and "Are you still cheating on your income

tax?" are examples. A loaded question appears to ask for a yes or no answer, yet the
actual answer may be neither yes nor no.
Double-barreled questions are those that ask for more than one piece of information in
the same question. For example, "Do you go up or downtown in the afternoon?" is
double-barreled.
Another point to be considered is how the questions were worded. It is easy, and often
subconscious, for the questioner to word the questions in such a way as to lead to
respondent to reply in a certain way. For example, a survey on whaling could ask,
"Should the only three countries in the world that do so, continue to slaughter to
extinction the helpless, harmless intelligent giants of the deep?" I surmise that few
people would respond with a yes.
It is the answers that sometimes cause difficulty for a researcher. The problems lie not
only in how the respondents answer, but in how the researcher responds to the answer.
Sometimes the response is not what the researcher wants or needs and/or contradicts
expectations. He or she must then account for the anomaly. He or she may revamp the
original concept or theory, revamp the study, or even ignore the data. The researcher
may fall prey to selective perception (seeing only what you want to see) or cognitive
dissonance (rationalizing away anything that doesn't fit into your preconceptions). In
addition, how the researcher interprets the words in the questions may be at odds with
how the respondents interpreted the words. For example, in a recent survey on the
incident of rape on college campuses, the questions used words such as unwelcome
sexual advance; the researcher interpreted unwelcome sexual advance as rape, while
the respondents could well have been referring to a drunk at a bar making a pass,
something that most people would accept as disgusting, but not rape.
The order of the questions can also be a problem. Often, the questions can lead a
respondent to answer in a certain way because he or she has answered all the previous
questions in the same way. In sales, it's a common technique, that can lead a
respondent through a series of yes answers, from "it's a nice day," to "sign here."
Thus "How were they asked?" requires an examination of the original study in order
to see if the researcher may have made an error in questioning and in understanding
the answers.
Compared with What?
Finally, you need to examine statistics to determine what are the comparisons being
drawn and are they relevant and valid. For example, say your topic is gun control. You
could find statistics on murder rates with handguns per capita in New York

City, London and Tokyo. Such statistics would show much higher rates in New
York than the other two cities. It would therefore appear that gun control is a good
idea since guns are controlled in London and Tokyo. However, such statistics must be
suspect, not because they are wrong (more people are indeed murdered with handguns
in New York City than in London or Tokyo), but because they don't tell the whole
story.
For instance, New York has an extremely stringent weapons control law (the Sullivan
Act). Since this is the case, what happens to the argument that control laws work?
There must be something else influencing the murder rate.
What about the culture? The United States is unlike any other country on Earth. Its
society has a tradition of independence and self-sufficiency, where if you have a
problem it is normal for you to take care of it yourself, even if you can't. It is also a
country that used to be called "the melting-pot" but is now known as the "mosaic",
with New York Citya patchwork of often conflicting cultures, languages, customs and
attitudes. Add in the traditions of the old West and "gunslinging" becomes an
apparently viable option to solve problems. Japan, on the other hand, is an extremely
homogenous and traditional culture, with little in the way of overt class or cultural
conflict. England is also very traditional with far less cultural conflict (any country
that feels no necessity to arm their police does not have a tradition of individual use of
force to solve problems). However, now as England is becoming more culturally and
ethnically diverse, there is a rising incidence of violence and use of guns.
From the above it is clear that any statistics on murder rates says nothing about the
efficacy of gun control laws, but rather about the cultural and/or societal factors that
make such laws ineffective. If you wish statistics to serve as evidence for a gun
control law, find something else.
For the above reasons you must search for other evidence to support whatever
statistics you use as support, if only to show that the statistics actually apply.
Do not, however, take all the problems outlined above as a condemnation of statistics
as evidence. Statistics are excellent evidence, and often the easiest and most concise
way to express evidence. I merely wish you to be aware you must examine them for
relevance, validity and authority or they can do you more harm than good in proving
your point.

