A manual for writers of research papers, theses, and dissertations, 7th edition - Kate L. Turabian 2007

Look for creative disagreement
Engaging sources
Part I. Research and writing: from planning to production

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 PERSPECTIVE. Most contradictions don't change a 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?