In our two classes this last week on genre, we didn’t really have a lot of time to discuss Robert Davis and Mark Shadle’s “‘Building a Mystery’: Alternative Research Writing and the Academic Act of Seeking.” So, I thought it might be a good idea to have a conversation here on the blog.
I really liked this article, but I also disliked parts of it at the same time. Since I love the history of composition, I also loved the section when Davis and Shadle discussed the history of the research paper and the way they brought in Connors and Russell. I also extremely interested in the research paper as a genre (both historically and pedagogically), and I liked some of their ideas for “alternative” research writing.
At the same time, however, I wondered a bit at just how “alternative” some of these “alternatives” really are. As I was reading the article, I was writing my conversation with the authors in the margins, and by page 2 I had written, “They need a definition of the ‘modernist research paper.’” But, unless I missed something, they failed to provide a sufficient definition of “modernist research paper.” From what I could gather, though, this modernist research paper is basically the informational research paper, in which students just report and regurgitate information. (Just the kind of research paper that many students do in high school—no argument). But, I asked myself, how common is it in first-year writing courses for teachers to assign a “modernist research paper”? I don’t. I don’t know anyone who does. (Although I’m sure that somebody does). Davis and Shadle argue in favor of teaching the “argumentative research paper,” but isn’t this what many of us already do? Then they argue for the “personal research paper,” which really looks very much like the “exploratory essay” that Dr. Nelson and many of us have taught. (Also like the I-Search, which is fairly common.)
So, if we already are doing some of these forms of the research paper, then are they really “alternatives” for us? (Has something radically changed in first-year writing classes since the article was published in 2000?) Maybe I’m being too hard on Davis and Shadle here. (I’m really just trying to start a conversation). Of course, the “multi-genre/media/disciplinary/cultural research project” really is an alternative form of research writing that I don’t assign. (I’m afraid to assign this one).
Finally, and completely unrelated to the above, I’m interested in what others thought of Davis and Shadle’s idea of “building a mystery.” My own personal response was pretty negative, perhaps because of the way they talked about it. I found some of it a bit romanticized and even sappy. For instance: “Beyond this entwinement of the modern and postmodern, we prefer, however, to see these methods as neither modern nor postmodern, but instead as historical time-travelers, regathering habits of mind and ways of writing, while attempting to stage intellectual experience as seeking and saying in the heart of mystery” (426, my emphasis). I guess I understand why they’re bringing in the idea of mystery, but I couldn’t help laughing every time they talked about it. (Maybe their terminology?).
Feel free to disagree with my possibly unfair treatment of Davis and Shadle. Despite my critiques, I still liked the article.
Works Cited
Davis, Robert, and Mark Shadle. “‘Building a Mystery’: Alternative Research Writing and the Academic Act of Seeking.” College Composition and Communication 51.3 (2000): 417-46. Print.
I agree that many of the alternative forms of research writing that Davis and Shadle recommended weren't very radical or alternative to what many seem to be already employing in their fyc courses. I wonder, though, if this has anything to do with the time lapse (12 years) between when this was published and what we're currently seeing in fyc. I don't know enough about the movement that was occurring in the early 2000s.
ReplyDeleteIt does seem, though, given their 'sappy' tone, which you point out, that they should have given us some, again, more radicsl alternatives.
I thought the same thing while reading the Davis and Shadle piece. I was trying to figure out what was so radical about the alternative forms. It may have something to do with the time lapse. However, I am particularly interested in how we assign the research papers. I guess I'm referring to the writing prompt/assignment as a genre and how it informs student writing. I wonder how these research assignments look on paper and how their presentation may affect student writing.
ReplyDeleteI always want to see prompts, syllabi, and other related course genres, yet these are often left out.
ReplyDeleteI am curious, Matthew, why you are afraid of assigning the “multi-genre/media/disciplinary/cultural research project”? What are the risks?
I think my main fear in assigning the "multi-genre/media/disciplinary/cultural research project" is that I don't feel prepared as a teacher for all that would be involved in preparing my students, and, of course, I am uneasy about how to grade such a project. Certainly I would have to come up with some kind of criteria/rubric, but since it would be so different from what I usually am grading, I would also be uneasy about grading something like that for the first time.
Delete