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• Primary sources are original materials such as literary texts, historical documents, speeches, interviews, survey data, or experiments.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.