As Bedford points out, it’s important to have as many primary
sources as possible. Primary sources are
“...original works or evidence provided directly by and observer of an event”
(Bedford, 71). These are different from
secondary sources which “...comment on or interpret and event, often using primary
sources as evidence” (Bedford, 72). From
my opinion, this is key because it allows you, the writer, to initially think
about the topic more authentically without the clutter of other people’s
opinions or interpretations. You will
likely come up with your own ideas more, verses simply regurgitating someone else's.
My question with this though is if you see a hole in the conversation
you are joining about your topic, and want to write a paper proposing new
information to the conversation, how can you have an “against” argument? For example, in my topic of play, I am
noticing that although many scholars and scientist agree and identify that play
is important, there is a lack of discussion on how to engage in play – especially
for adults who have perhaps lost the skill-set or ability. The sources all seem to agree that playing is critical for adults to achieve advance creative thought, innovation, and general
happiness. This is great, but unless we
start talking about how to get adults to engage in creative play and work out
their play muscles on a more daily basis, that information is just that – information. When it comes to the conversation of play, I’m
more interested in the how – not the what
or why. How do we apply, to our daily lives, this information of the
importance of play we have all agreed upon?
That’s the question I want to answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment