Research and Writing

 Q. What is Research? Discuss in detail.

Introduction

Research is a systematic, critical, and disciplined process of inquiry undertaken to expand knowledge, reinterpret existing ideas, or solve specific problems. In the academic world, research is not simply the collection of information; rather, it is an intellectual investigation guided by questions, supported by evidence, and shaped by analytical reasoning. For an MA research scholar, research represents participation in a larger scholarly conversation, where one engages with previous thinkers, evaluates arguments, and contributes new insights to the field.

Research can be understood through several key characteristics and processes

1. Research as Systematic Inquiry

Research is not random reading or casual observation. It follows a planned and organized method. A researcher begins with a clear question or problem and then proceeds step by step—selecting sources, collecting data, analyzing evidence, and forming conclusions.

For example, instead of broadly studying “modern literature,” a scholar may ask: How does postcolonial identity shape narrative voice in contemporary novels? This focused inquiry gives direction and structure to the research process.

2. Research as Exploration and Discovery

Research is a form of intellectual exploration. It allows the scholar to investigate unfamiliar areas, test assumptions, and discover patterns or meanings. Often, research modifies or challenges the researcher’s initial opinions.

This exploratory nature makes research dynamic. As new evidence emerges, earlier assumptions may need revision. Thus, research is not fixed but evolving.

3. Use of Primary and Secondary Sources

A significant feature of academic research is the use of evidence.

• Primary sources are original materials such as literary texts, historical documents, speeches, interviews, survey data, or experiments. These are the main objects of study.
  
  

• Secondary sources are scholarly works—books, journal articles, critical essays—that analyze or interpret primary materials.
  
  

A mature research project integrates both. Primary sources provide direct evidence, while secondary sources situate the study within existing scholarship and strengthen the academic foundation of the argument.

4. Critical Evaluation of Sources

Research requires careful evaluation of materials. Not all sources are reliable or authoritative. A researcher must assess:

• The credibility of the author

• The accuracy of information

• The currency of publication

• The presence of bias

This critical approach ensures that arguments are supported by trustworthy and scholarly evidence.

5. Development of an Original Argument

Research is not mere summary. It involves interpretation and argumentation. After examining evidence, the researcher develops a thesis—a clear and focused statement presenting a central claim.

For an MA scholar, originality does not necessarily mean discovering something entirely new, but offering a fresh perspective, connecting ideas in new ways, or applying existing theories to new contexts.

6. Organization and Structure

Effective research must be presented logically. This includes:

• A clear introduction presenting the research question and thesis

• A structured body with coherent paragraphs

• Evidence integrated and properly documented

• A conclusion that synthesizes findings

Organization ensures clarity and strengthens persuasion.

7. Ethical Responsibility and Documentation

Academic research demands integrity. All borrowed ideas, quotations, and data must be properly cited. Documentation is not a mere technical requirement; it reflects honesty and respect for intellectual property.

Avoiding plagiarism and acknowledging sources enhances the credibility of the research work.

8. Research as Contribution to Knowledge

Finally, research contributes to the academic community. It builds upon previous scholarship and adds to ongoing discussions. Each research paper becomes part of a broader intellectual dialogue.

For a postgraduate scholar, research is a step toward independent thinking and scholarly maturity.

Conclusion

In conclusion, research is a systematic, critical, and reflective process aimed at generating or refining knowledge. It involves structured inquiry, exploration, careful use of primary and secondary sources, critical evaluation, development of original arguments, organized presentation, and ethical responsibility. For an MA research scholar, research is not only an academic exercise but a disciplined intellectual journey that sharpens analytical skills, deepens understanding, and contributes meaningfully to the field of study.

Q.Short Note : Outlining

Introduction

Outlining is a crucial stage in the research writing process. It acts as a structured plan that bridges the gap between research and drafting. By arranging ideas systematically before writing, outlining helps the researcher develop a clear, logical, and coherent paper. It ensures that the argument progresses in an organized and purposeful manner.

Outlining can be understood through the following key points:

1. Working Outline as an Intermediate Step

A working outline is prepared during the research phase. It is flexible and subject to revision as new information is gathered. It helps the writer:

• Identify major topics and subtopics

• Keep research focused and relevant

• Understand the overall direction of the paper

• Revise ideas as understanding deepens

Many instructors require submission of a working outline, especially in research project portfolios, to track the development of thought.

2. Development of a Thesis Statement

Outlining is closely connected with the formation of a thesis statement. The thesis:

• Is a single sentence expressing the central argument

• Answers the main research question

• Provides unity to the paper

• Guides the structure of the outline

While drafting the thesis, the writer must consider purpose (to argue, analyze, explain, or persuade) and audience (specialists or general readers). The thesis may evolve during the writing process.

