ELEMENTS OF A RESEARCH ARGUMENT

It is important that researchers grasp the parts of an argument, as well as how these parts integrate to create an effective, persuasive whole. The parts consist of a claim, reasons, evidence, acknowledgements, responses, and warrants. They link in the following manner: the researcher makes a claim, backs it up with reasons supported by evidence, the researcher acknowledges and responds to alternative opinions, and sometimes explains to the readers the principles or concepts (warrants) that support their reasoning. The following examples should help clarify how research arguments are constructed.i Claim: The claim is the answer to the research question and has two kinds of support: the reason and evidence. The reason often connects to the claim with a because clause. For example: The F-22 is necessary for the USAF to maintain air superiority <claim> because other states are developing new capabilities that threaten our ability to secure air superiority.<reason> The claim should be specific and not abstract or vague. In addition, the claim should express why the topic is important in order to get the readers attention and to stimulate investment by the reader in the researchers position. Reason and evidence are very similar but their differences are clear.ii Reasons and Evidence: Reasons state why the readers should accept the claim; evidence is what the readers accept as fact. Evidence that supports the claim is usually derived from sources.iii Whenever possible make sure the evidence is sufficient, representative, accurate, precise, and taken from authoritative sources. Most importantly, the evidence must be relevant to the claim. Again, an example: The F-22 is necessary for the USAF to maintain air superiority <claim> because other states are developing new capabilities that threaten our ability to secure air superiority.<reason> A National Intelligence Estimate (2007) has identified three new advanced air superiority fighter variants that are being developed, one by China, one by India, and one by Russia. In addition, these states are also developing advanced surface-to-air missile systems.<evidence>

F-22 Raptor with both engines on after-burner.

Evidence can come from many sources. Some common types of evidence are: definitions, examples, testimony, statistics, facts, and explanations. For more information on types of evidence see the Air Force Tongue and Quill, pages 4347.iv The F-22 example provided above appears reasonable; however, some people may reject the claim simply because only limited reasons and evidence have been offered. Anticipating or imagining the questions, objections, or complications posited by readers is a difficult process but very important in building a credible research argument. Acknowledgements/Responses: The process of acknowledging and responding indicates to readers that researchers are writing with them in mind. It also adds to a papers integrity by showing readers that the researcher is not only trying to be honest, but fair to opposing views or positions as well.v Building upon the previous example, the paragraph below illustrates how acknowledgement and response can bolster credibility. The F-22 is necessary for the USAF to maintain air superiority <claim> because other states are developing new capabilities that threaten our ability to secure air superiority.<reason> A National Intelligence Estimate (2007) has identified three new advanced air superiority fighter variants that are being developed, one by China, one by India, and one by Russia. In addition, these states are also developing advanced surface-to-air missile systems. <evidence> Some critics argue, however, that air superiority can be maintained without expensive air superiority fighters through the use of less expensive, robust integrated air defense systems. <acknowledgement> Unfortunately, these systems cast their users into a primarily defensive posture, essentially yielding the initiative and air superiority to the aggressor.<response>

Warrants/Principles: Creating a warrant can be difficult but is also very useful. For example, warrants can be used to explain the following: A cause-and-effect relationship. A one-thing-is-the-sign-of-another situation. A rule of behavior. A principle of reasoning that may be unknown to the readers.vi In the end, a warrant should indicate the logical relationship between the research arguments rationale and the research claim. For example: The F-22 is necessary for the USAF to maintain air superiority <claim> because other states are developing new capabilities that threaten our ability to secure air superiority.<reason> Our expeditionary posture requires the USAF to maintain the capability to conduct offensive combat operations. <warrant> In addition, a National Intelligence Estimate (2007) has identified three new advanced air superiority fighter variants that are being developed, one by China, one by India, and one by Russia. In addition, these states are also developing advanced surface-to-air missile systems.<evidence> Some critics argue, however, that air superiority can be maintained without expensive air superiority fighters through the use of less expensive, robust integrated air defense systems. <acknowledgement> Unfortunately, these systems cast their users into a primarily defensive posture, essentially yielding the initiative and air superiority to the aggressor.<response>

A pair of F-22s in flight

As previously noted, evidence has to be appropriate to the field or research community for which the research product is intended. There are also many different ways to convince readers of the validity of a research claim, whether it is with a different rationale or a broad variety of supporting evidence. Regardless of the approach, however, researchers should be consistent, use reliable terms and definitions consistent with the discipline/audience, and be concrete and concise in their arguments.