THE PROCESS OF RESEARCH

Now that you know where to find evidence, you need to know how to find it. This is
the most difficult step for most people. They spend days and even weeks finding
information to use in their papers or speeches. With a little thought and planning it is
possible to cut that time down to hours. This is true whether you are an undergraduate
having to do an English paper or public speaking assignment, a graduate student
needing a review of literature, or a professional needing to do a report or speech for
work.
Choose a Topic
The first step is determining your specific topic. There are many subjects, but each
subject has many topics. For example, the subject may be geology, but your topic may
be granite, igneous formations, or vulcanism. You can narrow down each of these
topics even more specifically. You can narrow vulcanism to cone formation, ash
versus lava volcanoes, dome formation, relationship of earthquakes to vulcanism, etc.
Here you will concentrate your research. Don't try to study geology--that would take
years. Don't try to research vulcanism--that would take months. Research cone
formation.
Brainstorming
The process of selecting a topic is called brainstorming. Brainstorming makes it sound
like you're doing something extremely powerful with your mind. Well, in a way, you
are doing something extremely powerful with your mind: you are allowing your mind
to do what it is most capable of doing--synthesizing. It is allowing the mind to work at
random, to find relationships between ideas and concepts by utilizing the
subconscious rather than the conscious mind. The easiest way to illustrate this is to
give an example.
Brainstorming can start anywhere. Simply look around the room, pick an object, say it
or write it down, write down the next word that occurs to you without trying to think
of one, then write down the next word that occurs to you, then the next, then the next,
then the next. Do this until nothing occurs to you, or until your hand falls off from
writer's cramp, which ever comes first. Since I am "writing" this while driving my car
(using a tape recorder, actually), I will simply start anywhere, say with " car". Then,
without attempting to think about it, I'll start making a list of words or ideas that occur
to me in a stream of consciousness. (The following list was generated in this way; it
just looks neater because I had to type it up for this paper.)
car
truck
Ford

Nixon
Kennedy
moon shot
astronomy
astrology
anthropology
archeology
hemeotology
oesteology
make-up
acting
directing
movies
TV
situation comedies
M*A*S*H
Three's Company
comedy
tragedy
Greeks
Romans
gladiatorial games
Claudius
Nero
Caligula
Hitler
concentration camps
Judaism
Christianity
religion
politics
Constitution
Declaration of Independence
Ben Franklin
Thomas Jefferson
Inventions
Edison
the light bulb
lighting
sets
audiences

actors
directors
Hitchcock
Spielburg
ET
UFOs
Science Fiction
Cosmology
Physics
Einstein
Newton
Aristotle
Ars Poetica
Pythagoras
mathematics
Here we have a list of 59 words that can all be topics for speeches, for papers, for
conversation. None of these were thought of consciously. They simply followed one
after the other, although occasionally the relationship between one word and the next
can be obscure. But, for example starting at the top, we have "car", which made me
think of a truck, cars and trucks are made by Ford, which was also the name of the
president, Gerald R. Ford, who pardoned Nixon, who ran against Kennedy, who
stressed the moon shot, which required astronomy. Astrology is another way of
studying stars. Other -ologies are anthropology, archeology, hemeotology (the study of
blood), and oesteology (the study of bones). The last two -ologies must be understood
to be able to do stage or movie make-up, which you wear when acting, which you do
while someone else is directing, which someone does when making a movie or TV
show. A popular form of TV show is the situation comedy, a couple of which are
M*A*S*H and THREE'S COMPANY, both of which are comedies, although the latter
is often considered a tragedy, a form of play invented by the Greeks who were taken
over by the Romans who watched gladiatorial games, even during the times of
Claudius, Nero, and Caligula, a tyrant much like Hitler who had the concentration
camps in which he put followers of Judaism, the precursor to Christianity, another
religion, which is playing a large part in today's politics, even though it's against the
Constitution, one of America's great documents, like the Declaration of Independence
which was written by Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, both great inventors like
Thomas Edison, the inventor of the light bulb which is absolutely vital when lighting
a set or the audience can't see the actors after all the trouble directors like Hitchcock
and Spielburg have gone to. Spielburg directed movies aboutETs and UFOs and other
science fiction themes, some but not all based on accurate cosmology and physics as

enunciated by Einstein or Newton or Aristotle, the author of ARS POETICA and a

compatriot of Pythagoras, one of the great theoreticians of mathematics.
As one can see, these ideas flow naturally and require little or no thought; as a matter
of fact, the less thought that you apply the more likely you are to be able to come up
witha long list.
Another great advantage to this ideation or brainstorming is the fact that if you did not
already know something about the topic it would never occur to you to write it down;
it simply would not come into your mind. Thus, you can avoid a great deal of time and
effort spent learning enough about a topic to decide whether or not you want to do it
or not: you already know enough about the topic to be able to start your outline.
This latter point, that prior knowledge about a topic must be in your mind for the topic
to occur to you, is the greatest reason and the greatest power of brainstorming. When
you start to outline you will find that you already know enough about the topic to be
able to do at least two levels of your outline. This is a great saving in time, effort, and
research.
The next step in brainstorming is simply elimination. You want to remove from your
list of topics anything that 1) you're not interested in; 2) is too much trouble; 3) you
feel you don't know enough about; 4) your audience wouldn't be interested in; or 5)
you just don't care. Don't take this last too lightly: if you don't care about your topic,
neither will your audience.
The easiest way to eliminate possible topics is to go to the top of your list and
brainstorm about each individual topic. Do it quickly: if nothing occurs to you when
you look at it, strike it out. If something does occur to you to narrow down your topic
or specify it, apply to it the same rules as above. If it's too complicated for your
audience, does not fulfill the assignment, or you just aren't interested in discussing
that topic, then strike it out.
For example, the topic CAR. This topic could be the history of the car, beginning with
1600 and the first self-propelled vehicle and working to the present. Or TRUCK: the
uses, design, load limits, diesel vs. gasoline, numbers, taxation, etc.. FORD: Gerald,
Henry, Edsel, the Edsel car, advertising, planned obsolescence, etc.. NIXON: early
career as a lawyer, entry into politics, vs. Kennedy, the debates, Vietnam War,
etc.. KENNEDY: in politics, Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Missiles of October, assassination,
Lee Harvey Oswald, theory that Oswald was a KGB plant, etc.. MOON SHOT: first
landing, Goddard, Tsiolikovsky, moon resources, advantages of space program,
stations, Moon colonization, etc.. ASTRONOMY: planets, Sun, Barnard's Star, black
holes, worm holes, quasars, neutron stars, etc..

Well, you get the idea. The list after each word was generated in exactly the same way
as the original list of topics. Any of them could be the topic for a paper. If one of the
topics strikes your fancy (and/or fulfills the assignment) then stop and begin to
develop the idea by a combination of brainstorming and outlining.
Beginning the Research
The second step also uses brainstorming. Make a list of every major thing you know
about your topic. Then for each item on the list put whatever support you can
brainstorm for them. In this way you find out how much you already know about your
topic. You may discover one of three things. First, you already know a lot more than
you thought and thus will have an easy time finding evidence. Second, you don't
know as much as you thought and therefore will have to learn more before trying to
report it. Third, what you know is contradictory and you will have to do research to
understand your topic. In any case, you're not wasting time in libraries or labs finding
out what you already know.
Once you've reached this point it is time to plan your research. Examine your list for
holes. Are there some main ideas that have only one or no pieces of support? You'll
either have to eliminate or research that main idea. Are there some subpoints that have
little or no evidence? You'll have to find some: a subpoint cannot stand alone. Is
a subpoint or piece of evidence your opinion only? You must find some other
evidence to back it up.
It should be clear by now what is happening. You are narrowing down your search for
information to specifics rather than generalities. Don't research nuclear plants,
research power plant disasters, pollution factors, numbers, percentage of power
provided, etc.. Don't research Nixon, research Nixon's career as a lawyer, career as a
politician, as Vice President, as President, in foreign affairs, in domestic affairs, etc..
#
Now that you know what you're looking for, how do you go about finding it? You will
once again rely on your old friend, brainstorming.
You know what you want to accomplish. Sit down and take a moment or two to
brainstorm every facet you could possibly look for to accomplish it. For example, if
your topic is "drug use in America", you can start brainstorming and come up with:
drugs
crime
police

