{"id":1248,"date":"2018-06-04T14:19:44","date_gmt":"2018-06-04T14:19:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.ryerson.ca\/writehere\/?post_type=chapter&p=1248"},"modified":"2018-07-16T18:24:37","modified_gmt":"2018-07-16T18:24:37","slug":"starting-a-conversation-with-your-sources","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/writehere\/chapter\/starting-a-conversation-with-your-sources\/","title":{"raw":"Starting a Conversation with Your Sources","rendered":"Starting a Conversation with Your Sources"},"content":{"raw":"As promised in Chapter 10, we will now address how to incorporate multiple sources, and indeed we\u2019ve already practiced this strategy in building our argument\/developing our three-storey thesis.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_1337\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"300\"]\"\" From Pexels.[\/caption]\r\n\r\nIncorporating multiple sources and getting them into conversation is the practice of using your sources to lay down building blocks or a framework within which to read your topic, or an aspect of it, and eventually develop your own ideas about it. It is useful as a scaffold upon which to build your argument. While you may agree or disagree with one or the other source, the point here is to actively use them in dialogue with each other to draw out a point you want to make about your reading of the primary source. You might reference points of similarity between them and the significance of differences in their arguments, but always with intention to draw some conclusion from this interaction about your reading and understanding of your topic. You might also consider how one source\u2019s ideas respond to and qualify the ideas or claims of your other source. Your role then becomes to clarify their positions and moderate the conversation with the intent of eventually coming to a new perspective or new insight. A word of caution: always be clear regarding what source you are using and whose ideas you are referencing. Also be clear about what ideas belong to your sources and what ideas are your own.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_1352\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"300\"]\"\" From Pixabay.[\/caption]\r\n\r\nLet\u2019s look at an example. In Chapter 10, we already engaged in a conversation with McCosker and Johns\u2019 article. We will now use that source in conjunction with Rambukanna and get these two talking to each other.\r\n\r\nSimilar to McCosker and Johns in \u201cProductive Provocations: Vitrolic Media, Spaces of Protest and Agonistic Outrage in the 2011 England Riots,\u201d Rambukanna examines online political spaces and the way they \u201cdo politics.\u201d He notes that interactions in these online communities are both difficult and challenging and yet possibly constructive in effecting political or social change. He argues that online communities are often \u201cangry\u201d public spaces where committed and impassioned citizens engage in political discourses that are \u201cflawed and messy.\u201d Despite these challenging interactions, however, these communities have the potential to \u201ccrack[\u2026] open stable systems of meaning-making.\u201d In other words, it is precisely their frustration and rage that can be harnessed and directed toward disrupting the status quo. Without constructive conflict, activism becomes too insular.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, Rambukanna, illustrates via the race-activist #RaceFail how participating in angry exchanges or \u201c\u2018un-fix[ing] staid communication patterns\u201d leads to disrupting or changing social systems (in this case, actively increasing awareness of race issues in the SFF sphere, leading to\u00a0publishers actively seeking authors of colour as well as to the publications of anthologies and conferences dedicated to race issues in sci-fi and fantasy). For the most part, McCosker and Johns would agree with Rambukanna, as they too argue that \u201cexcesses of emotion and acts of often aggressive provocation\u201d are \u201cparamount\u201d in civic and political engagement. McCosker and Johns also make it clear that passion and provocation are in fact productive because they prevent the very \u201cdisaffection\u201d or disillusionment that can lead to violence. Online communities are the public forums and outlets that give the disenfranchised a voice before their frustrations turn destructive. For McCosker and Johns, this is their civil function or utility. Yet neither Rambukanna nor McCosker and Johns address the very real and alternative possibility that an excess of online rage (and cyberbullying) might also lead to a total breakdown of communication, increased insularity or entrenched viewpoints and offline violence. Some restraint and sensibility are also necessary in public debates on online communication forums.\r\n\r\nIn short, in light of the above research, the heated and passionate exchanges on the Occupy Wall Street Facebook page, even those that seem off topic or hostile, have the potential to lead to political activism so long as these disruptive voices are judiciously addressed or engaged and made relevant so their seemingly unrelated or acrimonious comments lead to constructive change and not violence. While it may not be possible to reach consensus in democratic spaces and open forums, like the Occupy Wall Street page, marginal voices must have an outlet and cannot be ignored, if such public spaces are to be considered democratic spaces and function as political tools.","rendered":"

