4 Engaging Sources

4.1 Read Generously to Understand, Then Critically to Engage and Evaluate

4.1.1 Look for Creative Agreement

4.1.2 Look for Creative Disagreement

4.2 Take Notes Systematically

4.2.1 Create Templates for Notes

4.2.2 Know When to Summarize, Paraphrase, or Quote

4.2.3 Guard against Inadvertent Plagiarism

4.3 Take Useful Notes

4.3.1 Use Note-Taking to Advance Your Thinking

4.3.2 Take Notes Relevant to Your Question and Working Hypothesis

4.3.3 Record Relevant Context

4.3.4 Categorize Your Notes for Sorting

4.4 Write as You Read

4.5 Review Your Progress

4.5.1 Search Your Notes for an Answer

4.5.2 Invent the Question

4.5.3 Re-sort Your Notes

4.6 Manage Moments of Normal Panic

Once you find a source worth a close look, don't read it mechanically, just
mining it for data to record. Note-taking is not clerical work. When you take
notes on a source thoughtfully, you engage not just its words and ideas, but its
implications, consequences, shortcomings, and new possibilities. Engage your
source as if its writer were sitting with you, eager for a conversation (it's how
you should imagine your readers engaging you).

4.1 Read Generously to Understand, Then Critically to Engage and

Evaluate For an advanced project, take the time to read your most promising
sources twice, first quickly and generously to understand them on their own
terms. If you disagree too soon, you can misunderstand or exaggerate a
weakness.
Then reread them slowly and critically, as if you were amiably but pointedly
questioning a friend; imagine his or her answers, then question them. If you
disagree, don't just reject a source: read it in ways that will encourage your own
original thinking.

You probably won't be able to engage your sources fully until after you've
done some reading and developed a few ideas of your own. But from the outset,
be alert for ways to read your sources not passively, as a consumer, but actively
and creatively, as an engaged partner. At some point, better earlier than later, you
must look for ways to go beyond your sources, even when you agree with them.

4.1.1 Look for Creative Agreement

It is a happy moment when a source confirms your views. But if you just
passively agree, you won't develop any of your own ideas. So try to extend what
your source claims: What new cases might it cover? What new insights can it
provide? Is there confirming evidence your source hasn't considered? Here are
some ways to agree creatively.

OFFER ADDITIONAL SUPPORT. You have new evidence to support a source's claim.
Smith uses anecdotal evidence to show that the Alamo story had mythic status beyond Texas, but a study of
big-city newspapers offers better evidence.
1. Source supports a claim with old evidence, but maybe you can offer new
evidence.
2. Source supports a claim with weak evidence, but maybe you can offer
stronger evidence.
CONFIRM UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS. You can prove something that a source has only
assumed or speculated.
Smith recommends visualization to improve sports performance, but a study of the mental activities of
athletes shows why that is good advice.
1. Source only speculates that X might be true, but maybe you can offer evidence
to show that it definitely is.
2. Source assumes that X is true, but maybe you can prove it.

APPLY A CLAIM MORE WIDELY. You can extend a position to new areas.
Smith has shown that medical students learn physiological processes better when they are explained with
many metaphors rather than by just one. The same appears to be true for engineers learning physical
processes.
1. Source correctly applies his claim to one situation, but maybe it can apply to
new ones.
2. Source claims that X is true in a specific situation, but maybe it's true in
general.

4.1.2 Look for Creative Disagreement

It is even more important to note when you disagree with a source, because
that might suggest a working hypothesis for your whole report. So instead of just
noting that you disagree with its views, use that disagreement to encourage your
own productive thinking. Here are some kinds of disagreement (these aren't
sharply defined categories; many overlap).

CONTRADICTIONS OF KIND. A source says something is one kind of thing, but

maybe it's another kind.
Smith says that certain religious groups are considered “cults” because of their strange beliefs, but those
beliefs are no different in kind from standard religions.
1. Source claims that X is a kind of Y (or like it), but maybe it's not.
2. Source claims that X always has Y as one its features or qualities, but maybe it
doesn't.
3. Source claims that X is normal/good/significant/useful/moral/interesting/. . .,
but maybe it's not.
(You can reverse those claims and the ones that follow to state the opposite:
though a source says X is not a kind of Y, you can show that it is.) PART-WHOLE
CONTRADICTIONS. You can show that a source mistakes how the parts of
something are related.
Smith has argued that sports are crucial to an educated person, but in fact athletics has no place in college.
1. Source claims that X is a part of Y, but maybe it's not.
2. Source claims that part of X relates to another of its parts in a certain way, but
 maybe it doesn't.
3. Source claims that every X has Y as one of its parts, but maybe it doesn't.