marijuana
cocaine
heroin
Columbia
Peru
drug trafficking
DEA
USDA
Mafia
US armed forces
drug testing
steroids
athletics
AA
US Olympics Committee
Wall Street
movies
"Clean and Sober"
TV
actors
AIDS
Alcohol
nicotine
caffeine
Valium
Divorce
Schools
(this should give you an idea)
Once you have created your list of possible topics, think of everything you might have
read or seen or heard that have any bearing on any of the topics. For example, I was
once thinking about dreams (no particular reason, It was just something that popped
into my head). As I thought about dreams, it occurred to me that I had read something
about dreams. A few moments later I was scanning my shelves for something that
would jog my memory. It happened as I came across the name Carl Sagan, author of
the book THE DRAGONS OF EDEN, which does indeed contain a chapter about
dreaming. That chapter led me to look into other aspects of dreams and further
research. (If you think that sort of thing is worthless and a waste of time, three days
later at a party the conversation turned to dreams (it came as quite a surprise), and all
of my research fit right in and contributed to the conversation. It's nice being able to

join in on conversations; it's even nicer to have something to say in those conversation
s.)
Of course, it is beyond reason to expect you to have, in your own head, all the source
material you need for any project. However, human beings have a great advantage -anextrasomatic (a fancy way of saying "outside the body", or in this case "outside the
brain") source of information. The most common extrasomatic source of information
is the library.
All of your brainstormed topics are subjects to look under in indices to find evidence.
Most libraries, and certainly all college and university libraries, maintain indices for
magazines, journals and newspapers. These can include the READER'S GUIDE TO
PERIODICAL LITERATURE, THE NEW YORK TIMES INDEX, THE LOS
ANGELES TIMES INDEX, TOPICATOR, etc. Naturally, don't forget the card file or
computer data base for books, which will often list the chapters or subjects under
which the book will be listed, a s well as the title. Armed with your brainstormed list
of possible subjects to look for, check every index that might contain something on
your topic to find articles or books. Under each heading write down any title and/or
author (and, of course, where to find it in the library) of everything that, in your
opinion, might contain anything you might be able to use. Do not look just for titles
that contain words on your list, or are specifically about your topic. If the title seems
only peripherally related to your topic, write it down. If a title triggers a new idea or a
brainstorming session, go with it.
DO NOT SELF-CENSOR. The moment you limit what you will actually look at for
information is the moment you will undoubtedly miss just the piece of information
you need (remember that if it can go wrong, it already has and you just weren't paying
attention, and that Murphy was an optimist). Do not rely on serendipity, but take
advantage of it when opperknockity tunes.
You have now compiled a list of books, magazines, journals and newspapers at which
to look. Do you now check them all out, take them home, and read them? Of course
not: you're looking for evidence, not a lifetime career. You may have ten, fifty, five
hundred possibilities, many, if not most, of which are of no use to you whatever. Don't
let this discourage, or worse shorten your list -- diamonds only appear after sifting
through tons of rock.
The sifting through the dross is the step that takes most people the most time. They
don't look for what they need, they simply read. Reading an entire book is not
research, it's a course of study. Reading an entire book, article in a magazine or
journal may be interesting, fascinating or enthralling, but that's personal gratification
(absolutely nothing wrong with that!) but it's not research. Research is getting what

