Have you been asked to write a college research paper? You’ve written personal essays before, and you’ve written papers that demonstrate you can recall and organize information that’s been handed to you in lectures and textbook chapters.
What does your professor mean by a “research essay”?
Outside the classroom, if I want to “research” which phone I should buy, I would start with Google; I would watch some YouTube “unboxing” videos, check the most positive and the most critical reviews on Amazon, and ask my friends on social media for their opinions. I’d assume somebody already has written about, or knows, the answer, and my “research” is to find that correct answer.
Now let’s consider a different kind of research.
An entomologist goes outside, catches hundreds or thousands of butterflies, and finds one that nobody has ever catalogued before. If she had simply Googled for “butterflies of Pennsylvania” she would simply find what other people have already discovered about butterflies. She didn’t know she would find an uncatalogued butterfly, but once she does, she can study how its behavior differs from its closest relatives, and publish that as “research.”
It’s pretty easy to see that discovering a new therapy for cancer counts as “research.” But so is discovering a cheaper, more effective way to use an existing therapy — and so is demonstrating that option A is a little less effective but a lot cheaper, and option B is a little cheaper but a lot less effective. And so would be looking for unusual patterns, such as noting that of patients who received therapy option A, patients from a particular ethnic group lived only half as long as the average patient.
Are the doctors discriminating against the ethnic group? Is there something in the diet or environment of those patients that impacts the effectiveness of the therapy? Is there something about the genetic makeup of those patients that make therapy A less effective for them?
Just as the butterfly expert doesn’t already know there’s an undiscovered butterfly in Pennsylvania, the cancer expert doesn’t know what there is to discover about the social factors influencing cancer therapy A. If you know anything about the scientific method, you know that the thing scientists will do is conduct experiments to gather information.
As an undergraduate who has a few weeks to write a short research paper, you probably won’t be expected to conduct experiments on cancer patients. (And if you did, you’d probably be writing a lab report about your findings, not a research essay.)
The point is, “research” means different things in different contexts.
If I, as a professor, were to “research” a topic like role that the telephones played in detective fiction in the early 20th century, I would hope nobody else has already published a whole book on that exact topic. I’m sure there are books about the history of the telephone, and about the history of detective fiction, and there are certainly detective stories that involve telephones. And if I do find an article on the telephone in early detective fiction, maybe I could still find something original to say about ways that male and female authors use telephones differently in early detective fiction.
But, just as there might not be any uncatalogued species of butterfly in Pennsylvania, and option A and option B might not have any measurable impact on the survival rate of cancer patients, the truth is that, even after months or years of study, no matter how hard a researcher looks, there might not be any noticeable differences in the way male and female authors used the telephone in early detective fiction.
This document focuses on the kind of short, narrowly-focused research papers you might encounter early in a course, when instructors want a quick peek at your abilities.
The assignment description provided by your instructor is your best resource. our instructor is your best resource. He or she has probably already given you an assignment description — perhaps one that includes a link to this page. given you a detailed set of instructions Such papers typically do not require that you build a complex argument, or offer your personal evaluation of a text, or aim for poetic effects. You will have the chance to get more intellectually daring later on, but for now — unless your instructor has told you otherwise — just stick to the basics.
1. Plan to Revise
Even a very short paper is the result of a process.
- You start with one idea, you test it, and you hit on something better.
- You might end up somewhere unexpected. If so, that’s good — it means you learned something.
- If you’re only just starting your paper, and it’s due tomorrow, you have already robbed yourself of your most valuable resource — time.
Showcase your best insights at the beginning of your paper.
You won’t know what your best ideas are until you’ve written a full draft. Part of revision involves identifying strong ideas and making them more prominent, while identifying filler and other weak material, and pruning it away to leave more room to develop your best ideas.
- It’s normal, in a rough draft, to hit on a really good idea about two-thirds of the way through your paper.
- But an academic paper is not a mystery novel.
- A rushed or bored reader will not have the patience to hunt for clues. A thesis statement that includes a clear reasoning blueprint (see “Blueprinting: Planning Your Essay“) will help your reader identify and follow your ideas.