DEVELOPMENTAL OR HISTORICAL CONTRADICTIONS. You can show that a source

mistakes the origin and development of a topic.
Smith argues that the world population will continue to rise, but it will not.
1. Source claims that X is changing, but maybe it's not.
2. Source claims that X originated in Y, but maybe it didn't.
3. Source claims that X develops in a certain way, but maybe it doesn't.

EXTERNAL CAUSE-EFFECT CONTRADICTIONS. You can show that a source mistakes

a causal relationship: Smith claims that juveniles can be stopped from becoming criminals by “boot
camps.” But evidence shows that it makes them more likely to become criminals.
1. Source claims that X causes Y, but maybe it doesn't.
2. Source claims that X causes Y, but maybe they are both caused by Z.
3. Source claims that X is sufficient to cause Y, but maybe it's not.
4. Source claims that X causes only Y, but maybe it also causes Z.

CONTRADICTIONS OF Most contradictions don't change a

PERSPECTIVE.
conceptual framework, but when you can contradict a standard view of things,
you urge others to think in a new way.
Smith assumes that advertising is a purely economic function, but it also serves as a laboratory for new art
forms.
1. Source discusses X in the context of or from the point of view of Y, but maybe
a new context or point of view reveals a new truth (the new or old context can
be social, political, philosophical, historical, economic, ethical, gender
specific, etc.).
2. Source analyzes X using theory/value system Y, but maybe you can analyze X
from a new point of view and see it in a new way.
As we said, you probably won't be able to engage sources in these ways until
after you've read enough to form some views of your own. But if you keep these
ways of thinking in mind as you begin to read, you'll engage your sources sooner
and more productively.

Of course, once you discover that you can productively agree or disagree with
a source, you should then ask So what? So what if you can show that while
Smith claims that Easterners did not embrace the story of the Alamo
enthusiastically, in fact many did?
4.2 Take Notes Systematically
Like the other steps in a research project, note-taking goes better with a plan.

4.2.1 Create Templates for Notes

You will take notes more reliably if you set up a system that encourages you
to think beyond the mere content of your sources by analyzing and organizing
that content into useful categories. A few instructors still recommend taking
notes in longhand on 3 × 5 cards, as in figure 4.1. A card like that may seem old-
fashioned, but it provides a template for efficient note-taking, even if you take
notes on a laptop. (Start a new page for each general idea or claim that you
record from a source.) Here is a plan for such a template: At the top of each new
page, create a space for bibliographic data (author, short title, page number).
Create another space at the top for keywords (see upper right above). Those
words will later will let you sort and re-sort your notes by subject matter (for
more on keywords, see 4.3.4).
Create different places on each new page for different kinds of notes. You
might even label the places (see fig. 4.1, with places for a Claim, Data, and My
Qs).
In particular, create a section specifically dedicated to your own responses,
agreements, disagreements, speculations, and so on. That will encourage you
to do more than simply record the content of what you read.
When you quote the words of a source, record them in a distinctive color or
font size and style so that you can recognize quotations at a glance, and
enclose them in large quotation marks in case the file loses its formatting.
 When you paraphrase a passage (see 4.2.2), record the paraphrase in a
distinctive color or font so that you can't possibly mistake it for your own
ideas, and enclose it in curly brackets (in case the file loses its formatting).
If you can't take notes directly on a computer, make paper copies of the
template.

4.2.2 Know When to Summarize, Paraphrase, or Quote

It would take you forever to transcribe the exact words of every source you
might want to use, so you must know when not to quote, but to summarize or
paraphrase.
Summarize when you need only the general point of a passage, section, or
even whole article or book. Summary is useful for general context or related but
not specifically relevant data or views. A summary of a source never serves as
good evidence (see 5.4.2 for more on evidence).

Paraphrase when you can represent what a source says more clearly or
pointedly than it does. Paraphrase doesn't mean just changing a word or two.
You must use your own words and your own phrasing to replace most of the
words and phrasing of the passage (see 7.9.2). A paraphrase is never as good
evidence as a direct quotation.

Record exact quotations when they serve these purposes:

The quoted words constitute evidence that backs up your reasons. If, for
example, you wanted to claim that different regions responded to the Battle of
the Alamo differently, you would quote exact words from different
newspapers. You would paraphrase them if you needed only their general
sentiments.
The words are from an authority who backs up your view.
They are strikingly original.
They express your ideas so compellingly that the quotation can frame the rest
of your discussion.
They state a view that you disagree with, and to be fair you want to state that
view exactly.
If you don't record important words now, you can't quote them later. So copy
or photocopy passages more often than you think you'll need (for more on
photocopying, see 4.3.1). Never abbreviate a quotation thinking you can
accurately reconstruct it later. You can't. If you misquote, you fatally undermine
your credibility, so double check your quote against the original. Then check it
again.