you need now (there is, after all, something you need to accomplish now), and save
reading those fascinating articles for later. (Do go back and read them: you cannot
lose and have much to gain, if only in self-gratification or conversational material
(remember the dreams)).
Sifting means being left only with those things of importance. That is why
anthropologists and archaeologists sift every spoonful of dirt to be left with the tiny
clues of bone and stone and pottery that tell them so much. It is this process through
which you want to go, and with some guidelines it's easy.
#
First, let's look at books. Books have two things of great value that are often ignored
(it makes one wonder why anyone bothers to go to the trouble to create them). They
are the table of contents and the index.
First, look at the table of contents. There may be a chapter or a subchapter (often
included in the table of contents) that is just what you're looking for. If not, don't start
reading yet. Flip to the end of the book. If there is a chapter that fits, turn to it.
DON'T READ THE CHAPTER. First, many chapters are subdivided into sections.
Look at the section titles, which are called subheads. This will often narrow your
search to what you're looking for. If there are no section titles, look at the end of the
chapter for a summary. Many chapters have a summary of what is contained in the
chapter (it may not be labeled as a summary, but the last few paragraphs of a chapter
usually sum up what is in the chapter).
Barring that, start at the beginning and look for topic sentences in the paragraphs. DO
NOT READ THE PARAGRAPHS; find out what is in the paragraphs. Scan, don't
read. An advantage of the human eye and mind is that it can identify out of a mass of
letters that particular combination that the mind is looking for. (Try it: turn back a bit
and scan (not read) the page for the word "enthralling". The word appears only once.
The exercise should take no more than 30 seconds.
...
Find it? See what I mean?)
If the book does contain something of value, mark the page and put it on one stack:
don't read it yet, that comes later. If the table of contents fails you, do not despair. (In
my research on dreams, I looked in THE DRAGONS OF EDEN and found nothing in
the chapter titles that gave me the slightest clue that this was the book I actually

wanted.) After all, it should take you no more than 15 to 30 seconds to read the Table
of Contents, and thus you haven't wasted any time worth mentioning. You can turn to
the end of the book.
At the end of the book will be the index. Use your brainstormed list of topics and see
if the book has anything equal or related to them. If not, the odds are there's nothing in
the book you need to bother looking at. Set the book aside. DON'T READ IT. You've
got enough other sources on your list to look at. You may go back to this book, but for
now, FORGET IT. (In Sagan's book I checked the index, and there it was: Dreams,
followed by the pages I needed. It was just the information I needed. )
Go through all your books this way. If there is nothing in the Table of Contents nor the
Index, you will eliminate many of them that you needn't bother with, at least for now.
Now is the time to sift through the books you have on your pile that you have not
rejected. Turn to those pages in the chapters or from the index that do fit your
requirements and help prove your points. Start by scanning for key words (words from
your brainstormed list of things to look for) and reading where you see those words,
and taking notes now.
Using the above method should allow you to reduce a pile of forty or fifty books to
those that are of value to you in less than an hour (ignoring, of course, the time it take
you to locate the books on the shelf, look at the table of contents and/or index while
standing at the shelf or carry them to a desk, and work up a desire to get started (do
not ignore this last--it is arguably the hardest part of your research)).
There are, naturally, disadvantages to this method. First, it is quite possible that what
you are looking for is not in the index; no index contains every possible topic, or it
would take up half the book. Second, you may miss, by scanning, the word or phrase
that you need to find what you're looking for. Nonetheless, since you have the
opportunity of examining far more books in far less time by this method, and with
practice your ability to examine the index and to scan will increase, you will miss far
less and find far more than by any other way.
#
Magazines, journals and newspapers can be done even more quickly
than books, barring the time it takes pick up a new one and to turn the pages. You
have already narrowed the field by selecting which ones to use by the title of the
article; you can also look at the authors' names -- many scholars concentrate on a
single area of research, so seeing their names can pretty well assure you that the
article is on a certain topic. Now you can use the above described methods of looking

