This advantage is neither accidental nor arbitrary. The only way your instructors (or anyone) can determine how well you understand something is through your communication of it. For us, your writing is like a window into your mind. If your writing is fuzzy, ungrammatical, confused, or disorganized, it is like trying to peer into a room through a smeared and scratchy stained glass window. We have no way to determine what the contents of that room are really like. It's possible that you actually have a neatly ordered comprehension of the material and just have trouble getting that across in standard English, but just as likely that your mental contents are as confused and opaque as your "window" is.

Being competent with the rules of standard English is necessary, but not sufficient for good philosophical writing. You need to have a clear "window," but you must also be able to think critically and reason logically -- you need to be able to distinguish between good and bad arguments and to apply these tools to your own writing so that your arguments withstand critical scrutiny.

This page contains specific advice on the 3x5 card and argumentative paper assignments , a list of links to more substantial guides for writing philosophy papers , as well as a list of general resources for improving your writing, including extremely important information about plagiarism that you will be expected to know !! You should certainly consult my philosophy paper guidelines (see link below) while preparing to write your final papers, but I strongly encourage you to examine some of the others listed below as well. Finally, for those who are genuinely interested in improving their writing skills, I will be glad to offer one-on-one feedback and advice on writing assignments for this course. Feel free to come see me in office hours or email me to make an appointment.

top

---

3x5 cards and short writing assignments

The reading questions typically will ask you to summarize an author's main point or argument. The primary purpose of this assignment, as previously mentioned, is to ensure that you have done the reading and given some thought to the material so that all students, rather than just a diligent few, are prepared to engage in a substantive discussion, making class time more valuable for everyone.

Do not just skim through the article to find the page or paragraph in which the question is answered and then copy down the author's words. You should always read the assigned article carefully enough to be able to answer the reading question accurately in your own words. In most cases, if you put real attention and energy into the material, you will come to "own" it in this way. However, if you need help understanding the reading, by all means, contact me and let me help. Because the accuracy of your response is the main determining factor in your grade on this assignment, it is in your interest to ensure that you understand the reading to the best of your ability before the class period in which it is discussed.

In addition to answering the assigned question accurately and in your own words, your 3x5 card should be:

• brief and to the point -- introductory comments or context-setting are not necessary for this assignment;
• written in complete, grammatically correct sentences -- not a bulletted list of sentence fragments; and
• legible -- if others have trouble reading your handwriting, use block letters, find a typewriter, or dictate your 3x5 card to a friend.

You will be assigned 3x5 card reading questions almost daily. They are graded on a four-point scale, where a 3 constitutes adequate understanding, a 2 indicates some confusion, misapprehension, or shortcoming, and a 4 indicates excellence worthy of a bonus point. Generally speaking, if you answer the question correctly (or at least nearly so), grammatically, legibly, and in your own words, that counts as a 3. If some part of the answer is incorrect, if your writing is illegible, if you simply copy down sentences from the reading, or if your sentences are ungrammatical, your card will receive a 2. If your answer is precisely correct and/or especially well-written (or, when the reading is particularly difficult, if you simply understood the material well enough to answer the entire reading question correctly in your own words), it is worth a 4. If your card is not submitted on the due date, you may submit it for partial credit by email only within one week of the due date. top

---

argumentative paper assignments

The paper assignments are not just for comprehension-checking; they are meant to give you the opportunity to formulate arguments defending your opinions on issues discussed in the course as well as to receive critical feedback both from myself and your peers on the quality of your writing and the cogency of your arguments. Thus, to do well on this assignment, you need not only to have good standard writing skills, but solid critical thinking skills also. The links to philosophy writing guides listed in the section below provide extremely useful advice on writing clear and defensible arguments, although most will be more directly applicable to longer essay assignments. Here, I list the main virtues that your papers should possess.