4.2.3 Guard against Inadvertent Plagiarism

Sloppy note-taking has caused grief for students and professionals alike,
ranging from ridicule for trivial errors to professional exile for inadvertent
plagiarism. To avoid that risk, commit to heart these two iron rules for recording
information in notes: Always unambiguously identify words and ideas from a
source so that weeks or months later you cannot possibly mistake them for your
own. As recommended above, record quotations and paraphrases with quotation
marks, as well as in a font that unambiguously distinguishes them from your
own ideas.
Never paraphrase a source so closely that a reader can match the phrasing and
sense of your words with those in your source (see 7.9.2).
In fact, rather than retyping quotations of more than a few lines, download or
photocopy them. Add to the top of the downloaded or photocopied page the
name of the source and keywords for sorting.
This is important: never assume that you can use what you find online without
citing its source, even if it's free and publicly available. Nothing releases you
from the duty to acknowledge your use of anything you did not personally create
yourself. (For more on plagiarism, see 7.9.)

4.3 Take Useful Notes

Readers will judge your report not just by the quality of your sources and
how accurately you report them, but also by how deeply you engage them. To do
that, you must take notes in a way that not only reflects but encourages a
growing understanding of your project.

4.3.1 Use Note-Taking to Advance Your Thinking

Many inexperienced researchers think that note-taking is a matter of merely
recording data. Once they find a source, they download or photocopy pages or
write down exactly what's on them. Recording and photocopying can help you
quote or paraphrase accurately, but if that's all you do, if you don't engage your
sources actively, you will simply accumulate a lot of inert data that are likely to
be equally inert in your report.
If you photocopy lots of text, annotate it in a way that engages your critical
thinking. Start by picking out those sentences that express crucial elements in a
chapter or article (its claim, major reasons, and so on). Highlight or label them in
the margin. Then mark ideas or data that you expect to include in your report. (If
you use a highlighter, use different colors to indicate these different elements.)
Then on the back of the photocopied pages, summarize what you've
highlighted or sketch a response to it, or make notes in the margin that help you
interpret the highlighting. The more you write about a source now, the better you
will understand and remember it later.

4.3.2 Take Notes Relevant to Your Question and Working Hypothesis

To make your notes most useful, record not just the facts that you think you
can use as evidence, but data that help you explain those facts and their
relationship to your claim. You can create a notes template to help you remember
to look for several different kinds of information (see 4.2.1).
The first three items are directly relevant to your working hypothesis:
reasons that support your hypothesis or suggest a new one
evidence that supports your reasons
views that undermine or even contradict your hypothesis
Do not limit your notes to supporting data. You will need to respond to data
that qualify or even contradict your hypothesis when you make your case in
support of it (see 5.4.3).
These next items might not support or challenge your hypothesis, but they
may help you explain its context or simply make your report more readable:
historical background of your question, what authorities have said about it,
particularly earlier research (see 6.2.2 and 10.1.1) historical or contemporary
context that explains the importance of your question
important definitions and principles of analysis
analogies, comparisons, and anecdotes that might not directly support your
hypothesis but do explain or illustrate complicated issues or simply make your
analysis more interesting strikingly original language relevant to your topic

4.3.3 Record Relevant Context

Those who misreport sources deliberately are dishonest, but an honest
researcher can mislead inadvertently if she merely records words and ignores
their role or qualifications. To guard against misleading your reader, follow these
guidelines: 1. Do not assume that a source agrees with a writer when the source
summarizes that writer's line of reasoning. Quote only what a source believes,
not its account of someone else's beliefs, unless that account is relevant.
2. Record why sources agree, because why they agree can be as important as
why they don't. Two psychologists might agree that teenage drinking is caused
by social influences, but one might cite family background, the other peer
pressure.
3. Record the context of a quotation. When you note an important conclusion,
record the author's line of reasoning:
Not: Bartolli (p. 123): The war was caused . . . by Z.
But: Bartolli: The war was caused by Y and Z (p. 123), but the most important was Z (p. 123), for two
reasons: First, . . . (pp. 124–26); Second, . . . (p. 126) Even if you care only about a
conclusion, you'll use it more accurately if you record how a writer reached it.
4. Record the scope and confidence of each statement. Do not make a source
seem more certain or expansive than it is. The second sentence below doesn't
report the first fairly or accurately.
One study on the perception of risk (Wilson 1988) suggests a correlation between high-stakes gambling and
single-parent families.
Wilson (1988) says single-parent families cause high-stakes gambling.
5. Record how a source uses a statement. Note whether it's an important claim, a
minor point, a qualification or concession, and so on. Such distinctions help
you avoid mistakes like this: Original by Jones: We cannot conclude that one event causes
another because the second follows the first. Nor can statistical correlation prove causation. But no one
who has studied the data doubts that smoking is a causal factor in lung cancer.
Misleading report: Jones claims “we cannot conclude that one event causes another because the second
follows the first. Nor can statistical correlation prove causation.” Therefore, statistical evidence is not a
reliable indicator that smoking causes lung cancer.