As promised in Chapter 10, we will now address how to incorporate multiple sources, and indeed we\u2019ve already practiced this strategy in building our argument\/developing our three-storey thesis.<\/p>\n

\"\"
From Pexels.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Incorporating multiple sources and getting them into conversation is the practice of using your sources to lay down building blocks or a framework within which to read your topic, or an aspect of it, and eventually develop your own ideas about it. It is useful as a scaffold upon which to build your argument. While you may agree or disagree with one or the other source, the point here is to actively use them in dialogue with each other to draw out a point you want to make about your reading of the primary source. You might reference points of similarity between them and the significance of differences in their arguments, but always with intention to draw some conclusion from this interaction about your reading and understanding of your topic. You might also consider how one source\u2019s ideas respond to and qualify the ideas or claims of your other source. Your role then becomes to clarify their positions and moderate the conversation with the intent of eventually coming to a new perspective or new insight. A word of caution: always be clear regarding what source you are using and whose ideas you are referencing. Also be clear about what ideas belong to your sources and what ideas are your own.<\/p>\n

\"\"
From Pixabay.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Let\u2019s look at an example. In Chapter 10, we already engaged in a conversation with McCosker and Johns\u2019 article. We will now use that source in conjunction with Rambukanna and get these two talking to each other.<\/p>\n

Similar to McCosker and Johns in \u201cProductive Provocations: Vitrolic Media, Spaces of Protest and Agonistic Outrage in the 2011 England Riots,\u201d Rambukanna examines online political spaces and the way they \u201cdo politics.\u201d He notes that interactions in these online communities are both difficult and challenging and yet possibly constructive in effecting political or social change. He argues that online communities are often \u201cangry\u201d public spaces where committed and impassioned citizens engage in political discourses that are \u201cflawed and messy.\u201d Despite these challenging interactions, however, these communities have the potential to \u201ccrack[\u2026] open stable systems of meaning-making.\u201d In other words, it is precisely their frustration and rage that can be harnessed and directed toward disrupting the status quo. Without constructive conflict, activism becomes too insular.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, Rambukanna, illustrates via the race-activist #RaceFail how participating in angry exchanges or \u201c\u2018un-fix[ing] staid communication patterns\u201d leads to disrupting or changing social systems (in this case, actively increasing awareness of race issues in the SFF sphere, leading to\u00a0publishers actively seeking authors of colour as well as to the publications of anthologies and conferences dedicated to race issues in sci-fi and fantasy). For the most part, McCosker and Johns would agree with Rambukanna, as they too argue that \u201cexcesses of emotion and acts of often aggressive provocation\u201d are \u201cparamount\u201d in civic and political engagement. McCosker and Johns also make it clear that passion and provocation are in fact productive because they prevent the very \u201cdisaffection\u201d or disillusionment that can lead to violence. Online communities are the public forums and outlets that give the disenfranchised a voice before their frustrations turn destructive. For McCosker and Johns, this is their civil function or utility. Yet neither Rambukanna nor McCosker and Johns address the very real and alternative possibility that an excess of online rage (and cyberbullying) might also lead to a total breakdown of communication, increased insularity or entrenched viewpoints and offline violence. Some restraint and sensibility are also necessary in public debates on online communication forums.<\/p>\n

In short, in light of the above research, the heated and passionate exchanges on the Occupy Wall Street Facebook page, even those that seem off topic or hostile, have the potential to lead to political activism so long as these disruptive voices are judiciously addressed or engaged and made relevant so their seemingly unrelated or acrimonious comments lead to constructive change and not violence. While it may not be possible to reach consensus in democratic spaces and open forums, like the Occupy Wall Street page, marginal voices must have an outlet and cannot be ignored, if such public spaces are to be considered democratic spaces and function as political tools.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":87,"menu_order":6,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-1248","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":1128,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/writehere\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/1248","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/writehere\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/writehere\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/writehere\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/87"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/writehere\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/1248\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2147,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/writehere\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/1248\/revisions\/2147"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/writehere\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/1128"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/writehere\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/1248\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/writehere\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1248"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/writehere\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=1248"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/writehere\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=1248"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/writehere\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=1248"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}