1. Brevity! The papers should be four to five pages, double-spaced, in an 11- or 12-point font, with one-inch margins. Because space is limited, do not fill your paper with unnecessary background information or fluff. Cut right to the chase.
2. English competence (i.e., good grammar, punctuation, and spelling). Be sure to proofread your paper. Read it out loud to make sure it flows smoothly. If you are not currently competent at spotting grammatical or punctuation mistakes in your own writing, do something about it! There are writing labs on campus; I have listed websites above where you can get help. Here's a list of abbreviations I use to mark the most common mistakes, and here is a list of extremely common confusions to avoid. Use the comments that you receive from me and from other sources to improve future papers.
3. Clarity. It is possible to write a perfectly competent English sentence that is also totally obscure. Your claims should be explicit and precise. Don't try to be cagey or sophisticated or employ fancy metaphors.
4. Accuracy of content . (1) If any part of the paper assignment calls for an explanation of an author's position or argument, you need to be certain you fully understand it and represent it correctly. Employ the principle of charity. (2) Every claim you make about the way the world is has the potential to be wrong. Do not make assertions that you cannot defend. Review the guides linked below for further elaboration.
5. Cogency. The question here is how well you have defended your conclusion. Do the reasons you have offered support the conclusion you have drawn? Could a reader accept your premises and yet reject your conclusion? Read your paper from the perspective of a ruthless critic. What holes could she find? For more specific advice, visit the links to guidelines for philosophy papers listed in the next section, and avoid the mistakes described below.

A competent job on the assignment in accordance with the criteria is generally worth about an 85. Papers that are ungrammatical, unclear, inaccurate, or contain faulty arguments will fall below this benchmark; papers that are remarkably good with respect to one or more of the above criteria will receive higher grades.

Some mistakes to avoid in an argumentative paper:

Suppose I assigned a paper in which you are asked to identify some of the spheres of life that, once relatively free of commercial influence, are now increasingly commodified or commercialized, and then to indicate whether you think these changes are good, bad, or indifferent, and why. Such papers might suffer two common problems:

1. unsupported speculation and generalization about empirical facts and causal connections; and
2. arguments that beg the question by employing loaded language.

Empiricial and causal claims. One of the things you have to do in your papers is to describe or explain certain things about the world. Consider the following (made-up) example:

"Schools today are totally dominated by advertising. There are ads on the buses, in the gyms, and even in the textbooks. The commercialization of the educational realm is causing kids to be materialistic and greedy and obsessed with superficial signifiers of status, like wearing brand-name clothes."

The first two sentences make empirical claims; the third asserts a causal connection. When you claim that something is the case, that it's accurately described in the way you have described it, you need to be able to back up that claim with evidence, whether from our shared stock of common sense or from a trustworthy cited authority. Do not fudge the details and claim something stronger than your best evidence can actually support.

The first sentence in the above paragraph claims that schools today are totally cominated by advertising. Is that literally true?

The second sentence says there are ads on the buses, in the gyms, and in the textbooks. Which buses, gyms, and textbooks is the author talking about? All of them? Some of them? Most? Many? Maybe only a very few? If you don't know, don't just make a guess. Determining which of these interpretations is correct makes a big difference to the plausibility of the first sentence.

The third sentence claims that commercialization is causing certain effects in kids. The best support for a causal claim is a well-designed study with large representative samples and adequate controls testing for precisely the causal connection in question -- the sort of thing scientists do in a lab. Next best would perhaps be a body of evidence from which the connection could be inferred. Often we can accept on the basis of authority the conclusions of relevant experts -- but we are not entitled to inflate their findings in accordance with our own suspicions.

What does not suffice as support for either empirical or causal claims is what philosophers call 'hand-waving' : 'Everyone knows that ...' or 'Who could doubt that ...', when what follows is a claim that a person could reasonably question. Correlations are not, by themselves, evidence of causation.

The moral of the story here is this: Don't overreach your own expertise. Write what you know, which is surely something much more qualified and less sweeping than the above, something more like the following (note the presence of supporting citations):

Public schools are increasingly influenced by advertising. Some schools have sold space on buses and on school buildings to advertisers, and some corporations now supply curricular materials that tend to cast those corporations in a favorable light (Jacobson & Mazur, 1999, pp. ____). These trends coincide with apparent changes in kids' priorities, which are, according to their parents, increasingly materialistic, acquisitive, and brand-conscious. (J&M, p. ____).

Loaded language and question-begging arguments . In addition to summarizing what you've learned about certain facts, the assignment asks you to draw and defend a normative conclusion . Philosophy teachers will consistently tell you that you need to do more than just explain your beliefs; you need to give reasons for them. Students who are new to philosophy often aren't sure what this demand amounts to. Suppose your opinion is that the effects of advertising in America are terrible. You might think that you are offering an argument for this conclusion by writing the following:

"The evil advertising industry is invading every last refuge of healthy family life. This is a terrible thing."

