Posted on November 19, 2018
After reading Stedman’s “Annoying Ways People Use Sources.” His use of categorization allows him to propel some readers into connecting and understanding citations. However, where this paper fails is in diversification. When Stedman breaks down the annoying ways that people use sources, he categorizes these strategizes into several “fun” categories aimed to connect the reader whom was probably forced to read his paper. These categories help to lighten the mood and make citation seem a less daunting task. The paper allows students to identify and treat various illnesses of their citations. The problem that this method is it removes the ability for a student to understand how to treat their sources illness in a different way. As most know, if you take the same medicine to cure the same bacteria the bacteria will eventually become resistant, and the medicine will no longer have effect. This resistance also occurs in writing and is a major element that Stedman overlooks in some of his categories. Stedman overlooks this element the most in his roadkill example, once he diagnoses that there is a problem introducing sources, he recommends the medication of a simple statement “He writes, the author says, it states” or various other repetitive statements. Like medication, to take a few of these phrases isn’t a problem but when writing a longer paper the reader will become resistant to these phrases. The binary problem and solution argument that Stedman proposes causes students that have read this paper to treat the issue with one medication, a bland signal phrase. Don’t get me wrong, any medicine is better than no medicine no matter how many times you’ve used it, however, students would benefit immensely from multiple ways of integrating quotes rather than a signal phrase. For example, it is a common practice in scientific fields to integrate the quote where it flows into your sentence e.g. “The problem with Stedman’s paper is that “his argument fails in diversification” (Kraus 1)… analysis.” The different way of introducing a quote keeps the argument breaks up the repetitive “the author states” way of introduction. While my example might be flawed, I would have wished that Stedman addressed a few different ways of integration rather than creating “fun” categories targeted a capturing a bored audience.