Research Writing and Practices

Purpose: Equip students with concrete guidance for crafting every element of research writing, from Title to References, ensuring critical positioning, methodological coherence, and epistemic rigor.

Description & Objectives

Focus on philosophy of language and contemporary research writing practices for doctoral scholars.

Focus:

Fundamental language concepts: Interpretation, translation, metaphor, names, demonstratives, reference, and description.

Advanced topics: Speech acts, truth-meaning interface, epistemology applied to research.

Practical application: Dissertation and thesis writing, publication-ready research manuscripts.

Outcomes

By the end, students will be able to:

Identify key thinkers in linguistics and philosophy of language.

Apply philosophical and epistemological theories to analyze research data.

Develop argumentative writing skills for academic research.

Navigate writing challenges with strategies for drafting and redrafting theses/dissertations.

Produce a coherent, evaluable dissertation, including:

Introduction

Literature review

Research methodology

Analysis/Discussion

Conclusion

I. Framing the Study

1. Writing the Title of a Research Paper/Thesis/Project

Goal:

Balance precision (clearly describing your research) with impact and discoverability (findable, memorable).

Convey topic, scope, and theoretical orientation in one concise line.

Core Components:

Focus: The central idea, concept, or phenomenon you are studying.

Example: Metaphorical Framing

Context: The domain, corpus, or setting of the study.

Example: YouTube Political Discourse

Theoretical Lens: The framework guiding your analysis.

Example: Critical Discourse Analysis

Techniques & Strategies:

Colon Strategy: Use a short, engaging hook before the colon, followed by a technical description.

Example: Digital Polarization: A Linguistic Analysis of YouTube Political Debates

Avoid Vagueness: Titles like “A Study of Politics” are too broad.

Keyword Optimization: Include 2–3 important terms to aid searchability and indexing.

Word Limit: Keep under 15 words for clarity and punch.

Tone: Precise, academic, but not overly jargon-heavy.

Tips for Mastery:

Test readability: Can a fellow scholar grasp your topic at a glance?

Align title with research questions and objectives.

Make it unique but transparent,  signal novelty without ambiguity.

Optional: Consider metaphorical or conceptual hooks if suitable, but ensure they are clarified by the subtitle.

Quick Checklist:

Does it clearly reflect the research focus?

Does it indicate context or corpus?

Does it signal the theoretical lens?

Is it concise (<15 words)?

Does it include keywords for discoverability?

Avoid ambiguous terms like Study, Analysis, or Research without specifics.

2. Writing the Introduction of a Research Paper/Thesis/Project

Goal:

Position your study within the scholarly conversation.

Highlight relevance, gap, and your unique contribution.

Guide readers naturally from context → problem → solution.

Framework: CARS Model (John Swales) — Create A Research Space

Move 1 — Establish Territory

Explain why the field is important.

Summarize prior research concisely.

Demonstrate awareness of key debates or controversies.

Avoid exhaustive historical accounts- focus on what informs your study.

Move 2 — Establish a Niche

Identify a gap, problem, or unresolved question in the literature.

Emphasize why this gap matters theoretically, methodologically, or practically.

Use critical language: “However, little is known about…”, “Despite extensive work, X remains unexplored.”

Move 3 — Occupy the Niche

Present your study as addressing the gap.

Clearly state purpose, scope, and significance.

Signal originality and potential contribution to theory or practice.

Techniques & Strategies:

Logical Flow: Territory → Gap → Contribution (Moves 1 → 2 → 3).

Conciseness: Limit to 2–3 paragraphs for short papers; 3–5 for theses.

Signposting: Use clear transitions: “This study examines…”, “To address this gap…”.

Voice: Establish authoritative yet approachable tone; avoid overgeneralization.

Tips for Mastery:

Align with title, objectives, and research questions.

Highlight relevance and urgency without exaggeration.

Avoid tangential historical background- focus on debates directly connected to your study.

Use citations selectively,  prioritize high-impact or seminal works.

Optionally, include a brief rationale for theoretical or methodological approach.

Quick Checklist:

Have I established the field and context clearly?

Have I identified a specific gap or problem?