2. Choose a Narrow Topic
A short research paper assigned in the first month of class is not the proper occasion for you to tackle huge issues, such as, “Was Hamlet Shakespeare’s Best Tragedy?” or “Women’s Struggle for Equality” or “How to Eliminate Racism.” You won’t be graded down simply because you don’t have all the answers right away. The trick is to zoom in on one tiny little part of the argument.
|Short Research Paper: Sample Topics|
|The Role of the Government in the Lives of Its Citizens|
|This paper could very well start with Biblical tribes, then move through ancient Greece, Rome, the rise of monarchy and nationalism in Europe, revolutions in France and America, the rise of Fascism and Communism, global wars, education, freedom of religion, AIDS, etc. This topic is huge!|
|The Role of Government in American Race Relations|
|While this version of the topic at least settles on a single country, it is still way too complex. Papers with titles like this tend to be filled with the student’s personal opinions about what governments should or should not do. Your professor is probably more interested in first making sure you can explain specific details, rather than make sweeping generalizations about what governments should or should not do.|
|The Role of Government in American Race Relations during the 1930s|
|Now we are starting to get somewhere… a student couldn’t possibly write this paper without knowing something about that specific time period.|
|Federal Policies Affecting Rural Blacks during the 1930s|
|Even though it is still possible to write a whole book with this title, the topic is narrow enough that a student might write a short paper giving the basic facts, describing (or at least listing) the crises and conflicts, and characterizing the lingering controversies.|
How would you improve each of these paper topics?
- Environmentalism in America
- Immigration Trends in Wisconsin’s Chippewa Valley
- Drinking and Driving
- Local TV News
- 10 Ways that Advertisers Lie to the Public
- Athletes on College Campuses
3. Use Sources Appropriately
Unless you were asked to write an opinion paper or a reflection statement, for short papers assigned early in the semester, your professor probably expects you to draw a topic from the assigned readings (if any).
- Some students frequently get this backwards — they write the paper first, then “look for quotes” from sources that agree with the opinions they’ve already committed to. (That’s not really doing research to learn anything new — that’s just looking for confirmation of what you already believe.)
- Start with the readings, but don’t pad your paper with summary.
- Many students try doing most of their research on the Internet. Depending on your topic, the Internet may simply not have good sources available.
- Go ahead and surf as you try to narrow your topic, but remember: you still need to cite whatever you find. (See: “Researching Academic Papers.”)
When asked to submit a short research paper on the place of women in Victorian society, Sally is shocked to learn women couldn’t vote or own property. She begins her paper by listing these and other restrictions, and adds personal commentary such as:
Women can be just as strong and capable as men are. Why do men think they have the right to make all the laws and keep all the money, when women stay in the kitchen? People should be judged by what they contribute to society, not by the kind of chromosomes they carry.
After reaching the required number of pages, she tacks on a conclusion about how women are still fighting for their rights today, and submits her paper.
- Sally has failed to notice that among the readings assigned by her professor is an article exploring how the role of women changed from the beginning of the Victorian period to the end. Those readings showed that
- female authors were being published and read like never before
- the public praised Queen Victoria (a woman!) for making England a great nation
- some women actually fought against the new feminists because they distrusted their motives
- many wealthy women in England were downright nasty to their poorer sisters, especially the Irish.
- Sally’s paper focused mainly on her general impression that sexism is unfair (something that she already believed before she started taking the course), but Sally has not engaged with the controversies or surprising details (such as, for instance, the fact that for the first time male writers were writing with female readers in mind; or that upperclass women contributed to the degradation of lowerclass women).
On the advice of her professor, Sally revises her paper as follows:
| vague original: |
“The Role of Women in Victorian Society”
| focused revision: |
“Mary Wollestonecraft’s Revolutionary Ideas”
|Women can be just as strong and capable as men are. Why do men think they have the right to make all the laws and keep all the money, when women stay in the kitchen? People should be judged by what they contribute to society, not by the kind of chromosomes they carry.|| In "The Rights of Woman," Mary Wollestonecraft said women appear weak because they lack men's rights: "Let woman share the rights and she will emulate the virtues of man" (136). She questioned the assumption that womanly jobs, such as breastfeeding, were inferior to manly ones, such as war. Now that we have packaged baby formula and female fighter pilots, we may have to rethink some of her specific points, but her overall argument is still valid. |
(Paper concludes with a bibliography)
Sally’s focused revision (right) makes specific reference to a particular source, and uses a quote to introduce a point. Sally still injects her own opinion, but she is offering specific comments on complex issues, not bumper-sticker slogans and sweeping generalizations, such as those given on the left.
