Your Topic
Today we will discuss best practices for arriving at a research topic. Before we begin, let's review the six elements every research project should contain, with their definitions:
Topics can be Abstract or Concrete.
Today's discussion will be about topics. Topics can be abstract or concrete. Concrete topics include:
As you will start to see below, abstract topics almost always start off as too broad in scope for a research project. Sometimes concrete topics do, as well. That's okay. We have time to narrow things down.
- Topic: what is the general subject you wish to research?
- Question: what about your topic interests you? Why should it interest others?
- Objects: what specific cases, historical moments, geographical regions, or social groups most intrigue you, with regard to the question you raised, above? (Note: you may want to think of objects as subsets of your original subject, above.)
- Lens: whose theoretical work will inform and influence you as you consider your questions vis a vis your objects?
- Method: precisely what original work will you be doing as part of your research, how will you do it, when, where, with whom, and why?
- Presentation: how, when, and where do you plan to deliver the findings or results of your original work to your audience?
Topics can be Abstract or Concrete.
Today's discussion will be about topics. Topics can be abstract or concrete. Concrete topics include:
- A person: actual or fictional, living or dead
- A group of people: a culture, a subculture (e.g. voting blocks, fan groups, etc.)
- A place: actual or fictional, past or present
- A thing: e.g. a painting, book, architectural site, video game, web site, film, song, piece of clothing, etc.
- An institution: e.g., universities, armies, hospitals, etc.
- An industry: e.g. banking, recording, film, etc.
- An event: e.g. a performance, an exhibition, a ritual, a holiday, a battle, etc.
- A phenomenon: cultural or subcultural (e.g., the appearance of ‘heroin chic’ in the fashion industry, the rise of ‘stay at home dads’ etc.)
- authenticity
- identity
- surveillance
- branding
- revolution
- memory
- appropriation
- publics
- or any of the terms discussed in our Theory Texts.
As you will start to see below, abstract topics almost always start off as too broad in scope for a research project. Sometimes concrete topics do, as well. That's okay. We have time to narrow things down.
Regarding the Scope of your Topic
As a general rule of thumb: the smaller scope of your topic, the more controllable your research project will be.
Consider the following example:
OPTION 1: "I want to talk about how dangerous surveillance is."
OUR COMMENT: For our purposes, this is too broad a topic for an undergraduate level research project.
OPTION 2: "I want to talk about the government gets more and more information about us every day.”
OUR COMMENT: This is okay, but still needs refining.
OPTION 3: "I want to talk about how the New York City Metrocard can be used to track people, compare it to the Oyster Card program used in London, and asking whether we want our government to be monitoring its citizens in that way.”
OUR COMMENT: This is a nicely sized topic for an undergraduate research project. Can you see why this would be?
_______________
Here’s another example:
OPTION 1: "I want to talk about how messed up the advertising industry is."
OUR COMMENT: This is too broad in scope.
OPTION 2: "I want to talk about how it seems that people are always encouraged to be thin in advertising."
OUR COMMENT: This is okay, but still needs refining.
OPTION 3: "I want to talk about this time when I was working at a modeling agency and I witnessed my bosses picking models for a specific shoot based on whether they could see the models' ribcages through their shirts. I’m especially interested in the fact that all this was going on while activists were staging “Size Zero” protests during New York Fashion Week."
OUR COMMENT: Option 3 is starting to feel like a nicely sized topic for a paper. Can you see why this would be?
As a general rule of thumb: the smaller scope of your topic, the more controllable your research project will be.
Consider the following example:
OPTION 1: "I want to talk about how dangerous surveillance is."
OUR COMMENT: For our purposes, this is too broad a topic for an undergraduate level research project.
OPTION 2: "I want to talk about the government gets more and more information about us every day.”
OUR COMMENT: This is okay, but still needs refining.
OPTION 3: "I want to talk about how the New York City Metrocard can be used to track people, compare it to the Oyster Card program used in London, and asking whether we want our government to be monitoring its citizens in that way.”
OUR COMMENT: This is a nicely sized topic for an undergraduate research project. Can you see why this would be?
_______________
Here’s another example:
OPTION 1: "I want to talk about how messed up the advertising industry is."
OUR COMMENT: This is too broad in scope.
OPTION 2: "I want to talk about how it seems that people are always encouraged to be thin in advertising."
OUR COMMENT: This is okay, but still needs refining.
OPTION 3: "I want to talk about this time when I was working at a modeling agency and I witnessed my bosses picking models for a specific shoot based on whether they could see the models' ribcages through their shirts. I’m especially interested in the fact that all this was going on while activists were staging “Size Zero” protests during New York Fashion Week."
OUR COMMENT: Option 3 is starting to feel like a nicely sized topic for a paper. Can you see why this would be?
On Situating Yourself vis a vis Your Topic
You know what else is good about option 3, above? It nicely situates the narrator of the paper. She doesn’t come across as some Neutral Grand Authority; she states clearly and up front that she is an employee of an advertising agency, and a witness to an event that touches on larger concerns regarding modeling and weight.