for subheads and scanning to find what you need (journals in particular use subheads;
they are less common in magazines and newspapers (except for such as TIME, the
WALL STREET JOURNAL and THE NEW YORK TIMES)).
Again, if the articles fit what you need, keep them -- if they don't, set them aside (read
them later; you can't lose). Now you can take your notes and gather your evidence.
Also again, the same drawbacks that apply to books applies to using this method on
periodicals. However, also again, the same advantages accrue.
It is possible that you are saying to yourself, "What does Taflinger know about this -has he ever had to do it?" The answer is yes -- the above is from my own experience. I
only wish someone had taught these methods to me before I had to invent them for
myself under the gun. When doing my doctoral comprehensive examinations I had to
write the equivalent of nine term papers in two weeks. This required researching many
books and articles (I often had stacks of books four or more feet tall next to my desk).
To get through this stack, representing several million words of research, I had to find
a way. The above method is the way that worked for me, and has worked for several
thousand of my students in English composition, public speaking, oral interpretation,
advertising, and media criticism classes.

SUMMARY
(I told you that you can look at the end to find a summary.)
The third, and arguably most important, human senses are the vicarious senses -reading, listening, viewing. Since they do not necessarily involve the personal,
mechanical or associative senses they are less likely to be subjective in nature. They
allow for a multiplicity of views and viewpoints, resolutions of subjective conflicts,
and ideas that wouldn't ordinarily arise. They also allow for gathering evidence that is
acceptable to others who wouldn't ordinarily agree with the expressed viewpoint. Of
course, it is necessary to know what evidence is. It is proofs that supports a
contention, an opinion, a hypothesis or theory. Not everything can be evidence -opinions, assumptions, untested ideas merely maintain preconceptions, not prove
them. Evidence provides proof in such a way that even people who disagree will, if
they are not completely closed-minded, accept it.
It is also necessary to know where to find evidence. It can come from books,
magazines, journals, newspapers, interviews, TV programs, radio shows, movies and
documentaries, and any number of other sources. By brainstorming it is possible to
determine what is already known and what must be found. The search is thus
narrowed down to save time, energy, and resources. Most of the above sources come

with indices, tables of contents, and other ways of locating specific items of interest
quickly and easily.
Of course, of the most vital importance is gathering information on a daily, even
hourly, basis. Information comes from everywhere: reading, watching TV,
conversations. However, there is also a need to avoid being lazy about it. You can
learn a great deal from watching TV, but not if the only thing you watch is sports or
MTV -- you'll get some things, but not enough. Vary what you watch; watch things
you don't think you want to watch. The cable channels that are available are loaded
with information (I particularly recommend PBS, The History Channel, The
Discovery Channel, A&E, C-SPAN, and CNBC -- they're not only informative, they're
fascinating and can be downright addictive).
Even more important is reading. You must read, constantly, voraciously, every day.
My students are often appalled that, whatever they talk about, I seem to know as much
or more than they do. How is that possible? Because I read, constantly, voraciously,
every day, an average of five books a week of every type, including (horror of
horrors!) textbooks, but also science fiction, historical fiction, Terry Pratchett (my
favorite author), Tom Clancy, James Clavell, Harold Coyle, Jean Auel, C.S Forester,
Alexander Kent, Carl Sagan, Clive Cussler, Richard Leakey, Isaac Asimov, Arthur
Hailey, Stephen Jay Gould, Morgann Llewellyn, Larry Bond, etc., etc.,
ad ad nauseum (if you don't recognize any of the above names, you prove my point
that you're not reading enough). Add to that journals, newspapers, magazines, and, of
course, my students' papers, and that's a lot of words in a row. However, it is the way I
learn, learn how to learn, learn how to teach, have things to say and write, know how
to speak and write because of the multiplicity of examples, and, incidentally, have a
good time and kick ass at trivia.
Once information is gathered it is possible to go on to the next step -- thinking. But
that's a topic for another day.