Back up your claims by quoting reputable sources. If you write”Recent research shows that…” or “Many scholars believe that…”, you are making a claim. You will have to back it up with authoritative evidence. This means that the body of your paper must include references to the specific page numbers where you got your outside information. (If your document is an online source that does not provide page numbers, ask your instructor what you should do. There might be a section title or paragraph number that you could cite, or you might print out the article and count the pages in your printout.)
Avoid using words like “always” or “never,” since all it takes is a single example to the contrary to disprove your claim. Likewise, be careful with words of causation and proof. For example, consider the claim that television causes violence in kids. The evidence might be that kids who commit crimes typically watch more television than kids who don’t. But… maybe the reason kids watch more television is that they’ve dropped out of school, and are unsupervised at home. An unsupervised kid might watch more television, and also commit more crimes — but that doesn’t mean that the television is the cause of those crimes.
You don’t need to cite common facts or observations, such as “a circle has 360 degrees” or “8-tracks and vinyl records are out of date,” but you would need to cite claims such as “circles have religious and philosophical significance in many cultures” or “the sales of 8-track tapes never approached those of vinyl records.”
Don’t waste words referring directly to “quotes” and “sources.”
If you use words like “in the book My Big Boring Academic Study, by Professor H. Pompous Windbag III, it says” or “the following quote by a government study shows that…” you are wasting words that would be better spent developing your ideas.
In the book Gramophone, Film, Typewriter, by Fredrich A. Kittler, it talks about writing and gender, and says on page 186, “an omnipresent metaphor equated women with the white sheet of nature or virginity onto which a very male stylus could inscribe the glory of its authorship.” As you can see from this quote, all this would change when women started working as professional typists.
The “it talks about” and “As you can see from this quote” are weak attempts to engage with the ideas presented by Kittler. “In the book… it talks” is wordy and nonsensical (books don’t talk).
MLA style encourages you to expend fewer words introducing your sources, and more words developing your own ideas. MLA style involves just the author’s last name, a space (not a comma), and then the page number. Leave the author’s full name and the the title of the source for the Works Cited list at the end of your paper. Using about the same space as the original, see how MLA style helps an author devote more words to developing the idea more fully:
Before the invention of the typewriter, “an omnipresent metaphor” among professional writers concerned “a very male stylus” writing upon the passive, feminized “white sheet of nature or virginity” (Kittler 186). By contrast, the word “typewriter” referred to the machine as well as the female typist who used it (183).
Stay On Topic
It’s fairly normal to sit and stare at the computer screen for a while until you come up with a title, then pick your way through your topic, offering an extremely broad introduction (see Glittering Generalities, below).
- You might also type in a few long quotations that you like.
- After writing generalities and just poking and prodding for page or two, you will eventually hit on a fairly good idea.
- You will pursue it for a paragraph or two, perhaps throwing in another quotation.
- By then, you’ll realize that you’ve got almost three pages written, so you will tack on a hasty conclusion.
Hooray, you’ve finished your paper! Well, not quite…
- At the very least, you ought to rewrite your title and introduction to match your conclusion, so it looks like the place you ended up was where you were intending to go all along. You probably won’t get an A, because you’re still submitting two pages of fluff; but you will get credit for recognizing whatever you actually did accomplish.
- To get an A, you should delete all that fluff, use the “good idea” that you stumbled across as your new starting point, and keep going. Even “good writers” have to work — beefing up their best ideas and shaving away the rest, in order to build a whole paper that serves the good idea, rather than tacking the good idea on at the end and calling it a day.