3. Transition from Working Outline to Final Outline

After finalizing the thesis, the writer develops a final outline. This stage involves:

• Reviewing notes carefully

• Deleting irrelevant or repetitive material

• Ensuring all sections directly support the thesis

• Organizing ideas logically under clear headings

The final outline serves as a blueprint for writing the complete paper.

4. Organizing Principles

Effective outlines follow logical organizing principles such as:

• Chronology – arranging ideas in time order

• Cause and Effect – showing relationships between events or ideas

• Process Analysis – explaining steps in a procedure

• Deductive Logic – moving from general to specific

• Inductive Logic – moving from specific examples to general conclusions

Choosing the right structure strengthens clarity and coherence.

5. Methods of Development

The outline should reflect the writer’s method of development, such as:

• Defining or classifying concepts

• Comparing and contrasting ideas

• Using examples or descriptive details

• Presenting and supporting an argument

This ensures that the paper remains focused and purposeful.

6. Types and Format of Outlines

There are two common forms:

• Topic Outline – uses brief phrases

• Sentence Outline – uses complete sentences

Proper labeling (I, A, 1, a, etc.) maintains structural order and logical hierarchy.

7. Integration of Sources

An effective outline may include references to quotations and sources. This helps the writer:

• Plan evidence placement

• Maintain balance between ideas and support

• Save time during drafting
  

Creating separate computer files for each major topic can also make writing more efficient.

Conclusion

In conclusion, outlining is an essential preparatory step in academic research writing. It provides clarity, logical structure, and direction. From drafting a working outline to developing a final organized structure, outlining refines the thesis, eliminates unnecessary material, and ensures coherence. Careful planning through outlining ultimately leads to a more effective, well-structured, and persuasive research paper.

Q. Prepare a reverse outline of at least one research paper pertaining to your area of research interest and share it as an infographic on your blog along with the thinking activity. The reverse outline should highlight the following: 1) Hypothesis of the paper 2) Argumentative steps 3) Evidence types 4) Counter-arguments 5) Conclusion strategy.

Dhruv Purabiya, “Monster’s Humanity in Frankenstein by Mary Shelley”

Reverse Outline of

“Monster’s Humanity in Frankenstein by Mary Shelley”

Part I: Detailed Reverse Outline

🔎 Central Hypothesis

The central argument of Purabiya’s article is that monstrosity in Frankenstein is not confined to the creature’s physical deformity. Instead, monstrosity operates at multiple levels—emotional, ethical, social, and intellectual. The monster becomes violent not because he is inherently evil, but because he is denied love and recognition. At the same time, Victor Frankenstein’s scientific irresponsibility and emotional neglect constitute another form of monstrosity. Ultimately, the paper argues that the novel is not merely a Gothic horror tale but a profound reflection on human relationships, moral accountability, and social alienation.

IJRHS_2018_vol06_issue_9_Eng_07

---

🧱 Argumentative Progression of the Paper

The article unfolds in a structured sequence that gradually deepens the concept of monstrosity.

1. Defining the Monster

The paper begins by grounding its discussion in dictionary definitions (Merriam-Webster) and cultural interpretations of the monster. It establishes that the idea of the monster has evolved historically and culturally, shifting from mythical horror to symbolic representation.

2. Defining Monstrosity

The focus then moves to the concept of monstrosity. Drawing on dictionary meanings and theoretical perspectives (such as Alexa Wright), the article expands monstrosity beyond physical deformity to include social abnormality and boundary transgression.

3. Historical Context of Frankenstein

The paper situates the novel in the context of 1816 Geneva, linking it to Gothic aesthetics, Romanticism, and contemporary scientific experimentation. This section frames the novel as a product of its intellectual and scientific environment.

4. The Conception of the Monster

The article examines the creature’s namelessness and symbolic identity. The comparison between Mary Shelley’s composite name and the monster’s constructed body introduces the theme of fragmented identity.

5. The Monster’s Monstrosity

Through textual analysis (e.g., the labeling of the creature as “daemon”), the article demonstrates how narrative framing shapes the reader’s perception. It questions whether the monster is truly demonic or merely perceived as such.

6. The Monster’s Humanity

This is the emotional core of the paper. The argument shifts toward the creature’s longing for love, companionship, and belonging. By using direct quotations from the novel and biographical parallels from Shelley’s life, the article reframes the monster as a deeply human figure shaped by rejection.