Does the introduction present my study as a meaningful contribution?

Is the flow clear and logical (Moves 1 → 2 → 3)?

Are sentences concise, focused, and free of unnecessary historical digression?

Does it connect seamlessly to research objectives and questions?

3. Writing Research Objectives

Goal:

Clearly articulate what the study intends to achieve.

Break down the primary aim into specific, actionable steps.

Guide the research design, methods, and analysis.

Core Principles

Use Action Verbs (High-Level, Analytical)

Preferred verbs: Analyze, Evaluate, Construct, Examine, Investigate, Compare, Interpret, Develop.

Avoid low-level verbs: Describe, List, Summarize- these do not convey scholarly contribution.

Example:

Weak: Describe political polarization on YouTube.

Strong: Analyze the rhetorical strategies framing political polarization on YouTube.

Hierarchy of Objectives

Primary Objective (What): The overarching aim of the study.

Example: To examine how YouTube discourse frames political polarization in contemporary debates.

Specific Objectives (How): 3–4 operational goals that break down the primary objective into measurable steps.

Examples:

Identify recurring metaphorical and lexical patterns in YouTube political videos.

Analyze the performative effects of speech acts on audience perception.

Evaluate the alignment between discourse strategies and audience engagement metrics.

Construct a thematic map linking rhetorical patterns to political polarization narratives.

Alignment with Research Questions

Each objective must directly link to a research question.

Avoid objectives that are tangential or not actionable.

Ensure clarity on scope and feasibility.

Techniques & Strategies

SMART Approach: Objectives should be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound.

Clarity over quantity: 1 primary + 3–4 specific objectives is ideal for doctoral-level work.

Action-driven framing: Begin with verbs that imply analysis, evaluation, or synthesis.

Consistency: Use objectives to justify methodological choices in later sections (Research Design, Data Collection).

Tips for Mastery:

Review your introduction and research questions to ensure coherence.

Avoid overlapping objectives- each should cover a distinct aspect of the study.

Be precise: vagueness dilutes contribution.

Draft objectives before methodology- they guide all downstream decisions.

Keep objectives aligned with theoretical and conceptual frameworks.

Quick Checklist:

Is there one clear primary objective summarizing the aim of the study?

Are there 3–4 specific objectives that operationalize the main aim?

Do objectives start with high-level action verbs?

Are they aligned with research questions?

Are they specific, actionable, and feasible?

Do they provide a clear link to methodology and analysis?

I. Framing the Study: Entry Point

4. Writing Research Questions

Goal:

Formulate precise, analytically rich questions that guide the research.

Ensure questions drive methodology, data collection, and analysis.

Set the scope and intellectual focus of the study.

Core Principles

Nature of Research Questions (RQs)

Avoid questions answerable by Yes/No.

Focus on “how,” “why,” or “to what extent” inquiries.

Encourage interpretation, explanation, or evaluation, not mere description.

Example:

Weak: Does YouTube polarize politics? → Yes/No answer.

Strong: How does language in YouTube videos frame political polarization and influence audience perception?

Alignment with Research Objectives

Each RQ should directly link to a research objective.

The RQ determines methodological choice:

Analytical/focused questions → Qualitative methods (discourse analysis, thematic coding).

Relationship/mechanism questions → Mixed-methods or quantitative analysis.

Example Mapping:

Objective: Analyze rhetorical strategies framing polarization

RQ: Which metaphorical and lexical patterns are used in YouTube political discourse to frame polarization?

Scope & Coherence

Keep 3–5 core questions; avoid scattering attention across too many lines of inquiry.

Each question should add distinct value, without overlapping excessively.

Ensure questions are researchable within the timeline and available data.

Levels of Inquiry

Descriptive RQ: What patterns exist?

Analytical RQ: How do these patterns operate or influence perception?

Evaluative/Interpretive RQ: Why are these patterns significant in broader social, political, or linguistic context?

Techniques & Strategies

Use precise terminology: Terms like “frame,” “construct,” “perform,” “mediate” signal analytical depth.

Link explicitly to theory: E.g., frame metaphors through Critical Discourse Analysis.