Avoid Glittering Generalities
- Broad, sweeping statements (“In our society today” or “It is a growing problem that…”) may make a short paper seem grander and more substantial, but the flashy words won’t fool your instructor.
|Throughout the ages, mankind has found many uses for salt. Ancient tribes used it to preserve meat; around the world it adds flavor to food; the Bible uses it as a symbol of zest for life. Salt became such an important part of people’s diet that a way was needed to allow early nomads to carry salt with them on their perilous travels; such a device ideally also helped ancient gormandizers to distribute portions of the precious flavor enhancer onto their foods. Thus was born the salt shaker. |
(Some writers appear to believe that the introduction should provide a sort of cosmic overview; however, you are not required to stun and amaze your professors. Just do the assignment.)
- In a similar vein, resist the urge to call the Great Depression the “saddest chapter in American history,” or T.S. Eliot “the most famous modern poet.” If your paper does not actually examine all chapters in American history, or all famous modern poets, such a vague claim adds nothing to your argument.
- Don’t Patronize the Great
- Don’t waste time talking about why Shakespeare is a genius, or why Napoleon is important to history, or why The Great Gatsby is the greatest American novel ever written. After ten, twenty or maybe forty years of study, few professors will claim to be able to to answer such huge questions in three or four pages. They won’t expect you to do so, either, after only a couple of weeks of classes!
- Don’t Summarize [Excessively]
- Your professor already knows what’s in the assigned readings. Unlike high school, where you got credit for proving to your teacher that you actually did the assigned readings, in college, the assigned readings are not nearly as important as what you do with them. Summarizing the plot is an easy way to knock off half of a page, and summarizing a book chapter that focuses on your topic is an easy way to frame an argument, but your professor knows that it requires much more mental effort to apply what you learned, to analyze a situation, to synthesize opposing viewpoints, to evaluate an argument. Summarizing is, by comparison, a very simple intellectual task. (See “Bloom’s Taxonomy.”)
- Don’t Regurgitate Your Lecture Notes
- …I’d much rather read your original thoughts (backed up by your frequent reference to the source materials, of course). I can’t speak for other professors, but when I lecture, I am primarily trying to give you background information that will spur you into thinking for yourself. I will not reward you for simply parroting back to me the example I suggested off the top of my head three weeks ago in response to a student’s question. I suppose students wouldn’t keep trying to do this if it didn’t sometimes work. Nevertheless, If you pull out your lecture notes and serve them to me like so much warmed-over meatloaf, I’m bored and frustrated — probably even more bored than you were when you wrote it in the first place, since I have thirty other papers to grade.
- Don’t Inflate Your Prose
- Simplify. Most first drafts are about 50% deadwood.
|Another factor that should be considered is the fact that wordiness sucks.|| |
|In the 1992 book, Cooking Disasters of the 20th Century, by Fred Smith, it explains why an important state dinner in England was ruined, resulting in a social calamity that caused the host to lose nearly all of his social status and prestige: “Lord Alfred’s infamous celebration in honor of the Treaty of Ulm was marred when an assistant chef failed to notice that the cheese was was spoiled” (Smith 102).||At Lord Alfred’s infamous Treaty of Ulm Banquet, a junior chef ruined the cheese. The scandal all but ruined Lord Alfred (Smith 102).[The “Works Cited” page will have all the additional information a reader needs to know about the source. Don’t clutter up the body of your paper with redundant information.]|
|It is clear that…||The author knows darn well the meaning is not clear at all; this is a weak attempt at manipulating the reader into seeing structure that isn’t there.|
|In other words…||Don’t waste words. Say it correctly the first time.|
| ||These empty statements are the academic equivalent of saying “umm” in a speech. Omit.|
|Bill walked into the room. Once he arrived, he looked for an appropriate table so that he could sit down. He had come into the room in order to eat his lunch. His lunch box, which he had brought with him, was a large metal container. It made a loud clumping noise when he put it on the table.||Revise completely: |
Bill clumped his lunchbox onto the cafeteria table.
We don’t need to be told Bill walked into the room, that he looked for a table, that he had come into the room in order to eat, and that he had brought his lunchbox with him. We can figure out all those details on our own, from this very short sentence.
Only a heavy lunchbox would make a “clumping” noise, so we don’t need to be TOLD that the lunchbox is big and heavy.
The carefully-chosen details SHOW the point all by themselves — there is no need to add TELLING that repeats what the details already SHOW. (See “Show, Don’t (Just) Tell“.)