The problem here is that the "terribleness" asserted in the conclusion is built into the 'evil' and the 'invasion of the last refuges of healthy family life' asserted in the premise. In other words, you don't get to stack the deck in favor of the normative conclusion you want to defend simply by loading it into your presentation of the "facts". If we unpack the above "argument," it looks like this:

1. The advertising industry is evil.
2. What the advertising industry does is to invade the last refuge of something good.
3. This is a terrible thing.

The argument is valid, since the conclusion can be logically derived from the premises. (Of course it can, it's built right into them.) It may even be sound. Premises 1 & 2 might well be true. The problem is that it's merely an assertion masquerading as an argument -- it's question-begging. The conclusion (or something very close to it) is simply asserted a number of times in slightly different ways. Compare this "argument" for the conclusion that Bill is not a nice guy:

1. Bill is untrustworthy.
2. Bill is a sneaky, no good cheat.
3. Therefore, Bill is not a nice guy.

The moral, of course, is that you shouldn't try to get your readers to accept your conclusion by presenting your premises in loaded terms. What you need to do instead is, first, explain the relevant facts in a neutral light. Then, present any normative premises that are relevant. Be sure to defend these premises. The conclusion you draw should be only as strong as your premises actually support. Compare the first argument above to the following:

1. Ads appear in more places than ever. [plausible, neutral statement of facts.]
2. There is therefore less time and space in which we can be utterly unaffected by any kind of product pitch. [entailed by premise 1.]
3. It is important to have time and space in which we are utterly unaffected by any kind of product pitch.
4. ...etc.

Premise 3 is a value statement, a normative statement. But this does not make it biased or loaded. Whether we should accept premise 3 depends on the reasons that could be given for it. We have to ask: What is so important about being free from advertising appeals? And in order to answer that question we have to think hard and carefully about what's going on when we are interacting with advertising, as well as about what's important to us. This is of course a lot harder than just asserting that advertising is terrible, but it is exactly what's involved in actually giving an argument, rather than just making an assertion.
top

---

Guides for writing philosophy papers

• Jen's standard philosophy paper guidelines
• How to get Better Grades on your Philosophy Papers , by Martin Young. "Most students have no idea how to write for a philosophy class. The smart students realize this and try to do something about it. The dumb ones think that what got "A"s in high school will get "A"s in college, and if they get an "F" it's the instructor's fault. This manual is for the smart students."
• Writing a Good Ethics Essay , by Michael Tooley
• Tips on Writing a Philosophy Paper by Douglas Portmore.
• Writing a Philosophical Essay , by Ronald de Sousa.
• Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper by James Pryor.
• How to Write a Philosophy Paper by Istvan Berkeley.
• A Brief Guide for Writing Philosophy Papers by Richard Field.

top

---

General writing resources

Academic Honesty:


• Please read the UAA course catalog 's statement on academic dishonesty (chapter 8, "Academic Policies"), as well as the definition of plagiarism in the Student Code of Conduct (chapter 5, "Student Life").
  

• Extremely important information about plagiarism that you will be expected to know: In my experience, most students who commit plagiarism in their papers don't do so intentionally. But ignorance and pure intentions are no excuse, so make sure you know what plagiarism is and how to avoid it. Any time you use -- that is, any time you quote directly or indirectly, or paraphrase, or summarize, or are simply guided by -- the words or ideas of another person in your writing, that person must be fully credited. You commit plagiarism any time you fail to give full credit to another writer -- that is, an exact citation to the source, so that your reader can go directly to the relevant sentence and read it in its original context.  

Clearly then, there are a number of ways to plagiarize -- including, but not limited to, directly copying someone else's work. The following are the most common instances of plagiarism (and least recognized by students).  Please be advised that I will not tolerate plagiarism in any form, no matter how "innocently" committed.

• quoting another writer without using quotation marks, even if you include a full citation. Including a citation without quotation marks indicates that your thinking is influenced by or related to that of the author cited.  But any words you submit that are not enclosed in quotation marks are represented by you as your own original expression.  Failing to use quotation marks around sentences, phrases, or paragraphs that you have found in another person's writing may seem like a minor omission, but it amounts to both lying (representing someone else's creativity as your own) and stealing (taking credit that belongs with someone else).  
• close paraphrasing, or tinkering with someone else's words so that what you write is not an exact quote.  This doesn't get you out of the above dilemma.  If another writer's way of expressing a point is so good that you just must rely on those words, then quote and cite him or her properly. Otherwise, just express the point your own way (and give credit for the ideas where due).  Don't allow performance anxiety to drive you to using paraphrasing as a writing crutch.  Your instructors do not expect you to already be brilliant writers; we assign you papers to give you practice writing.
• using material from the web without proper attribution.  Believe it or not, people write everything that's on the web.  It is not simply an anonymous public domain where anyone can lay claim to anything.  Web pages should be treated just like print sources:  (1) You need to observe the same rules for using quotation marks as you would for print sources.  (2) If you quote or paraphrase or rely on information on any web page, you need to give an exact citation for that source (meaning, not just a general home page address like www.cnn.com or www.newdream.org, but the full URL).  (3) And you should do everything in your power to attribute quotations or paraphrases to their original authors.  If you don't know or cannot find out who wrote the material you are reading, you should have serious reservations about relying upon it in your own work.

UAA Writing assistance:

• The Learning Resource Center (located in the Sally Monserud Building (SMB)) houses a Reading/Writing Center (786-6918). Staffed by Department of English faculty and teaching assistants, the Reading/Writing Center provides instruction and supplemental materials to help students improve their reading, writing and study skills.
• Adult Basic Education classes, GED certificate instruction, English-as-a-Second Language classes, up-front work search program, and a vocational program for single parents are offered in the Adult Learning Center (ALC). Locations for the Adult Learning Centers include 3401 Minnesota Dr., Mt. View, Eagle River, and Nunaka Valley. Classes meet during the morning, afternoon, evening, and Saturday. There is no cost other than placement and testing fees. Students 18 years and older who are not enrolled in high school may attend. Under special conditions, students 17 and under can enroll. The Center is a focus for those in the Anchorage area in need of basic educational skills and provides a second chance for adults to complete a high school diploma or to upgrade math, reading, writing, science, social studies, computer, and life-coping skills. ESL classes focus on basic English for new residents. The ALC is also the home of several job training and readiness programs. For more information, please call (907) 276-6007.
  

General writing assistance on the web:

• The University of Michigan Online Writing & Learning Owl . This OWL is an outgrowth of the University of Michigan's real time writing lab. Sponsored by the university's English Composition Board, this site provides excellent online resources, particularly search reference materials.
• The University of Texas Undergraduate Writing Center makes available a list of resources about writing online and on hard copy. This site contains much useful information.
• Paradigm is the writing assistant program developed by Chuck Guilford at Boise State University. This site gives practical advice on topics ranging from "Discovering What to Write" to "Revising Your Writing" and "Editing Your Writing." The site also provides links to a discussion group as well as to discussions and advice about writing the most commonly assigned types of essay: description, analysis, and argument.
• The Purdue Online Writing Lab (OWL) Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana has a comprehensive online writing lab with tutorial services for Purdue students as well as wide range of Internet search tools and resources for writing available to anyone.
• The Writery , developed by Eric Crump at the University of Missouri, has many writing resources available online, including "Writery Café" that encourages open discussion about writing. Visit this site to see what other students, faculty, and staff have to say about writing in their institutions; share your own insights.
• Writing Center Online is a comprehensive linked list of Writing Centers in the United States sponsored by the Writing Centers Association, an assembly of the national Council of Teachers of English. Bruce Pegg of Colgate University provides more than 100 links on this website, which is an excellent resource for locating OWLs and OWCs across the country and gathering the best of online writing information. Don't miss this site!
• Harvard Writing Center: Writing Tools

Grammar resources:

• Elements of Style by William Strunk and E.B. White is online at this site. Check this page for other online resources made available by Columbia University through the Bartleby Project.
• Help with English Grammar from edunet.com.
• Grammar and Style Notes (Jack Lynch, Rutgers U.) explains grammar, style, and usage conventions
• Modern Language Association's section on style

Citation resources:

• The American Psychological Association (APA) guide to citation format for online reference sources is available on this website. The journals site also provides additional information for those who wish to publish in APA journals or to use APA style for citations.
• Beyond the MLA Handbook: Documenting Electronic Sources on the Internet , by Andrew Harnack and Gene Kleppinger, provides substantive evaluation of online citation format. This website provides the full text (with updates) of the authors' paper given at the 23rd Annual Conference, Kentucky Philological Association, 1 March 1996. The paper provides detailed examples and explanations for the MLA style.
• Evaluating Online Sources provides a list of guides to judging the value and reliability of online resources. Nick Carbone prepared this site.
• The Modern Language Association (MLA) guide to online citation, prepared by Janice Walker, provides the directions for citing references according to the MLA format.
• Online! A Reference Guide to Using Internet Sources by Andrew Harnack and Eugene Kleppinger, published in hard copy (1997) by St. Martin's Press, is available on this website.
• U. of Michigan Documents Center Citation Guides