7. Victor Frankenstein’s Monstrosity

The focus then turns to Victor. His unchecked ambition, scientific arrogance, and refusal to accept responsibility are analyzed as forms of moral monstrosity. The creator, not only the creature, becomes ethically suspect.

8. Mary Shelley’s Monstrosity

The article concludes its analysis by examining Shelley’s biography. Her experiences of loss, abandonment, and trauma are connected to the novel’s themes, suggesting that the narrative itself emerges from personal and cultural tensions.

---

📚 Types of Evidence Used

Purabiya’s article uses a layered range of evidence:

• Dictionary definitions (lexical authority)

• Literary theory and criticism

• Historical background (Romantic and Gothic context)

• Direct textual quotations from Frankenstein

• Biographical details from Mary Shelley’s life

• Secondary scholarly sources

This multi-dimensional approach strengthens the argument by combining textual analysis with theoretical and historical grounding. 

 Counter-Arguments and Tensions Addressed

Although not explicitly framed as debates, the paper engages several critical tensions:

• Is the monster inherently evil or socially constructed?

• Is monstrosity physical or moral?

• Is the novel merely Gothic horror or ethical commentary?

• Is the creature the true monster, or is Victor?

By gradually shifting the focus from body to behavior and from appearance to responsibility, the article destabilizes the simplistic reading of the creature as pure evil.

---

🔚 Conclusion Strategy

The conclusion synthesizes the discussion by emphasizing the evolving meaning of “monster” and “monstrosity.” It argues that the creature becomes a hybrid symbol reflecting social disorder and ethical failure. The article closes by elevating the novel beyond fairy tale horror, positioning it instead as a reflection on human relationships and societal principles.

---

✍️ Part III: Thinking Activity Reflection

Reverse outlining this article allowed me to see how its argument develops structurally rather than declaratively. At first glance, the topic appears to be a straightforward exploration of the monster’s character. However, mapping the structure reveals that the paper gradually transfers monstrosity from physical appearance to moral failure, and finally to social and biographical dimensions.

One important insight from this exercise is that the emotional pivot of the article lies in the discussion of love and rejection. The earlier sections (definitions, theory, historical context) establish authority and conceptual clarity, but the argument gains depth only when the monster’s humanity is foregrounded. The placement of Victor’s monstrosity after the creature’s humanization is also strategic—it forces the reader to reconsider assumptions.

This reverse outlining activity taught me that academic arguments are often layered and cumulative. Rather than stating the most radical claim immediately, the author builds toward it step by step. It also demonstrated how integrating different types of evidence—dictionary definitions, theoretical perspectives, textual quotations, and biography—creates interpretive depth.

Most importantly, I learned that Frankenstein can be read not as a simple Gothic narrative but as a complex ethical meditation on responsibility, rejection, and the consequences of denying humanity to the “other.” Reverse outlining made the architecture of that interpretation visible.

Plagiarism and Academic Integrity

Q. What is Plagiarism and what are its consequences?

Introduction

Plagiarism is one of the most serious ethical concerns in academic writing and research. In the world of higher education, especially at the level of an M.A. research scholar, originality, honesty, and proper acknowledgment of sources are not optional qualities but essential academic values. Research is built upon trust, transparency, and respect for intellectual labor. Academic integrity demands that scholars clearly differentiate between their own ideas and those borrowed from existing sources. When a writer fails to make this distinction and presents borrowed material as original, plagiarism occurs. Therefore, understanding plagiarism and its consequences is fundamental for responsible scholarship.

Meaning and Nature of Plagiarism

Plagiarism refers to the act of using another person’s ideas, words, arguments, data, or expressions without proper acknowledgment and presenting them as one’s own creation. The word originates from a Latin term meaning “kidnapper,” symbolically suggesting the theft of intellectual property. Plagiarism involves two central ethical violations: intellectual theft and fraud. It is intellectual theft because it denies the original author due credit for their work. It is fraud because it deceives readers, instructors, or evaluators into believing that the work is original.

Plagiarism is primarily an ethical and academic offense, but in some cases it may also involve copyright infringement, which is a legal violation. However, even when it does not break the law, plagiarism still violates academic standards and moral responsibility. In research writing, scholars are expected to build upon previous knowledge while clearly acknowledging their sources. Proper citation is therefore not a formality but a recognition of intellectual contribution.

Forms of Plagiarism

Forms of plagiarism may be obvious or subtle. The most direct and serious form is submitting a paper written entirely by someone else, including purchased or downloaded research papers. However, plagiarism also occurs when a writer copies text without quotation marks, paraphrases ideas without citation, or uses a distinctive phrase or concept without acknowledgment. Even when the wording is changed, presenting another scholar’s argument or line of reasoning as one’s own constitutes plagiarism.

