Premise

The idea of using research to make your point might seem pretty straightforward. Just look at your typical thought process in this regard:

1. I have a point to make,
2. I should use research to prove that point,
3. My point will then be made.

Seems pretty simple, right?

Well, in premise, yes. But reality—as with most writing and communication guidelines—is far from this straightforward.

Basically, what we want you to take away from this page is an important rule: when you use research to make your point, you also need to consider whether or not that research is truly relevant to proving that point.

Examples

A Not So Effective Example

The rule above might sound like a pretty easy and reasonable one. But the discretion to decide what is “relevant” research can sometimes be tricky. So let’s take a quick look at an example of a paragraph from a paper which research is seemingly appropriately used:

As well as the cardiovascular system, the consumption of energy drinks also has severe health effects on the  brain, another major part of the body. According to Laura Sanders, a doctor of neurology at Mount Sinai Hospital, “Moderate caffeine intake during pregnancy changes baby brains, and not for the better” (12). The fact that caffeine intake during pregnancy negatively changes a baby’s brain, may lead to abnormal development of the already affected brain as a college-age student. If the make-up of the brain can be affected by the  amount of caffeine in these drinks, they are dangerous and should not be consumed. As a result  of the potential health problems the consumption of energy drinks can create, our university should limit their availability to students.

Now, in premise, this research might seem pretty impressive—and that’s because it is. If you look up “neurologist,” you’ll find that this is a job that requires years of medical training. And if you look up “Mount Sinai Hospital,” you’ll find one of the most prestigious medical institutions in America.

So if the source itself is inherently credible, then what’s the problem? Take a closer look back at this sample paragraph above, and consider what point is being claimed. We can break it down for you too:

• Caffeine negatively affects your body, particularly your brain.
• Specifically, brain development during pregnancy can be negatively impacted.
• This negative impact can lead to lifelong effects, including once these babies are born and grow up to become college students.
• Therefore, our university should limit caffeine drinks to students.

Do you notice anything odd about the logical progression of this argument? The premise essentially states that because research (and credible research) shows that caffeine can negatively impact brain development during pregnancy, our school shouldn’t allow students to consume it. But what does one point really have to do with the other? How would our school limiting caffeinated drinks to our students prevent them from their brains having developmental issues during pregnancy?

If the point is that because brain development during pregnancy has proven to be impacted negatively due to caffeine intake, and therefore our school shouldn’t be promoting and profiting off such drinks, then perhaps that’s a more reasonable argument. But why not make a more direct connection? Some better—ehm, more “relevant” research, might help to make this point. Research, for example, that shows:

• Negative impacts on student health, wellness, academic performance, etc.
• That pregnant students are more common than people might think, and thus, they need to be protected from such profit-driven forces.

The point here is that while the source in the sample above is indeed quite valid and impressive, it might just not be relevant for the nature of what the argument of this paper should really be focused on. Either the point needs to be clarified, and or the research needs to be changed.

A Much More Effective Example

So let’s take a quick look at a much more effective way to apply relevant research from another student paper about the nutrition of campus dining food at their university. Obviously, you’re going to want to do your research, and so your instinct might be to investigate scholarly sources, like research databases and library resources.

And good instincts! These areas are likely to yield what we typically consider as “valid sources.” But why? Often, the answer is because they’ve been vetted. E.g.: a comprehensive researched study across a dozen different universities calculating how high nutritional quality campus dining food has a direct link to increased student academic performance. This obviously sounds like it should be a quality (i.e., valid) source. And unless there’s any glaring biases that you notice, it’s probably all good.

But how can you now connect this scholarly source to your original topic: the quality of campus dining food at your college? Obviously, the study you found might have looked at this effect at a bunch of other universities, but maybe not at yours. It would be ideal to find one that did, but maybe this is the next closest thing.

So can you use it? Probably. But you definitely need to take the time to draw (i.e., explain) the connection as to why this study seems applicable to proving your point that your college should increase the nutritional quality of their campus food. If you can make this link clear in terms of the study seeming to be applicable because its looking at the same considerations that your school is, then you can probably make this case here! A good example might look something like this:

Research at the University of Omaha studied the connection between students who ate more nutritious campus food compared with others. Specifically, they tracked a pool of one hundred participants across an entire semester and found that the group who ate only at their Nutrifeast Dining Hall had 10% higher GPA than the other group who ate regular campus dining food. One participant perhaps put this impact into the best perspective by stating, “I feel that by regularly eating better, everything else in my academics improved slightly.” It seems safe to say that because our school has no such dining hall options that focuses solely on providing nutritious foods, that we’re basically all in the latter group.

Here you can see that the writer is drawing a seemingly logical parallel between research done elsewhere and how, based on the nature and metrics of the study analyzed, they are able to come to their conclusion. Obviously, it’s another consideration to ask which of these details are relevant to highlight (both in your assessment of the source as well as what you mention in your actual analysis and writing). But the main key is to simply ask, “how do I know that this connection is relevant? That it’s applicable to our situation?”

Further Considerations

• There’s lots of different types of research out there, some of which may be more appropriate than others in different circumstances (e.g. anecdotal evidence may or may not be relevant in certain key instances).
• Research itself can be “invalid.” I.e. just because someone cites a source, doesn’t mean that source is trustworthy or unbiased. But that’s a whole other topic for another day (and page).