Guidelines for Philosophy Papers

Jen Everett

 
Typical paper assignments in my courses ask you to explain and evaluate an argument encountered in one of our readings. Your thesis in such a paper is your evaluation of the argument in question; that is, your paper should answer the question, is the argument in question sound or unsound? The substance of your paper should be a carefully argued defense of this thesis. The following guidelines outline my expectations regarding the structure and style of your paper.

Format

• All papers must be typed, double-spaced, in a standard 10-12 point font, with 1 inch margins.
• Please staple your paper in the upper left corner. Never us the fold or fold-and-tear method of attaching pages together.
• Please do not attach a cover sheet or enclose your paper in any kind of folder, binder, or cover.

Structure

1. Your paper should have a clear and concise introductory paragraph which (a) succinctly introduces the topic of your paper, (b) clearly states your thesis, and (c) briefly outlines the structure of your paper. Do not include irrelevant background about the philosopher(s) whose views you will be discussing (e.g., "so-and-so was a very famous philosopher"), and avoid introducing your topic by making trite general statements (e.g., "many animals are killed every day to satisfy humans’ insatiable lust for meat"). Get right to the point. Good philosophy papers frequently begin simply with, "In this paper I will argue ..." Keep this paragraph under half a page, and be absolutely certain that it makes the overall thesis of your paper apparent to the reader.

Plagiarism and Proper Citation Format

Many students seem to be unaware that relying upon the words of an author without giving him or her due credit is plagiarism, even if you tinker with the phrasing so that what you write isn’t exactly what the original author wrote. Quotations from, paraphrases of, and references to works of other writers must be accompanied by a citation of the exact location of the source. Always give credit to other individuals who have influenced your thinking or choice of words. Never pass off the words or ideas of others as your own.

As for citation format, my main concern is for consistency. Quotations should be cited in the text as follows: Wenz argues that "________" (Wenz 1988, p. 125). Long quotations (more than three lines of text) should be single-spaced and indented from the margins, without quotation marks. For most of my paper assignments, it will not be necessary to do outside research. If you do rely on outside sources, be sure to include a full citation in footnotes or endnotes.

General and Philosophical Writing Tips

You are expected to know and follow the conventional rules of English grammar and punctuation. Write in a simple, clear style and work to be exceptionally precise. Do not expect me to "know what you meant" when you use ungrammatical or vague expressions that get your rough meaning across in casual conversation. Philosophy is a precise discipline, and the words you choose to express yourself matter. The goal is to make the contents of your thought as transparent to the reader as possible. If your words are confused or imprecise, I can only conclude that your thoughts are as well.

Use gender-neutral language. This is a matter of grammatical, not political, correctness. Do not write ‘man’, ‘men’ or ‘mankind’ when you mean ‘humans’, ‘humanity’ or ‘humankind’. In academic writing, using ‘man’ for ‘human’ is generally considered a plain mistake.

Do not try to make your paper sound profound or sophisticated. Any college student who may never have taken a philosophy (or an environmental studies) course should be able to pick up your paper and make sense of it. Avoid pretentious words like ‘strive’, ‘ponder’, ‘quest’, ‘propound’, etc. Avoid abstruse metaphors. Avoid slogans and sayings, like ‘existence precedes essence’ and ‘no two snowflakes are alike’.

Ask yourself, concerning each sentence in your paper, whether it has been adequately supported. You can be certain that I will be asking this question as I read your paper. Do not present merely your own speculations on wide, general and ill-defined topics. Do not make sweeping general claims without argument, proof or evidence. Do not just make guesses and repeat other people’s opinions. You would do better to pick some single point of your own and try to prove it with logic and evidence.

Avoid reason substitutes. These are rhetorical tactics for avoiding or replacing intelligent argumentation. For example:
 

6. "Wenz will inevitably believe what his culture believes."
7. "Singer just believes what makes him feel good, what vindicates his already-established beliefs."
8. "It’s all relative; it’s all a matter of opinion."
9. "It’s just a matter of semantics."
10. "Who’s to say whether x or y? Who are we to judge?"


Claims and rhetorical questions such as these function as reason substitutes by suggesting that critical thinking about the topic at hand is either impossible or pointless. Watch carefully for assertions that function to shut down hard thinking on your part or the reader’s.

When criticizing any argument (whether another philosopher’s or your own), remember that it is never the case that the only problem with the argument is that its conclusion is false. Arguments have (a) premises and (b) logical structure. If you are going to disagree with the conclusion, then you must either take issue with one or more of the premises or show that the premises, though perhaps true, do not provide sufficient logical support for the conclusion.

Finally, I recognize that there are many kinds of papers, and many kinds of philosophy papers, and what makes a good paper of one sort does not necessarily make a good paper of another sort. What I am looking for in this sort of paper may well seem to you terse, blocky and mechanical. It’s worth learning anyway. The skills you develop in learning to write a philosophical essay of this sort may or may not make you a better creative writer, but they can help make you a more disciplined critical thinker.  Good luck!

.

research paper

topic proposal:

In order for you to learn first-hand the practice of philosophy, rather than just some of its content, your main project for the term is to produce a researched argument paper on a normative ethical, social, or political topic related to consumer society. That is, you are to come to a moral conclusion about some aspect of environmental ethics, and give good reasons why skeptical but reasonable others should agree to that conclusion. In order to do this, you will of course need to become empirically informed about your topic. But you also will need to become philosophically informed – that is, familiar with some of the ethical ideas and arguments that bear on your particular topic. This means becoming familiar with primary and secondary sources, peer-reviewed academic journals, books, and reputable sources on the internet.

More details on constructing your draft are provided below, but to make the end goal less mysterious and more specific, think of the paper as having a plan something like this:

.

1. Here’s an interesting philosophical question about x.
2. I’m going to argue that T.
3. Here’s some relevant, reliable empirical information pertaining to x.
4. Here’s what the existing philosophical literature has to say about question I’m addressing.
5. Here’s what I think about that/those argument(s).
6. Here are the reasons why my thesis, T, should be accepted.
7. Against my argument, it could plausibly be objected that O.
8. But my response to this/these objection(s) is R.
9. So, barring hidden flaws in my argument, or further objections to it, we should accept thesis T.

3 and 4 above are the main research steps, and the main tricks are:

.

a.) not to get caught in the trap of thinking you have to read and understand everything before you start writing or commit to anything, and
b.) finding one good, pertinent source that will be your touchstone in 4.

In the process of looking for that source, you should be learning about relevant concepts or theories; open-mindedly considering arguments on various sides of the issue; and forming, revising, and clarifying and your own position, as well as subjecting it to critical scrutiny and objections. The draft that you submit at the beginning of week 7 will give you an opportunity to get feedback about the clarity of your writing, the cogency of your argument, and any serious gaps in your empirical and/or philosophical research. Then you should have plenty of time to revise and polish your argument and submit an excellent paper.

In order to complete such a project in the course of one term, you need to get moving on it as early as possible. So that I can intervene early to help you find useful materials and avoid the pitfalls of over-ambition, you will need to submit a written project proposal.

Thus, the purposes of this assignment are:

• To require you to come to a decision about a topic for your final paper;
• To require you to think clearly about the normative aspects of that topic, construct a feasible normative question concerning that topic, and plan the process of your research and writing;
• To provide me an idea of your area of interest so that I can help you hone in on a well-defined, manageable question;
• To assess your preparedness for empirical and philosophical research so that I (and the library staff) can help direct you toward the resources you need.

Directions: In no more than two double-spaced pages, please provide answers to the following questions:

1. What is the topic of your research?
2. What normative question will you be trying to answer about this topic?
3. If you have a tentative thesis, what is it?
4. How will you proceed with your research? What searches will you conduct on what databases or search engines in order to find (a) empirical information and (b) normative arguments pertaining to your topic?
5. What sources, if any, have you found so far?