Also important: a writer may have multiple roles in the stories they tell, and this matters hugely. For instance, in Option 3, we know the person is an employee, but she may also be a student, an aspiring model herself, etc. All of these roles are going to affect what she sees in her analysis, and what she does not.
When you choose your object, you are going to have to state and explore your position, as well. Again, this is why I think stories are useful. When you begin with a personal story, you are taking the rhetorical position not of the Expert, but of the individual with an incident to share.
(Please note: Some will argue that there are HUGE problems with the lie of the "ordinary person with an ordinary story" routine. The biggest problem critics have with this is that the "ordinary person" IS declaring him/herself an expert, just by the ACT writing on a topic. And what's more, s/he protects him/herself in a way an expert cannot: that is, by hiding behind the cover of "hey, I'm just an ordinary person." If you want to see this in action, check out Rush Limbaugh, for instance, or pretty much any moron on AM radio. In many ways, I agree with this critique. Still, for our purposes, I still think the "ordinary person" approach is the way to go, particularly since we WILL be interrogating our own perspectives vis a vis our "question", which I will discuss next.
You know what else is good about option 3, above? It nicely situates the narrator of the paper. She doesn’t come across as some Neutral Grand Authority; she states clearly and up front that she is an employee of an advertising agency, and a witness to an event that touches on larger concerns regarding modeling and weight.
Also important: a writer may have multiple roles in the stories they tell, and this matters hugely. For instance, in Option 3, we know the person is an employee, but she may also be a student, an aspiring model herself, etc. All of these roles are going to affect what she sees in her analysis, and what she does not.
When you choose your object, you are going to have to state and explore your position, as well. Again, this is why I think stories are useful. When you begin with a personal story, you are taking the rhetorical position not of the Expert, but of the individual with an incident to share.
(Please note: Some will argue that there are HUGE problems with the lie of the "ordinary person with an ordinary story" routine. The biggest problem critics have with this is that the "ordinary person" IS declaring him/herself an expert, just by the ACT writing on a topic. And what's more, s/he protects him/herself in a way an expert cannot: that is, by hiding behind the cover of "hey, I'm just an ordinary person." If you want to see this in action, check out Rush Limbaugh, for instance, or pretty much any moron on AM radio. In many ways, I agree with this critique. Still, for our purposes, I still think the "ordinary person" approach is the way to go, particularly since we WILL be interrogating our own perspectives vis a vis our "question", which I will discuss next.
Regarding the Importance of Narrative
Though there are many exceptions to this rule, most essays require a beginning, middle and end. Obviously, personal stories help do this, but they aren’t they only way to move narrative along. Consider the following:
Option A: "I want to talk about caller ID as a dehumanizing phenomenon."
Option B: "I want to talk about my internal debate over getting caller ID"
Option C: "I want to talk about the fact that after a local politician had caller ID installed in his office, his constituent satisfaction rates with call-in queries dropped more than thirty percent."
Purely in terms of narrative strength, I would suggest that Option A seems narratively “weak,” while B and C are “stronger.”
Why? Because A and B show temporal progression (i.e. "before getting caller id, after getting caller id) whereas Option A lacks it.
The other nice thing about Options B and C is that the particular stories naturally lead into a discussion of larger social questions, whereas big universal openings quickly devolve into rants, if not handled with care.
Please note that I'm NOT saying you can't write in the style of Option A. It is just more difficult to do so. Contrary to what many expository writing teachers believe, I think it's troublesome to begin with some huge statement and "shrink down" to the particular. To begin an essay with the statement "Technology X is dehumanizing" begs too many questions, from "Dehumanizing for whom?" to "Who are you to decide what constitutes a 'human' approach?” If you simply MUST write in the style of Option A, I am going to ask you to confer with me first, to avoid pitfalls.
Though there are many exceptions to this rule, most essays require a beginning, middle and end. Obviously, personal stories help do this, but they aren’t they only way to move narrative along. Consider the following:
Option A: "I want to talk about caller ID as a dehumanizing phenomenon."
Option B: "I want to talk about my internal debate over getting caller ID"
Option C: "I want to talk about the fact that after a local politician had caller ID installed in his office, his constituent satisfaction rates with call-in queries dropped more than thirty percent."
Purely in terms of narrative strength, I would suggest that Option A seems narratively “weak,” while B and C are “stronger.”
Why? Because A and B show temporal progression (i.e. "before getting caller id, after getting caller id) whereas Option A lacks it.
The other nice thing about Options B and C is that the particular stories naturally lead into a discussion of larger social questions, whereas big universal openings quickly devolve into rants, if not handled with care.
Please note that I'm NOT saying you can't write in the style of Option A. It is just more difficult to do so. Contrary to what many expository writing teachers believe, I think it's troublesome to begin with some huge statement and "shrink down" to the particular. To begin an essay with the statement "Technology X is dehumanizing" begs too many questions, from "Dehumanizing for whom?" to "Who are you to decide what constitutes a 'human' approach?” If you simply MUST write in the style of Option A, I am going to ask you to confer with me first, to avoid pitfalls.