Unit 2 Illustration of Research
It’s time to begin moving from chaos  control. So far throughout Unit 2, you have been gathering
and absorbing a great deal of information, and reporting on sources in Source Abstracts. Now, it is
time to begin making sense of that information in an organized fashion. You will accomplish this
through constructing a FAQ document on your blog, written for other like-minded researchers
interested in your topic. The goals for this FAQ assignment are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
To identify categories of information within your broader inquiry topic and research;
To find connections between multiple sources, to figure out how they interact;
To see where scholars agree and disagree, where there are overlaps and divergences;
To begin formulating your own “sub-claims” that address the “areas of investigation” that
stood out the most from your research, and finally,
5. To synthesize your 10 sources, which may at this time seem random, unrelated, or simply
chaotic, into a manageable, controlled organization.
The FAQ should be posted as a PAGE on your blog, and the page should appear in the top list of
headings alongside the “Source Abstracts” heading.
A. Seating the Guests Sketch
For this sketch assignment, imagine that your ten scholars (from your Source Abstracts) are coming
over for dinner. Where/how will you seat them based on their common interests? You want to
have a successful dinner party – which means you want the scholars at each table to have something
to talk about. Sketch out a seating chart for your dinner party. You may use the model sketch I
provided, or you may draw out your own sketch by hand, but it should be easily readable to a group
of your peers. You may seat all ten of your sources; but for this assignment, as long as you seat a
minimum of 8 of the 10 sources you will be given full credit.
To create the sketch, look over your Source Abstracts, and review your actual sources again. Do
certain key concepts keep appearing in your research? What themes or subtopics did your sources
have in common? What are the main ideas your sources address; what are their main concerns, even
though they may bring different perspectives on that idea or concern? Which sources address ideas
that are different from previous sources? What common gaps in research do sources note? What are
your "outlier" ideas / sources? Focus on collecting commonalities found in your sources that seem
directly related to helping you answer your research question.
Draw a sketch of your dinner party seating plan, indicating which scholars will sit at which table.
Give your tables interesting, creative titles based on the commonalities found in the sources. For
example, if you notice that a number of your sources are focused on how women participate or agree
with the misogynistic behaviors in rap music videos, you should give your table a title that reflects
this idea. “Women’s views” is not a clear enough table title; “Women’s Views on Rap Music
Misogyny” is a clearer title; and “Misogyny: It’s not just for Males” would be a more creative option.
You should seat scholars at any and all tables that they fit. For example, in the model I seated Mako
Fitts in the table about women's views on rap music (because he interviewed women in the industry),
and I also seated him at the “Formula” table because he addressed the formulaic nature of music
videos as well. You should seat each scholar in at as many tables as he/she addresses in her/his
research, but a total of 8 different scholars must be represented on the sketch.
This step is helping you see connections between your scholars. Hard copy of Seating the Guests
Sketch due
. Be prepared to talk through your seating with two different small
groups of your peers.
B. FAQ Pages
Draft FAQ Questions formulated on the tables / categories you created in the Seating Sketch. You
may be able to tease out two different questions from one category as well, depending on your
research. Workshop your FAQ questions with your peers.
FAQ Pages should address the 3 most important categories of research that you have found that are pieces
of the answer to your research question. These categories should be taken from part A (Tables).
Your sources will provide the answers to your FAQ questions, and your answer must call on and
synthesize at least TWO sources in every answer.
You should synthesize your sources in your answer, which means that you bring Jones and Smith’s
answers together, pointing out their similarities, conflicts, etc. Make sure that you include some of
your own summing up sentences in your answer as well.
The answers to your FAQs will be comprised of your general answer, along with summaries,
paraphrases, and direct quotations from your sources that provide support for your answer. Sources
should be introduced with signal phrases.
FAQ criteria:








FAQ questions should be clearly linked to providing “pieces of the answer” to the writer’s
research question and should address the three categories or trends in your research that you
deem to be most important in your research.
Proper APA citation style, using signal phrases with last names of authors and dates in
parentheses
Reference page in proper APA format at the end of the FAQs that lists every source covered
in the body of the document and not more.
The relationships between the sources listed under each question will be clear; your answer
should demonstrate your ability to synthesize the information from several (2 or more)
sources.
Each answer will also demonstrate your ability to bring the source material together in a
coherent, interesting answer to the particular question.
The list of sources cited will show that you have consulted an appropriately diverse set of
sources that explore multiple and differing views on your topic. You may use one or two
sources to help with more than one answer, but your FAQs should integrate a minimum of
6 different sources.
The document will demonstrate a college-level mastery of grammar and mechanics, along
with adequate understanding of how to properly credit and document research sources.
One FAQ questions should show scholars who agree (agree to agree), and one answer
should show scholars in disagreement (agree to disagree).
Example:
FAQ: Why can’t LGBT domestic violence victims just go to shelters already set up to help victims of
domestic violence?
Unfortunately, traditional shelters for “battered women” fail LGBT victims more than they help
them. Turrell and Herman (2009) point out that while lesbians are able to get help at battered
women’s shelters, the problem is that the “LGBT victims of domestic violence are just lumped in
with every other victim” (p. 121). They point out that while the professionals who run the shelter
may have training on making the facility gay friendly, homophobia can’t be eradicated among all of
the other shelter participants, and at times other shelter occupants express concerns about sharing
quarters with gay women. Parsons (2010) also mentions the misunderstandings and general
homophobia that some lesbians experience in women’s shelters. In interviews with lesbians who
utilized women’s shelters, 52% of the women reported experiencing discomfort or bullying as a
direct result of their sexuality (Parsons). As a model, Parsons praises a shelter established in 2009 in
Seattle, where they have set up a section of a community shelter specifically for gay and lesbian
domestic violence abuse victims, allowing them to “receive services during a vulnerable time without
worrying about homophobic attitudes” (p. 5). Generally, both of these scholars agree that lesbians
are not well served in traditional shelters for battered women. Unfortunately, it makes no sense for
lesbian victims of abuse to make the hard decision to leave their homes only to feel unwelcomed in a
shelter that does not address their needs.
Another problem is that the traditional battered women’s shelter provides a gay man with no options
for help with domestic violence. Both Turrell and Herman (2009) and Bimbi, et.al (2012) mention a
lack of shelter services that serve gay men, resulting in gay men remaining with violent abusers
because they have no place to go. Bimbi argues that “if our shelters really hope to serve victims,”
then the shelters need to remove gender as a “barrier to victim status” in issues of domestic violence
(p. 127). As long as our culture refuses to see men as “victims,” gay men will continue to be
underserved by domestic violence shelters. Models for shelters that serve gay men are currently
unavailable in the United States. When gay men approach women’s shelters for help, these shelters
turn men away, since the shelters’ funding depends on strict regulations about gender based on
biology, rather than gender identity or expression.