Check feasibility: Avoid overly broad questions; focus on specific corpus or context.

Sequence questions logically: Start with descriptive → analytical → evaluative.

Tips for Mastery:

RQs should guide the data you collect and the analysis you perform.

Avoid redundancy: Each question should cover a unique dimension of the study.

Draft RQs after objectives; objectives give direction, RQs operationalize focus.

Revise RQs for clarity and conciseness; avoid jargon unless necessary.

Quick Checklist:

Are all questions open-ended (how/why/to what extent)?
Do questions align with objectives?
Are questions methodologically actionable?
Is the total number manageable (3–5)?
Are questions specific to context/corpus?
Does each question add unique analytical value?

II. The Problem Space

5. Writing the Background

Goal:

Situate your research in a broader academic, societal, or disciplinary context.
Show the evolution of your problem over time, highlighting why it matters now.
Prepare the reader to understand the research gap and rationale.

Core Principles

Funnel Approach
Start broad: Introduce the general field or societal issue.
Narrow gradually to the specific problem or niche your research addresses.
This approach builds relevance and frames the research logically.

Trajectory of the Problem
Historical Perspective: How did the problem emerge or evolve?
Current Status: What is known? What is debated?
Highlight key studies, statistics, trends, or controversies.

Evidence & Support
Use quantitative data (percentages, sample sizes, trends).
Cite seminal studies to show awareness of foundational work.
Reference recent debates or gaps to justify your study.

Tips for Mastery

Avoid exhaustive historical overviews; focus on relevance to your study.
Integrate theoretical and empirical insights.
Show why the problem demands investigation now.

6. Writing the Significance

Goal:

Convince the reader: “This research matters.”
Explicitly address three types of significance.

 Core Principles

Theoretical Significance

Contribution to knowledge, concepts, or theory.
E.g., refining existing frameworks, introducing a novel lens.


Practical Significance

Implications for practitioners, policy makers, or industry.
E.g., informing communication strategies, policy decisions, or educational practices.


Methodological Significance

Novel approach, analytic tool, or dataset.
E.g., innovative coding scheme, AI-assisted analysis, mixed-method design.

Tips for Mastery

Tie significance directly to your objectives and research questions.

Avoid generic statements like “This study is important because knowledge is valuable.”

Emphasize impact, originality, and relevance.

7. Writing the Statement of the Problem

Goal:

Articulate the specific research gap your study addresses.
Show why filling this gap is necessary and urgent.

Core Principles

Gap Articulation
Define current state: What is known or done?
Define desired state: What should be known or addressed?
Highlight limitations, controversies, or omissions in prior work.

Final Statement

Clearly position your study as bridging the gap.

Use concise, impactful language to establish purpose and contribution.

Tips for Mastery

Be specific: Avoid vague or generic problem statements.

Use active, precise language: “This study investigates…,” “This research addresses…”

Link problem directly to research questions and objectives.

Quick Checklist

Background clearly moves from broad to specific?

Evidence/statistics included to justify the problem? 

Significance addresses theoretical, practical, methodological impact? 

Problem statement clearly defines the gap?

Statement is concise, compelling, and aligned with objectives/RQs? 

III. Theoretical & Conceptual Architectures

8. Writing the Theoretical Framework

Goal:

Provide a lens through which data will be interpreted.
Demonstrate alignment between existing theory and your research problem.

Core Principles

Lens Selection


Choose an established theory (e.g., Speech Act Theory, Framing Theory, Critical Discourse Analysis).
The theory should reveal insights that are otherwise hidden in your data.


Justification

Explain why this theory is the most appropriate for your research problem.
Show how it addresses gaps or limitations in prior studies.
Highlight compatibility with research questions and objectives.

Presentation

Use visual aids (diagrams, flowcharts) to map how theoretical constructs relate to your research problem.

Identify key variables/concepts from the theory that will guide analysis.

Tips for Mastery

Avoid simply summarizing the theory; focus on interpretive utility.

Make the framework readable and visually intuitive.

Explicitly connect theory to your study’s scope, questions, and significance.

9. Writing the Analytical Framework

Goal:

Specify how data will be systematically analyzed.

Operationalize abstract concepts into measurable or observable categories.

Core Principles

Operationalization

Translate conceptual/theoretical constructs into analyzable units (e.g., types of metaphors, recurring rhetorical devices).
Ensure each category maps back to research questions.


Coding Scheme

Develop consistent, replicable categories or “buckets” for data treatment.
Include criteria for inclusion/exclusion of examples or data points.
Use tables or matrices to organize codes and sub-codes.


Method Alignment

Ensure that analysis methods (qualitative, quantitative, mixed) fit the data type and RQs.
Consider software tools or AI-assisted coding, but always validate manually.

Tips for Mastery

Test coding scheme on a pilot sample to check clarity and applicability.
Include examples in your documentation to illustrate each code.
Maintain a clear audit trail to ensure transparency and replicability.

10. Writing the Conceptual Framework

Goal:

Present a visual and logical map of your research concepts.
Integrate multiple ideas into a cohesive, original framework.

Core Principles

Visual Mapping

Diagram relationships among key variables, concepts, and constructs.
Show directionality of relationships (e.g., independent → dependent; causal links).

Synthesis and Originality

Combine elements from theoretical framework, literature review, and research objectives.

Highlight novel contributions or connections not previously explored.

Explicit Links

Clearly show how theoretical constructs inform variables and guide analysis.

Include labels, arrows, and explanatory notes for clarity.

Tips for Mastery

Avoid clutter; keep diagrams simple but comprehensive.

Use frameworks to justify research design choices.

The conceptual framework is your intellectual signature — make it original, not a copy of prior work.

Quick Checklist — Theoretical & Conceptual Architecture

Theoretical framework clearly articulates lens and justification? 
Analytical framework operationalizes constructs with replicable coding? 
Conceptual framework visually and logically maps relationships and novelty? 
All frameworks are aligned with objectives, RQs, and significance?

IV. Evidence & Positioning

11. Writing the Literature Review (LR)

Goal:

Demonstrate mastery of existing scholarship while positioning your study in the academic conversation.
Show how your research builds on, diverges from, or extends prior work.

Core Principles

LR as Argument, Not Summary

Avoid a chronological “laundry list” of studies.
Structure the review as a map of the scholarly territory: who is doing what, where gaps exist, and how debates intersect.

Thematic & School-Based Synthesis

Group authors by theme, methodology, or school of thought, rather than by date.
Highlight points of agreement, contention, and unresolved questions.

Citation vs. Quotation

Paraphrase most sources to show synthesis and intellectual ownership.

Use direct quotes sparingly,  only when the exact wording is critical, highly original, or rhetorically powerful.

Critical Analysis

Identify gaps that justify your study.

Note contradictions or debates to contextualize your research.

Detect emerging trends to situate your work in the field’s trajectory.

Integration with Research Questions

Show how reviewed literature directly informs your objectives and RQs.

Explicitly state what your study adds to existing knowledge.

Tips for Mastery

Use tables, concept maps, or matrices to visualize themes and relationships.

Include citation networks (key authors and seminal works) to show familiarity with influential scholarship.

Avoid excessive quoting; your voice must dominate.

12. Writing Limitations

Goal:

Transparently acknowledge factors beyond your control that might affect results or generalizability.

Core Principles

Identify Constraints

Sample size or selection biases.
Access restrictions to participants or data.

Time and resource limitations.

Impact Assessment

Briefly explain how limitations may influence findings.

Avoid over-apologizing; focus on transparent reporting.

Tips for Mastery

Show awareness and reflexivity,  this strengthens credibility.
Limitations can justify future research directions.

13. Writing Delimitations

Goal:

Explicitly define the boundaries you set intentionally for your study.

Core Principles

Scope Definition

Specify what is included or excluded (e.g., YouTube discourse only, not TikTok).
Clarify the geographical, temporal, or demographic limits.

Rationale for Choices

Explain why these delimitations are necessary for focus, feasibility, and depth.

Tips for Mastery

Distinguish clearly between limitations (uncontrollable) vs. delimitations (intentional).

Transparent boundaries signal methodological rigor.

Use delimitations to justify research design decisions.

Quick Checklist — Evidence & Positioning

Literature Review maps scholarly territory, identifies gaps, and synthesizes themes?
Paraphrasing dominates; quotes used strategically? 
Limitations clearly acknowledged, impact explained? 
Delimitations explicitly stated, rationale provided? 
LR, limitations, and delimitations align with research questions and objectives? 

V. Method & Synthesis

14. Writing Research Design

Goal:

Show a coherent, philosophically aligned plan for conducting your study.
Demonstrate that your methodology is valid, reliable, and ethically sound.

Core Principles

OEM Nexus

Ontology (What is real?): Define the nature of the phenomena you study.
Epistemology (How do we know?): Justify how knowledge of the phenomenon can be obtained.
Methodology (How do we study it?): Select techniques consistent with your ontology & epistemology.
Ensure logical coherence across these three layers.

Methodological Rigor

Validity: Show that the method accurately addresses your research questions.
Reliability: Ensure methods can be replicated or audited.
Ethics: Demonstrate awareness of consent, confidentiality, and researcher reflexivity.

Feasibility and Justification

Explain why each method was chosen.
Clarify practical considerations (sample size, access, time constraints).

Tips for Mastery

Include a diagram of OEM alignment for clarity.
Explicitly link methods to research objectives and questions.
Anticipate potential critiques by justifying trade-offs in methodological decisions.

15. Writing Data Analysis

Goal:

Move beyond description to interpret patterns, revealing why findings occur.

Core Principles

Interpretation vs. Description

Description = reporting facts or frequencies.
Interpretation = explaining patterns, causation, or theoretical relevance.
Tie interpretations to your analytical and conceptual frameworks.

Triangulation

Use multiple data sources, methods, or perspectives to validate findings.
Increases credibility and reduces bias.

Visualization

Tables, charts, diagrams, and concept maps enhance clarity and comprehension.
Helps connect data to themes, categories, or hypotheses.

Tips for Mastery

Align coding and categorization with analytical framework.
Always justify interpretive choices with examples from the data.
Highlight unexpected findings and reflect on their significance.

16. Writing Summary, Findings & Conclusion

Goal:

Provide clear intellectual closure, linking results to research questions and objectives.

Core Principles

Findings (What)

Present raw or processed results in a structured, digestible manner.
Organize by themes, categories, or research questions.

Conclusion (Why it Matters)

Interpret findings in relation to theoretical frameworks, literature, and practical implications.
Highlight contributions, insights, and potential applications.

Direct Alignment

Map each finding back to the original research question(s).
Discuss limitations and scope for future research in context of conclusions.

Tips for Mastery

Avoid repeating literature review or methods; focus on synthesis and interpretation.
Use tables or figures to show links between findings and research questions.
End with a strong, concise statement of significance to leave the reader with a clear understanding of your contribution.

Quick Checklist — Method & Synthesis

OEM alignment clearly illustrated and justified? 
Methodology supports research questions and is feasible, ethical, and rigorous? 
Data analysis interprets rather than merely describes? 
Triangulation or validation mechanisms are in place? 
Findings clearly mapped to research questions? 
Conclusions emphasize intellectual contribution and significance? 

VI. Metadata & Impact

17. Writing an Abstract

Goal:

Provide a concise, standalone summary of your entire study.
Ensure it communicates what was done, why, how, and the significance.

Structure — Compressed Argument

Background (1 sentence)

Introduce the problem or research gap.
Contextualize why the study matters.

Method (1 sentence)

Summarize design, methodology, or analytical approach.
Keep technical jargon minimal; clarity is key.

Key Results (2 sentences)

Present main findings succinctly.
Emphasize patterns, relationships, or insights that answer research questions.

Conclusion/Impact (1 sentence)

Highlight intellectual, theoretical, or practical significance.
Signal contribution to the field or actionable insight.

Tips for Mastery

Abstract should stand alone; a reader should grasp the study without the full paper.
Avoid citations or long explanations ,  this is a snapshot, not a literature review.
Use active voice and precise terms to maximize readability and impact.
Aim for 150–250 words, depending on journal or institutional guidelines.