4.3.4 Categorize Your Notes for Sorting

Finally, a conceptually demanding task: as you take notes, categorize the
content of each one under two or more different keywords (see the upper right
corner of the note card in fig. 4.1). Avoid mechanically using words only from
the note: categorize the note by what it implies, by a general idea larger than the
specific content of the note. Keep a list of the keywords you use, and use the
same ones for related notes. Do not create a new keyword for every new note.
This step is crucial because it forces you to distill the content of a note down
to a word or two, and if you take notes on a computer, those keywords will let
you instantly group related notes with a single Find-command. If you use more
than one keyword, you can recombine your notes in different ways to discover
new relationships (especially important when you feel you are spinning your
wheels; see 4.5.3).

4.4 Write as You Read

We've said this before (and will again): writing forces you to think hard, so
don't wait to nail down an idea in your mind before you write it out on the page.
Experienced researchers know that the more they write, the sooner and better
they understand their project. There is good evidence that the most successful
researchers set a fixed time to write every day—from fifteen minutes to more
than an hour. They might only draft a paragraph that responds to a source,
summarizes a line of reasoning, or speculates about a new claim. But they write
something, not to start a first draft of their report, but to sort out their ideas and
maybe discover new ones. If you miss your goals, post a schedule by your
computer.
If you write something that seems promising, add it to your storyboard. You
will almost certainly revise it for your final draft, maybe even omit it entirely.
But even if you reuse little of it, the more you write now, no matter how
sketchily, the more easily you'll draft later. Preparatory writing and drafting
aren't wholly different, but it's a good idea to think of them as distinct steps.

If you're new to a topic, much of this early writing may be just summary and
paraphrase. When you reread it, you might see few of your own ideas and feel
discouraged at your lack of original thinking. Don't be. Summarizing and
paraphrasing are how we all gain control over new data, new and complicated
ideas, even new ways of thinking. Writing out what we are trying to understand
is a typical, probably even necessary, stage in just about everyone's learning
curve.

4.5 Review Your Progress

Regularly review your notes and storyboard to see where you are and where
you have to go. Full pages indicate reasons with support; empty pages indicate
work to do. Check whether you think your working hypothesis is still plausible.
Do you have good reasons supporting it? Good evidence to support those
reasons? Can you add new reasons or evidence?
4.5.1 Search Your Notes for an Answer
We have urged you to find a working hypothesis or at least a question to
guide your research. But some writers start with a question so vague that it
evaporates as they pursue it. If that happens to you, search your notes for a
generalization that might be a candidate for a working hypothesis, then work
backward to find the question it answers.
Look first for questions, disagreements, or puzzles in your sources and in your
reaction to them (see 2.1.3 and 4.1). What surprises you might surprise others.
Try to state that surprise:
I expected the first mythic stories of the Alamo to originate in Texas, but they didn't. They originated in . . .
That tentative hypothesis suggests that the Alamo myth began as a national,
not a regional, phenomenon—a modest, but promising start.
If you can't find a hypothesis in your notes, look for a pattern of ideas that
might lead you to one. If you gathered data with a vague question, you probably
sorted them under predictable keywords. For masks, the categories might be
their origins (African, Indian, Japanese . . .), uses (drama, religion, carnival . .
.), materials (gold, feather, wood, . . .), and so on. For example:
Egyptians—mummy masks of gold for nobility, wood for others.
Aztecs—masks from gold and jade buried only in the graves of the nobility.
New Guinea tribes—masks for the dead from feathers from rare birds.
Those facts could support a general statement such as, Mask-making cultures
create religious masks from the most valuable material available, especially for
the dead.
Once you can generate two or three such statements, try to formulate a still
larger generalization that might include them all:

Many cultures invest great material and human resources in creating masks that represent their
deepest values.generalization Egyptians, Aztecs, and Oceanic cultures all created religious masks out of the
rarest and most valuable materials. Although in Oceanic cultures most males participate in mask-making,
both the Egyptians and Aztecs set aside some of their most talented artists and craftsmen for mask-making.
If you think that some readers might plausibly disagree with that
generalization, you might be able to offer it as a claim that corrects their
misunderstanding.

4.5.2 Invent the Question

Now comes a tricky part. It's like reverse engineering: you've found the
answer to a question that you haven't yet asked, so you have to reason backward