Lastly, as research represents the cutting edge of knowledge within a specific topic, researchers should recognize that they might have to innovate new approaches to adequately explain and convince their readers of the validity of their arguments. This requires some creativity. Solid evidence, an effective approach that convinces readers, a keen understanding of the intended audience and consistent use of language and fact that they will understand, and creativity all of these are part of the research argument and all serve to make the research effort both challenging and fun. Created by Drs. John T. Ackerman and Matthew C. Stafford, ACSC/DL [Updated by Dr. Kathleen A. Mahoney-Norris, ACSC/DL, December 2010; Attachment contains two additional research argument examples.] Sources: Air Force Handbook (AFH) 33-337, The Tongue and Quill, 1 August 2004. Online. Available at http://www.e-publishing.af.mil./shared/media/epubs/afh33337.pdf. Booth, Wayne C., Gregory G. Colomb, and Joseph M. Williams, The Craft of Research, 3rd edition. Chicago, IL.: The University of Chicago Press, 2008.

MORE EXAMPLES OF RESEARCH ARGUMENTS A.The economic and personal health costs of overweight and obesity are enormous and not only compromise the health of the United States but the Air Force as well <warrant>. The Air Force requires an alternative approach to resolving its overweight and obesity rates <claim> to optimize the effectiveness of its human weapons system and reduce economic costs <reason>. Total direct and indirect cost of overweight and obesity to the U.S. economy in 1995 dollars was $99.2 billion <evidence>. And while some critics argue that overweight and obesitys long term effects dont immediately impact the Air Force mission <acknowledgments>, they unfortunately fail to recognize the increased risk of injury and decreased productivity and absenteeism effects that do <response>. B.The US should invest 3.8% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in regular defense spending <claim>. By directly relating defense spending to national economic capacity as measured by GDP, Congress would help stabilize defense systems procurement and sustainment programs and ultimately better equip American warfighters as they protect Americas interests around the world <reasons>. This new approach to resourcing is necessary because the Department of Defense faces growing fiscal challenges based on the demands of protracted global operations, the growing costs of sustainment and recapitalization of aging weapons systems, heightened competition for increasingly scarce resources, and a long standing American tradition of allocating resources based on shifting political whims <evidence>. Despite these challenges, Americas armed forces must accomplish their missions; for example, the USAF must continue to incur costs so it can fly, fight, and win in air, space, and cyberspace <warrant>. In an effort to secure funding to cover those costs, senior USAF leaders recently echoed Defense Secretary Robert Gates in his call for directly linking regular military spending to the nations economic capacity as measured by GDP <more evidence>. Some critics contend, however, that defense spending has no logical relationship to GDP; they claim attempts to impose such a relationship are little more than attempts to minimize the magnitude of a defense budget that has swollen to absurdly gigantic proportions (Higgs, 2008) <acknowledgement>. Unfortunately, many critics fail to realize the difficult position defense leaders are in as they balance competing priorities, accomplish demanding missions in the present, and posture services to safeguard freedom in an unpredictable future. Critics also fail to acknowledge that GDP represents a nations economic capacity and expressing spending in relation to GDP provides a context within which global experts regularly assess affordability <responses>. [Created by Col Fred P. Stone, PhD, USAF, BSC]

Booth, Colomb, and Williams, The Craft of Research, 108-170. Ibid., 130-138. iii Ibid., 130-133. iv AFH 33-337, The Tongue and Quill, 43-47. v Booth, Colomb, and Williams, The Craft of Research, 139-151. vi Ibid., 153-154.
ii