By now you’ve all hopefully completed the Ethnographic Research Tutorial and begun to experiment with the Vetting Sources worksheet. As we move from Essay 3 Phase 1 to Phase 2, your primary task is incorporating both 1) your own analysis of your primary research data, and 2) two “A” type secondary sources (see the BEAM handout if you forgot the terminology) that help you explore and understand your subject.
For the Analysis section in Phase 2, you’ll begin the section by interpreting the observations you listed in the Results section on your own, explaining how your evidence led you to your controlling idea. (This may take 2-3 paragraphs, if a ballpark number helps.) Then, you’ll incorporate your secondary research in the manner described in the Week 11 lecture and below.
When looking for sources, the most important thing to remember here is that the subject of your paper is not the subject of your subreddit, but the aspect of the online social dynamic you’ve discovered. The next most important thing to remember is that you must always account for the particular aspects and nuances of the exhibit you’re examining. For example:
- If you’re trying to say anonymity reduces inhibitions, you must remember it’s not really anonymity if a user has a dedicated username they use in that space (that is, if they can be identified by their handle);
- If you’re trying to say that your community is close-knit and intimate, you should remember that intimacy will form and manifest differently in online spaces than in offline ones;
- Etc.
Because you’ll want to consider the specifics of your claim and community, in many ways you’re going to want sources that do not directly “match” your subject, as we’ve discussed in class. If I were examining shipping loyalties and factionalism in Saint Seiya, for instance, I might look for sources using search strings like the following:
Or:
Notice in the above examples how I try to think outside of the box just to see what comes up. So it’s possible the results called “Shared enthusiasm: social cohesion with anime fandom” on Google Scholar and the result called “Swan Queen, shipping, and boundary regulation in fandom” from Pace’s library website will help me further explore a claim about how factions are created on r/SaintSeiya around shipping loyalties.
Once you have located and finalized your sources by using the CRAAP test (outlined in the Ethnographic Research Tutorial and the Vetting Sources worksheet), you’ll need to read them closely, annotating as you go, and figure out how to incorporate them into your Analysis section in your paper. In order to do this, you’ll need to be able to introduce and summarize your source, and use the author’s argument to help with your analysis.
Concisely Summarizing Sources
I go over this process in the Week 11 video lecture, so it may be helpful to refer to the Week 11 Transcripts. As a reminder, essentially you’ll introduce and summarize your sources using a formula much like this one:
- Sentence 1 – Introduce relevant bibliographic information: author and title, at minimum, and a one-sentence paraphrasing of what the controlling idea of the whole article is.
- Sentences 2-3 – Further explanation of the controlling idea, plus any sub-claims relevant to your controlling idea.
- Sentences 4-5 – Explanation of how the information in the source explains or builds on your controlling idea. Avoid looking for sources that just “support” or “agree/disagree” with, as discussed in our last class.
For example:
[1] In his thesis on shared enthusiasm in North American anime fandom, Michael Yergin (2017) explored how different performances of enthusiasm create different social groupings within specific fandoms. [2-3] He observed anime fans at conventions and in anime club meetings and interviewed them about their experiences (p. 21-30). He found that shipping loyalties led to both strong social cohesion (among people with the same pairing loyalty) and divisiveness (against people with other pairing loyalties) (p. 35). [4-5] While r/SaintSeiya is a fully online community and Yergin studied offline communities, the type of anime-fan enthusiasm he’s talking about controls this subreddit. As indicated by users like u/CapricornIzo and u/SaoriSaaaaaan, factions are created around the vicious arguments that take place over romantic pairings.
I’ve labeled each set of sentences for your convenience. Note how in sentences 4-5, I first account for the differences with a “while” sentence structure; then, I tie it back to my primary research with the connecting phrase “as indicated by users like,” which a) keeps my Results section visible, and b) indicates that what I’ve included in my Results section is just a specific piece of a larger pattern. Importantly, these last two sentences are signposts to the reader about the next paragraph, where I’ll follow this source introduction with applied analysis.
Applied Analysis
In the paragraph immediately after I introduce my source, I’ll continue by engaging the author’s argument in dialogue with my own, as though I’m chatting with the author about our respective findings. Such a paragraph might follow this formula:
- Sentences 1-2: The parts of the author’s assertion that help me think through mine
- Sentences 3-5: How I (re)think through my assertions using the author’s
In incorporating the author’s assertions, DO NOT USE the author’s primary research. It doesn’t matter if they have an interviewee who says exactly what a subredditor says in your forum. Your focus is their assertions, not their primary research.
So, for example:
[1-3] Yergin discovered that many anime fans often love to hate on particular series, but also that many anime fans disliked fans who bonded over this kind of enthusiastic hating. This kind of hatred can range from funny to mean-spirited but in both forms it’s used to form an Us/Them binary. As Yergin said, these fans “weaponize their enthusiasm and use it as a bludgeon to strike others with” (p. 40). [4-6] Like many other r/SaintSeiya members, u/CapricornIzo’s diehard loyalty to the Aiolia/Marin shipping leads them to attack anyone who talks about a pairing that challenges theirs, particularly the queerer but equally popular Aiolia/Shaka pairing. These attacks are personal and mean, and silence members who want to talk about the series more positively, or who, like u/YUNo638, are using queer shipping in anime fandom to sort out their own real-life sexuality. So not only does this hatred “bludgeon” fans into shutting up in the subreddit, it also affects how well they can figure out their offline identities.
Note that I first summarize a specific portion of Yergin’s assertions, then parallel them with my own primary research, then end with a mini-conclusion about it. I use “hedging” language to indicate this isn’t just one user but an instance in a pattern: “like many others” and constructions like “not only/but also” to build connections with my own thinking. As a stylistic note, since I don’t know the user’s gender, I use they/them pronouns. I paraphrase more than I directly quote, and in fact, I recommend paraphrasing whenever possible.
As a side note, I’m a social sciences scholar and so I’m using APA citation style above. You can choose to use either MLA (Humanities) or APA (Social Sciences), as long as you’re using it correctly and consistently. For citation rules, check out Purdue OWL.
Your Analysis section will likely be the second longest section of your essay, with the Results section being second longest. It’s good practice to keep referencing your primary research in your Analysis section, as demonstrated above.
Discussion
Finally, in your Discussion section, you’ll consider the “so what? who cares?” questions. In short, this is the section where you briefly discuss the larger social ramifications of the behavioral dynamic you noticed on your subreddit for Reddit or other online communities in general. This section will probably not be longer than 2-3 paragraphs.