According to Ballanger, there are two types of research papers, those that are research papers, and those that are research essays, more commonly known as discovery essays. Ballanger states, “The motive for writing a research essay, at least initially, is not to prove but to discover.” (430) Both Holmquist and Garrett-Brown do this in their essays. They are researching to discover something, rather than to tell the reader about something important to them. Take Garret-Brown for example where she states, “…I’ve managed to up a decent tan this summer myself, not via lightbulb technology, but the old fashioned way, by playing in the sun. Hmmm… am I a hypocrite?” (459). She is trying to discover the importance of tans, and their effect on society; she is not researching tans to tell the reader the good and bad things about it. In this example her paper is driven by questions rather than answers. She is trying to discover if she is a hypocrite because she is conforming to society. This is also one of Ballanger’s “features of the form” for writing research essays, which differentiates it from a research paper. “Academic research is driven by questions, not answers.” (Ballanger 432) This is why she opens with a question and continues to ask, and then answer her questions as she goes through her essay. Holmquist does the same thing in his discovery essay that Garrett-Brown does. “Is something that the government finds harmful, yet so many people say is harmless, really that bad for you?” (Holmquist B24) Much like Garrett-Brown, Holmquist, after a short introduction, opens with a question, that he continues on to answer. This is the main reason his essay leans towards a discovery essay rather than a research paper.
Ballanger goes on to state, “The question is put into context of what has already been said.” (433) This is one of the ideas that Ballanger supports to separate a research paper, from a discovery essay, and both writers fulfilled this extremely well. Garrett-Brown says, “In a survey conducted by Seventeen magazine, “2/3 of the teens say they look better with a tan and feel healthier, more sophisticated and 50% say they looked more athletic”” (460). She then goes on to add her own twist to this, discussing what she knows a tan to be. This fully supports Ballanger’s idea because she is putting the problem into the context of what has already been discovered and stated, then putting her own twist and discoveries on top of that. While she supports Ballanger’s idea, I feel that Holmquist does a much better job of this. Holmquist begins by giving us what has been said before, take the LSD example. He gives us the scientific idea of what is supposed to happen when you take LSD and cites the studies. He then proceeds to give what he knows about LSD from personal experience on top of what is already known. “I’ve been known to dance uncontrollably as I stop hearing the music in my ears but instead I hear it through my whole body.” (Holmquist B25) This idea of incorporating their own discovery, or questions about the thesis, on top of what is already known about the subject, is exactly what makes both Holmquist and Garrett-Brown essays, discovery essays.
The “so what” of both essays is very clear and supported by the text. The “so what” or controlling idea in Garrett-Brown’s essay, is the idea that a stupid ritual like getting a spray on tan, could replace the real thing, and no one would feel any different. She explores this idea, through questions of hypocrisy in herself, as well as by defining the long term effects of getting a fake tan, and the differences between getting the real thing or the fake one. “But somehow the message isn’t translating. People still feel healthy with a bastardized tan?” (Garrett-Brown 460) She supports her question, which also serves as her main idea, by exploring the bad effects of a fake tan. Holmquist does something similar, because his “so what” is that these seemingly harmless drugs are actually dangerous, and possibly life ruining. They support this very successfully by doing what Ballanger stated above. Taking what has already been said, and expanding on that, by use of personal experience.
This helps me get a better idea on how to write my essay, as before I thought writing a boring research paper, now I can incorporate things I have learned from personal experience and use them to explore a subject. With these examples it is much easier to see how to ask a question in a research paper, and then continue on to answer that question, while at the same time incorporating research, and other information.
Garrett-Brown, Amy. “Why Do People Tan?.”
Ballanger, Bruce. The Curious Reader: Exploring Personal and Academic Inquiry, Second Edition.
Holmquist, Jay. “An Experience in Acronyms.”
2 comments:
I like your essay and how you directly pointed out their questions that started off their essays. I agree with what you said about Holmquest doing a better job of putting the question into context of what has already been said. By giving information on LSD of what is said to happen and then giving personal experience after is very effective. I was a little confused when you mentioned spray on tan because that wasn't part of her essay, but I think that you explained the strong points of both essays well. I like your examples from the text because they really support what your essay is saying.
I disagree when you say “she is not researching tans to tell the reader the good and bad things about it. In this example her paper is driven by questions rather than answers. She is trying to discover if she is a hypocrite because she is conforming to society.” I don’t think the question of whether or not she is a hypocrite is the driving question. I think that is merely something she said at the beginning of the paper to keep the reader interested. I think the driving question is much closer to figure out whether or not tans are worth the risk.
Post a Comment