A Pretty Good Example of a topic proposal (from a different class):

 

I have heard much in the media over the past few years about products sold in the U.S. being manufactured in “sweatshops.” As I understand this term, it refers to situations in which workers are required to labor in harmful, arduous conditions for low pay and poor benefits, and due to a lack of alternatives, are not free to demand improved conditions, unionize, or quit. In a sweatshop, the economic vulnerability of employees is exploited by the employer in order to maintain low labor costs. Given this meaning of the term, to say that a corporation manufactures its products in a sweatshop is to make a negative moral judgment. [identifies your topic]

In my paper, I want to determine whether it is true that Nike shoes are manufactured in sweatshops. I am vaguely familiar with their being opposing answers to this question, but I honestly am not well enough informed to have a thesis yet. To answer this question, I will need to find out what the labor conditions are in Nike plants (or perhaps just in a specific Nike plant), what pay and benefits are received, and what options are available to the employees. It might help to know how these labor conditions compare to those of Nike’s competitors, and how Nike has responded to complaints by human rights activists and/or employees’ attempts to unionize. I will then need to reach an ethical judgment as to whether the working conditions are harmful and arduous, whether the pay and benefits are poor, and whether Nike is wrongfully exploiting the economic vulnerability of its employees. In order to reach such a judgment, I will consult ethical arguments about what counts as harm, how to determine what is a fair wage, what counts as exploitation, and so on. [specifies in detail your main and subsidiary questions, indicates whether you know what your thesis will be]

I will begin my research with web searches on ‘Nike’ and ‘sweatshops’ that will hopefully lead me to footnotes or bibliographies containing reliable sources of information that I can find in the library. I will also consult Nike’s webpage, which probably has some response to sweatshop accusations. I will look in newspaper databases for investigative reporting about Nike plants. I will then turn to academic databases in humanities and philosophy to find books or articles in peer reviewed journals about topics like ‘fairness,’ ‘harm,’ ‘exploitation,’ and so on. I am so far familiar with the website for the fair trade advocacy group No Sweat, and I have seen Joel Feinberg’s book, Harm to Others (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984), which supposedly offers an influential analysis of harm. [describes your anticipated research process and progress to date]

---

annotated bibliography:

It's great to get so interested in your topic that you become insatiably curious and reluctant to stop researching. But it's also dangerous. Remember, you should have already begun writing at least a tentative draft of your paper, even though your thesis may change, and even if you don't feel like you know enough to commit to anything yet. You need to reach a point at which for purposes of this paper your focus turns from gathering sources to expressing your own view in writing. (Although of course for purposes of your own intellectual growth you will never stop trying to learn more about the topics that interest you!)

Thus, the purposes of this assignment are:

• To get you out of the rut of compulsively searching for more and more (or the perfect) sources;
• To help you get familiar with the sources you've already gathered, learn to summarize them briefly, decide which sources will get close attention, and form your own conclusions about the merits and pertinence of those sources;
• To give me an idea of how well you are finding sources and how well you understand them so that I can help point you in more fruitful directions.

Directions:

Turn in to collab by 5 p.m. Thursday 10/14 a list of (at least) all those sources that will bear in any significant way on your paper. (You may choose to include every source that you expect to cite, even if only tangentially relevant. If you do so, please indicate either in the annotation or in the organization of your list which sources are central and which of only minor significance.) Each entry should be given a complete citation, in whatever citation style you consistently use, and should be followed with a short annotation. This annotation must include both a description and evaluation of the source (or at least its relevant portions if, say, you are using only one chapter of a book). More specifically, I want to see:

• Very brief, accurate, charitable exegesis of the author's claims and/or argument in your own words;
• Your evaluation as to the veracity of the claim or soundness of the argument;
• Your assessment of the relevance of the source to your argument.
• Your expected use of the source, what role it will play in your argument.

What if I haven't read all of my sources? You still need to provide a description of the source and an indication of your anticipated evaluation and use of that source. Don't try to make it look like you've read more than you have; this will only undercut the purpose of the assignment. Do at least try to find as clear a description as possible from a secondary source -- an article abstract, critical review, whatever -- and be sure to credit such sources appropriately. I do want to stress that it is best if you have familiarized yourself with as much of your bibliography as possible. You gain little from the exercise by relying on secondary accounts of their content.

How long should it be? It could conceivably be quite short. A perfectly good philosophy research paper may consist of an evaluation of the argument contained in one source. (Indeed, if you are struggling to find sources that coincide precisely with your topic as initially formulated, it's not a bad idea to restructure the project around one good philosophical article that touches on our subject matter in a relevant way.) The research that would need to go into such a paper would include familiarizing yourself with both the relevant empirical background that pertains to your topic and philosophical literature in the neighborhood of your main source - in other words, follow footnotes, and inform yourself of other authors' responses.

In any event, don't deluge the reader in an attempt to show what a massive quantity of material you've found. The point of the assignment is not to compete for who's amassed the most sources, but rather, as noted above, to facilitate your getting useful guidance and getting moving on your draft.

What should it look like? Gould Library's annotated bibliography guide provides helpful overview of the purpose and standard elements of an annotated bibliography, as well as an example of a typical annotated bibliography from the social sciences. A bit of caution here. Rely on the above list of required elements wherever it departs from the library's guide. The annotated bibliography serves slightly different purposes for this class in the humanities than it might in a similar class in the social sciences in part because the research methods and aims differ.

---

final argument paper

some advice: Like the project proposal and annotated bibliography, the purpose of a rough draft deadline is mainly for your benefit: if you get the paper written two weeks before the final due date, you will have plenty of time to polish and rewrite it in light of comments, and you will be able to be more relaxed in preparation for final exams. For that reason, although I will accept a draft of your paper in any degree of completion (beyond a mere outline) submitted by the due date, you are strongly advised to regard the draft due date as if it were a final due date, and turn in a complete paper that is as polished as possible.

However, in order to ensure I have enough time to comment on everyone's papers and return them in time to be of use to you in revising, the draft deadline is firm, and you'll have to turn in whatever you've got as of that date. For that reason, you should write the most difficult part of your paper first -- the core of your argument. Figure out precisely what your thesis is; write your argument in defense of that thesis, articulate objections against that argument, and respond to those objections. Don't spend a lot of time writing and rewriting the introduction, or explicating research materials that are fairly straightforward and with which you won't need a lot of help. Sketch those parts quickly, and come back to polish them if you have time before the draft is due. If you have a beautiful introduction and a big hole where your argument is going to go, the feedback I can provide won't be nearly as helpful.

required elements. Your final argument paper needs to include each of the following:

• a clear statement of the question you are addressing and the thesis you are defending
• exegesis of relevant philosophical literature (and, as needed, sources from other disciplines)
• your argument in defense of your thesis
• a consideration of and response to a serious objection to your argument.

a suggested structure. There are many ways that a paper might incorporate each of these elements, and you are free to adopt whatever structure suits you best. However, the plan introduced above is a reliable model if you are at a loss, in which case your paper could read more or less like this:

.

1. Here’s an interesting philosophical question about x.
2. I’m going to argue that T.
3. Here’s some relevant, reliable empirical information pertaining to x.
4. Here’s what the existing philosophical literature has to say about x.
5. Here’s what I think about that/those argument(s).
6. Here are the reasons why my thesis, T, should be accepted.
7. Against my argument, it could plausibly be objected that O.
8. But my response to this/these objection(s) is R.
9. So, barring hidden flaws in my argument, or further objections to it, we should accept thesis T.

virtues. The following is a brief list of qualities I'll be looking for in your papers. For further details, the writing resources page now has links to several detailed guides to writing philosophy papers.

• Competence: I'm expecting your paper to be entirely free of grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors. Proofread, read out loud, go to Strunk and White's Elements of Style (linked from writing resources page), visit the Write Place.
• Clarity: Your writing should be straightforward and accessible to an intelligent 10th grader - not complex, jargon-laden, or pretentious. Explain terms that would be unfamiliar to this audience.
• Precision: Don't be vague. Try to ensure that there is one and only one way to interpret each sentence, not an uncertain range of possibilities.
• Accuracy, charity, and precision in reconstruction of others' works. Be careful not to misrepresent, misinterpret, or overinterpret. Every claim, position, and argument in your paper -- both those you defend and those you reject -- should be capable of being held by intelligent, informed, reasonable, morally decent people.
• Adequately researched support for empirical, causal, and statistical assertions and generalizations.
• Academic tone: Avoid highly charged rhetoric, hyperbole, ad hominem attacks, and so on. Your paper should be relatively dispassionate, assiduously fair, and appropriately qualified in making assertions and drawing conclusions.
• Cogent argumentation: Your arguments need to support their conclusions. The reasoning should be either deductively valid or inductively warranted and the premises should be plausible to any reader, not just those who already share your values or agree with your conclusions. Assume your audience is composed of intelligent peers who are uninformed about your topic and congenially skeptical of what you are trying to say.

.