Research—Part 1, The Broad Sweep
Despite countless hours spent in debate and speech research, every time I hear the word research I think back to these “research papers” - apply the word ‘paper’ here in the loosest of senses - that I had to do in elementary school. While I don’t recall the specific topics, they looked something like this:
Topic: Bugs (at our house)
Fact 1: We have bugs at our house. (Inside and outside)
Fact 2: Two bugs I saw (at our house) were black and pointy.
Fact 3: Another bug (I saw) was not black, but it was pointy.
Conclusion: Most of the bugs at our house are pointy (and black), but some are not.
From this “paper” you will immediately realize two things.
1) I discovered parenthesis around 4th grade and instantly fell in love.
2) The topic of this article is research, although not the kind exemplified above.
With the Internet, researching something became easier in the sense that you can find information on everything with relative ease. However, it got harder in the sense that you can find information on everything with relative ease. In other words, you could search “US energy policy” and not find what you need until page 4. If you, like me, think no one should ever have to click past page 2, don’t worry. Following a plan for your research session, like the two-stage approach I’m going to explain, can help research sessions feel less like hacking through a jungle and more like a stroll through a garden.
A brief sidenote: I’m going to focus primarily on research for debate, although you could apply some of these tips to any type of research.
Stage 1: Procrastinate
Just kidding, please don’t. There is nothing as grueling as trying to write a well-researched TP brief in a half hour.
Stage 1 (take two): The Broad Sweep
When you sweep a floor, you first sweep all the grit and dust into the middle of the room. Then you make pass after pass until you gather everything into a neat pile that you sweep into a dustpan. Think of researching like sweeping: you gather information into a general pile before you get down into the gritty details (I know, clearly I’m a pun master). The general pile sweep is stage 1 of researching, gathering a base of information so you can start writing cases. Let’s say the resolution just got announced.
NCFCA traditionally publishes a whitepaper with the resolution, which covers a brief list of potential arguments and resources the authors used. If you can, start your research with the whitepaper or an equivalent. Other leagues have similar types of starting briefs and many debate blogs will publish an article evaluating resolutions. These are good places to get some starting ideas and resources.
If I can’t find a whitepaper, or if I’m too lazy to read it (don't be like me, read the whitepaper if you have it), my research process starts with defining the terms in the resolution. This gives me actual definitions to use in my cases, but more importantly leads me to useful articles. For example, let’s take the past year’s NCFCA resolutions.
Resolved: The proactionary principle ought to be valued over the precautionary principle
I started that year by looking up a definition of the Proactionary Principle. After trawling through a couple of dictionaries, I found an article by Max Moore. He had several good arguments I ended up referencing throughout the year. A definition search of the Precautionary Principle led me to a paper by the esteemed James Holbrook and Adam Briggle, whose very comprehensive overview mentioned and led me to articles by Steve Fuller, Judith Curry, and others. The TP broad sweep functions in almost the same way.
Resolved: The US Federal Government should substantially reform its policy regarding prisoners in the federal prison system.
I’d probably start with looking up the federal prison system. Facts, like the number of prisoners or how many prisons the government operates, will all end up helping when I get to the actual case writing. Along the way, I’ll probably discover that the Bureau of Prisons seems to have a lot to do with everything, so I might look for facts about them. In doing so I might find an article or two about inefficiencies within the board and voila, I have ideas for a potential case.
This process is something I like to call The Chain Effect, where one source can lead you to another. For example, let’s say I have a great journal and I need more like it. Most journals and scholarly articles draw on similar articles, sometimes quoting them. If they do, they must include Bibliographies at the end. These are essentially a formatted (and cited!) list of resources on similar topics which you can look up. These articles in turn will also have Bibliographies that lead to other resources, etcetera etcetera.
A word on books: I feel like books aren’t as efficient as internet papers, at least for debate. First of all, books are usually long. For the resolution, Resolved: Preventive War is Ethical I bought a book called “The Morality of War”. While it was an interesting read, only about a chapter spoke directly to preemptive or preventive war. Of that chapter, only about a page was worth knowing, and only about a paragraph was worth citing. Secondly, and this is why books are even less helpful to TPers, books tend to give you slightly older information. Most likely the author wrote the book at least several years before you read it, and although some things don’t change, many do. If you do want to use books, pick them carefully. Make sure you find books that give very general information or else write very specifically on the topic you are researching, otherwise you risk wasting a lot of time and energy.
Although what kind of information you look for will probably differ based on your style of debate, don’t overlook the value of the broad sweep.
You’ll find general background knowledge helpful during rounds. It will also give you starting points for case writing and more in-depth research, which leads to stage 2.
Part 2 coming soon!
