The series on research that can be linked to via the category to the lright specifically created for the purpose of storing “the series” isn’t over. But I feel the need refer to what the parts were about. They weren’t, number one, an initial search for cohesion. They should be incohesive. In the grand scheme of things, why did I write this:

In a way, people must be freed (freed in the sense of the provision of alternative, reasonable points of view) of what they have come to believe about themselves and their world (I cant write about skateboarding in school. Its not academic enough. Better that I write about the Death Penalty-thats original). Or, Im a failure, for example. I have to go to a community college rather than a university, so I must have done something wrong. Im mediocre because I got bad grades in high school. We know that systems of education are complex designs with multiple meanings. What is a school is a question that has everything to with how a school looks, smells, and feels. In Connecticut some schools may be falling apart, thus Connecticuts education system is shabby, and, more importantly, the lack of organized response by planners and decision makers tells us a lot about what they believe about educating people in Connecticut. The idealist in me claims this: buildings where people learn should be spacious, luminous, branching, maze-like and filled with trap doors, flexible, echoing, exciting, sexy, dignified, messy, filled with incomplete projects, completed projects, music, argumentation, films, bright computer screens, lots of books, and teachers just jittery with the possibility of it all; it should be filled with tools, art, and dangerous chemicals. Business people should be in and out of the place, excited themselves; politicians should enter the rooms with awe of what they helped to build, and the students should be allowed to come and go at will.

What does this paragraph have to do with the topic under consideration: research and writing?

I would argue that the research series is a rough draft and therefore should be met with skepticism, especially by the person who wrote them. What were they? Did the ideas really go anywhere as a series on research.

In starting, what I really had in mind were the graphic illustrations of the weblog tool as a means of storing and categorizing ongoing and developing ideas and how they might lead to “structuring” thinking. Indeed, when I started research and writing I, I had the image of the punchline already in my mind, but some foundation for why had to be established. The series is as of yet incomplete.

I’ll be teaching two Freshman Composition courses in the Spring semester and, as ever, will be leaning on “editing” as key to competent writing and structuring ideas, and, yes, a little research.

We’re going to start with a simple question: why do we like or dislike dogs.