Writing Sample Question: Research vs. Analysis?

[Rupert Pupkin]

What do adcoms prefer to see in a writing sample: the ability to conduct comprehensive research or the ability to conduct astute analysis of a text?

I ask this because the paper I intend to use as my sample is predominately my own textual analysis rather than a research paper. I do give background and utilize sources to strengthen my argument, but I feel much stronger as a close reader than I do as a researcher. I feel my undergraduate work didn't prepare me enough for the rigorous research needed as a graduate student.

In summary, do admissions committees value strong research over strong analysis in writing samples or vice versa?

[0000000000AAA]

Not to be reductive, but I think any significant paper (of quality) would naturally abound in both. A paper with research but little analysis is really just an overgrown bibliography (or maybe survey?) and a paper that is purely analytic probably won't have the impact you'd want it to because it lacks the supporting elements that make analytic synthesis compelling.

Of course I haven't seen your paper, but my guess is it already has a healthy amount of research integral within it. Maybe just beef that up a bit?

All the best.

[harpyemma]

I would echo WellSpring's comments. What usually makes "primarily analytical" papers good is that, even if the research isn't explicitly stated alongside the analysis, it shows through. For an analytical paper to really succeed, its thesis needs to be informed in some way by research. I presume, then, that you will have done the requisite research even if it doesn't directly feature in your content. If you're really nervous about it, make that implicit content explicit.

[truckbasket]

Demonstrating your ability to "contextualize your work within an existing critical conversation" is a bit of a hackneyed phrase, but it's the sort of thing you'll need to be able to demonstrate to prospective programs. In other words, close textual analysis is well and dandy, but it'd be wise to anchor it to the field in some way or another. That doesn't necessarily mean that you need to trot out an arbitrary series of big theory names per se, but if you're "solving a problem" (which is essentially what a thesis sets out to do, yes?) then you'll need some form of research methodology or apparatus to go about doing that.

Edited September 13, 2011 by truckbasket

[lolopixie]

The writing sample wants to be a reflection of both your ability to research and construct a solid critical analysis from the research. You definitely want to make sure you have a good amount of both. I agree with the comments above.

[runonsentence]

Me as well. You want something in the middle.

Now that I'm in my PhD, I've been working more and more with critical workshops in some of my seminars, and I'm learning that the problem that many beginning writers have in grad school is letting their sources do all the speaking for them. In other words, you don't want your paper to be a smorgasbord of things other people have written, without any of your own analysis, your own voice, your own interpretation.

On the other hand, you also can't rely on a close read of a text alone: successful grad-level writers understand context and critical movements, lenses, and apparatuses pertinent to their work.

Edited September 14, 2011 by runonsentence

[truckbasket]

and I'm learning that the problem that many beginning writers have in grad school is letting their sources do all the speaking for them. In other words, you don't want your paper to be a smorgasbord of things other people have written, without any of your own analysis, your own voice, your own interpretation.

Although I'm sure runonsentence is already familiar with it, for anyone looking to improve their balancing sources with original content, "They Say / I Say" does a great job of covering the basics. It's probably a bit fundamental for most grads, but I got a lot out of it.

To the OP, if this is the paper you really want to use and these comments have made you uncertain about your submission, there are always things you can do to shoehorn external research into your work -- it's just not something you can do the night before. By quickly browsing a few articles that appear to be about a similar topic, you could potentially get an idea of what other researchers are using as their methods and go from there. It might also be wise to hit up some profs in your current program and ask if they could take a look and perhaps suggest some frameworks to support it.

[runonsentence]

TS/IS is great; another good thing to do is start analyzing other pieces of criticism, noting how they're written and put together. How did the author structure the article? How are they working with sources? What are they doing stylistically?How are they developing ideas? etc.