Another important form is self-plagiarism, which occurs when a student reuses previously submitted academic work for credit in another course without permission. Although the material originally belongs to the writer, presenting it as new work is considered deceptive.

In many cases, plagiarism may be unintentional. This often happens when researchers fail to keep clear notes distinguishing between their own reflections and borrowed material. Copying and pasting from digital sources without proper marking, or imitating sentence structure too closely in a second language, may also lead to accidental plagiarism. However, unintentional plagiarism still carries consequences, as responsibility ultimately lies with the writer.

Consequences of Plagiarism

The consequences of plagiarism are severe at academic, professional, and social levels. Within academic institutions, students found guilty of plagiarism may face failure in assignments, failure in courses, academic probation, suspension, or even expulsion. Such penalties reflect the seriousness with which institutions uphold academic integrity. Plagiarism damages the relationship between teachers and students by replacing trust with suspicion, thereby weakening the academic environment.

At the professional level, the consequences can be even more damaging. Scholars, journalists, and authors exposed for plagiarism may suffer loss of employment, withdrawal of published work, public embarrassment, and irreparable damage to their reputation. Academic careers built over many years can collapse due to a single proven act of plagiarism. Since scholarship depends heavily on credibility, once trust is lost, it is extremely difficult to regain.

Beyond individual consequences, plagiarism also affects institutions and society. Educational institutions risk losing credibility when academic dishonesty becomes common. Society depends on reliable research in fields such as medicine, law, governance, and public policy. When plagiarism undermines scholarly standards, it weakens public confidence in academic knowledge. Moreover, on a personal level, plagiarism deprives scholars of intellectual growth, critical thinking skills, and the development of an authentic academic voice.

Conclusion

In conclusion, plagiarism is the unethical practice of presenting another person’s intellectual work as one’s own without proper acknowledgment. It constitutes both intellectual theft and academic fraud. Plagiarism may take many forms, ranging from direct copying to subtle paraphrasing without citation, and may sometimes occur unintentionally. However, its consequences are serious and long-lasting, affecting academic standing, professional reputation, and public trust in scholarship. For an M.A. research scholar, maintaining academic integrity, practicing careful documentation, and ensuring originality are essential responsibilities that safeguard the credibility, dignity, and authenticity of scholarly work.

Q. Write a short note on: When Documentation is Not Needed. (5 Marks)

Introduction

In academic writing, proper documentation is essential to maintain academic integrity and to avoid plagiarism. Scholars are expected to acknowledge all borrowed ideas, quotations, and arguments. However, not every piece of information requires citation. Knowing when documentation is not needed helps maintain clarity and avoids unnecessary referencing.

Documentation is not required in certain specific situations:

1. Common Knowledge
Citation is not needed when the information used is considered common knowledge. This includes facts that are widely known by the general public or commonly accepted within a field of study. For example, stating that India gained independence in 1947 does not require documentation because it is universally recognized.

2. Basic Biographical or Historical Facts
Well-known details such as the birth and death dates of famous authors or major historical events usually do not require citation, provided they are not controversial or disputed.

3. Undisputed Scholarly Facts
When information is broadly accepted among scholars and not subject to debate, documentation may not be necessary. However, if there is any scholarly disagreement, proper citation becomes essential.

4. Proverbs, Sayings, and Clichés
Commonly used expressions, proverbs, and clichés do not usually require documentation because they are part of shared cultural knowledge and are not attributed to a specific author.

5. Personal Observations or Original Ideas
Ideas, arguments, and interpretations that originate from the writer’s own thinking do not require citation. However, the writer must ensure that these ideas are genuinely original and not influenced by specific uncredited sources.

Despite these exceptions, scholars must exercise careful judgment. When there is uncertainty about whether information qualifies as common knowledge, it is always safer to provide a citation.

Conclusion

In conclusion, documentation is not needed for common knowledge, basic historical facts, undisputed information, proverbs and clichés, and one’s own original ideas. However, academic writing demands careful evaluation and responsibility. When facts are debatable or specific to a particular source, proper documentation is necessary to maintain scholarly credibility and integrity.

Q. A student rewrites a scholarly paragraph by changing sentence structure and vocabulary but retains the same ideas and sequence of argument. They do not provide a citation because they believe they are “not copying anything.” 

How should this be treated under MLA guidelines? Does paraphrasing require citation? What would you do in this situation and why?

From an academic perspective, this situation would clearly fall under plagiarism according to MLA guidelines. Even though the student has altered the sentence structure and vocabulary, they have retained the original author’s ideas, structure of reasoning, and sequence of argument. In scholarly writing, intellectual ownership extends beyond exact wording; it includes conceptual frameworks, arguments, and patterns of thought. Therefore, rewriting without acknowledgment does not make the material original.

Under MLA standards, paraphrasing absolutely requires citation. MLA emphasizes that any use of another author’s ideas—whether through direct quotation, summary, or paraphrase—must be properly documented with an in-text citation and corresponding entry in the Works Cited list. The misconception that citation is required only when copying exact words reflects a limited understanding of academic ethics. The core issue is not textual similarity but intellectual borrowing. Retaining the same argument structure without attribution constitutes misrepresentation of authorship.

If I encountered this situation, I would treat it as a case of improper attribution, and I would first assess whether the act was intentional or due to lack of understanding. As a research scholar, I believe that academic training involves cultivating awareness of citation ethics. I would advise the student to revise the paragraph by clearly acknowledging the source through proper MLA in-text citation and ensuring that the source is listed in the Works Cited section. Additionally, I would encourage the student to engage more critically with the material rather than merely restructuring it linguistically.

My reasoning is grounded in the principle of academic integrity, which requires transparency in acknowledging intellectual debts. Scholarship is cumulative; it builds upon previous research. Proper citation does not weaken a writer’s authority but rather strengthens it by situating their work within an existing scholarly conversation. Failing to cite paraphrased material undermines both credibility and ethical responsibility.

Q. Two classmates study together, exchange notes, and discuss how to approach an essay. Their final essays are not identical in wording but share the same structure, examples, and argument path.

Is this plagiarism, collaboration, or something in between? How should credit or boundaries operate?

This situation falls somewhere between legitimate collaboration and potential academic misconduct. Studying together, exchanging notes, and discussing possible approaches to an essay are generally acceptable and often encouraged in academic settings. Such discussions help students clarify concepts, test arguments, and strengthen understanding. Collaboration at the learning stage supports intellectual growth.

However, the issue becomes more complicated when the final essays share the same structure, examples, and argument path, even if the wording is different. Academic writing values not only originality of language but also independent development of ideas, structure, and analysis. If two essays closely mirror each other in organization and reasoning, it may indicate excessive dependence on shared planning rather than independent thinking.

Whether this counts as plagiarism depends on institutional guidelines and the extent of similarity. It may not be direct plagiarism in the sense of copying exact words, but it could be considered unauthorized collaboration if the instructor expected entirely independent work. Many institutions distinguish between acceptable discussion and impermissible joint production of structured content. When collaboration shapes the core argument and outline too closely, it risks crossing academic boundaries.

Credit and boundaries should operate clearly. Collaboration is appropriate at the level of discussion, brainstorming, and clarification of ideas. However, once students begin drafting, each person should independently construct their thesis, organization, examples, and interpretation. If collaboration significantly influences the structure of the essay, students should seek clarification from the instructor.

As a student, I would approach this situation carefully. I would ensure that my final essay reflects my own independent reasoning and structure, even if initial discussions were shared. Academic integrity requires both openness to intellectual exchange and commitment to individual authorship. The key principle is maintaining transparency while demonstrating genuine independent engagement with the subject.

Q.A student uses two pages of their essay submitted in last semester’s course and integrates it into a new assignment without citing themselves. 

Does MLA treat this as plagiarism? What is this type of plagiarism called? What would an ethical approach look like here?

Yes, under MLA guidelines, this situation is considered a form of plagiarism, even though the student is reusing their own work. This practice is commonly known as self-plagiarism or duplicate submission. While the material originally belongs to the student, presenting previously submitted work as new without acknowledgment is academically dishonest.

MLA and most academic institutions treat self-plagiarism seriously because academic assignments are designed to assess fresh learning, new analysis, and original engagement with a topic. When a student reuses substantial portions of earlier work without citation or permission, they misrepresent old work as newly produced scholarship. The issue here is not theft from another author but misrepresentation of originality. Academic integrity requires transparency, even when the source is one’s own prior writing.

An ethical approach in this situation would involve seeking the instructor’s permission before reusing any previous work. If permission is granted, the student should clearly acknowledge that portions of the material were developed in a prior course. This can be done through a brief explanatory note or citation of the earlier paper, depending on institutional policy. Additionally, the reused material should be meaningfully revised, expanded, or recontextualized to reflect new intellectual development rather than simple repetition.

The guiding principle is honesty. Academic work is cumulative, and it is acceptable to build upon previous research, but it must be done transparently. Ethical scholarship requires clarity about what is new, what is revised, and what has been previously submitted.