SOC 776/978
WRITING SOCIOLOGY
B. Nadya Jaworsky
Room 3.59
Consultation Hours:
Tuesdays 14.00-15.00
or by appointment

Book/Article Review
•Book/Article Review – min. 600 words; max. 1000 words
•
•Final Version – due April 18 by 12 pm.
•
•BRING LAPTOP TO CLASS

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE BOOK REVIEWS
•Generally, need less description and more analysis/evaluation
•Are you reading them aloud?
•Eliminating wordiness – remember Becker and making sure each word is doing a job. Please cut at
least 75-100 words from what you think is your final version. I’ll be specifically looking for
that.
•
•
•

The word “interesting”
•Don’t use it. Use a thesaurus and say what you really mean:
•engaging
•appealing
•compelling
•provocative
•pleasurable
•stimulating
•
•
•
•

TQS shorthand:
•I am working on the TOPIC of…
•
•…because I want to find out how or why... (QUESTION)
•
•…so that I can help others understand how or why.... (Significance/SO WHAT)
•
•

•Two types of research questions – practical (what we should do) and conceptual (what should we
think?) •Think of your argument as the container for answers to readers’ questions.
•CLAIM + REASONS + EVIDENCE
•DON’T FORGET ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENTS & COUNTERFACTUALS! • But what about this other view? Give
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT & RESPONSE.
• WARRANT – mosquito example.

Use the parts of an argument to guide your research:
•What’s the answer to your research question (CLAIM)
•Why should I believe that? (REASONS)
•How do you know that reason to be true (EVIDENCE) •But have you considered this view?
(ACKNOWLEDGEMENT & RESPONSE)
•

•Working with an assigned topic – assume it’s shorthand even if not phrased like a question.
Explore X or analyze X or discuss X means, “Find an issue in X that raises a questions about a
specific aspect of X, whose answer will help us understand some larger theme, feature or quality of
X.” • Think about your personal interests. These can often come out through free writing.
• Keep your topic manageable.

•Creative Disagreements. Jaworsky claims that … but I will show…
• Kind – Jaworsky claims that ----- belongs in category A, but I will show that it really belongs
in category B.
•Jaworsky claims that ---------------- is normal/good/significant/useful/moral, but I will show
that it is really -------------.
• Part-whole Jaworsky claims that ---whole---------always has ----part---as one of its defining
features/components/qualities, but I will show that ---part--- is not essential.

•Change – Jaworsky claims that ------------------is changing in a certain way, but I will show that
it is really the same as it was. •Jaworsky claims that ------------------is changing in a certain
way, but I will show that it is really changing in a different way. •Jaworsky claims that
------------------is a stage/process in the development of -------------, but I will show that it
is not. • Cause and effect Jaworsky claims that ----------- causes --------------, but I will show
that it really causes ---------. •Jaworsky claims that ----------- is caused by --------------, but
I will show that it really is caused by -----------------. •Jaworsky claims that -----------------
is sufficient to cause-------------------, but I will show that ---------------- is also necessary.
•Build on Agreement. Jaworsky claims---- about this and I will show this about that.
•

Look for surprises
(Expected-Surprised-Problem)
•When I first read this text, I expected to find….So I was surprised when instead I found…I have a
problem because my old understanding of this text/author/argument makes sense only with (what you
expected) … not with (what you found).
•

Four ways to create an argument:
•Figure out how you have to change your understanding of the text: At first, it made sense to
understand the text (the way you did), but I will show why we should really understand it in a
different way. •How and why you were wrong: At first, it made sense to expect the text to (what you
expected) but I will show why that is based on a mistaken understanding of the text. •How and why
what you found actually fits in: When the text did not do (what you expected) I thought at first I
was wrong to expect it. But I will show that (what you expected) would have fit perfectly •How it
would have been better if author did what you expected rather than what you found: At first, it
seemed surprising that the text did not do (what you expected) but I will show that it would have
been better if it had.
•

Evaluating your questions:
•You can answer too easily
•No one could plausible disprove the answer because it seems self-evident •You can find the
evidence to support the answer •You would find so many sources that you cannot look at all of them
(Except for general theory)
•

Planning for an answer:
•Propose some working answers (WRITE don’t just think them)
• If you can’t find an answer, argue for your question.
• Build a storyboard to plan and guide your work.
• State your question and your working hypothesis; state your reasons.
• -Different ways of organization – chronological, cause and effect, relative importance,
complexity, length etc.
• Sketch in the kind of evidence you should look for.
•

My elevator story
(90 seconds or less)
•
•I am working on the problem of (state your question). •I think I can show that (state your
hypothesis) because (state your reasons). •My best evidence is (summarize your evidence).
•

NEXT WEEK
•REQUIRED READING:
•Turabian, Ch. 4-5, pp. 44-62 (18 pp.)
•Somekh & Lewin – Chapter 2 “Working with Literatures” (8 pp.)
•Becker, Writing for Social Scientists, Ch. 8 (14 pp.)
•HOMEWORK DUE: Final version – book/article review due April 18 by 12 pm.
•BRING LAPTOP TO CLASS!

Potential Topics
•Gun control
•Abortion rights
•Freedom of Speech
•Voting
•Education
•