18. Writing References

Goal:

Provide complete and accurate credit to all sources cited in your study.
Maintain consistency, traceability, and credibility.

Core Principles

Integrity Guard

Follow a single style rigorously (APA 7th edition, Harvard, or journal-specific).
Include all in-text citations in the reference list; no extras.

Validation

Cross-check each citation for accuracy in spelling, dates, titles, and DOI/URLs.
Use AI tools (e.g., Zotero suggestions, Grammarly Reference) to flag inconsistencies — but always verify manually.

Management Tools

Use reference managers (Zotero, Mendeley, EndNote) to organize sources.

Tag sources by relevance, themes, or sections of your paper to streamline writing and peer-review.

Tips for Mastery

Maintain consistent punctuation, capitalization, and italics across all entries.
Include DOIs or URLs whenever available; ensures traceability and scholarly transparency.
Regularly update your reference list during writing to avoid last-minute errors.

Quick Checklist — Metadata & Impact

Abstract captures problem, method, findings, and impact in ≤5 sentences? 
Abstract is standalone and understandable without reading the full paper? 
References are consistent, complete, and correctly formatted? 
All in-text citations match reference list entries? 
Reference management tools are used to ensure traceability and organization? 

Term Paper Guide: Metaphors of Political Polarization in YouTube News

Title:

Ensure clarity, precision, and specificity.

Example: “Metaphors of Political Polarization and Individuals’ Disorientation in YouTube News: Threats to Nationalism”

1. Introduction

Background: Set context on political polarization, YouTube news influence, and metaphors in discourse.

Purpose: State aim: analyze metaphorical framing and its cognitive/social impact.

Research Questions: 3–5 focused, analytical questions (avoid yes/no). Example: How do YouTube news channels use metaphors to frame political polarization?

Implications: Theoretical (language and cognition), social (disorientation, nationalism), and practical (media literacy).

2. Literature Review

Thematic/Theoretical Understanding:

Explore metaphor theory (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980+), speech act theory, framing theory.

Review empirical studies on media polarization, cognitive disorientation, nationalism discourse.

Identify a Niche:

Highlight gaps (e.g., lack of YouTube-focused metaphor analysis, disorientation as threat to nationalism).

Synthesis: Organize by themes, not chronology; show debates, contradictions, trends.

3. Research Methodology

3.1 Theoretical Underpinning

Use Theory of Metaphors (Lakoff & Johnson) as analytical lens.

Justify why this theory reveals ideological framing and disorientation effects.

3.2 Data Collection

Sample & Demographics: Define channels, videos, time frame, target audience.
Nature of Data: Audio, transcripts, visuals, subtitles.
Ethical Considerations: Informed consent (if interviews), privacy, proper citation.

3.3 Data Analysis

Categorize metaphors (source-target mappings, domains).
Analyze patterns, frequency, and framing effects.
Tools: manual coding or AI-assisted text analysis; human validation required.

4. Results & Discussion

Present tables/figures with captions (single-spaced).
Interpret patterns: How metaphors shape polarization and disorientation.
Compare findings with prior literature; highlight theoretical and practical insights.
Discuss implications for nationalism, media literacy, and public discourse.

5. Conclusion

Summarize key findings.
Reiterate contributions to theory, methodology, and practice.
Suggest limitations and future research directions.

6. References

Use APA style (2020 onwards).
Ensure all in-text citations match the bibliography.
Include peer-reviewed journal articles, books, and reputable media sources.
Link for detailed APA guidance: APA Guide

Tables & Figures

Tables: Caption + body, single-spaced, embedded in text.
Figures/Images: ≥300 dpi, TIFF/EPS/Photoshop preferred; JPEG okay if embedded.

Phonetics

Use International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) for transcription.

Submission

Include similarity report.

Deadline: Week 13 of the semester.

Instructor Tips

Align title → RQs → objectives → methodology → analysis → conclusion.
Keep arguments theory-driven, evidence-backed, and critically synthesized.
Use AI tools for transcription/analysis, but always verify manually.
Maintain clarity, conciseness, and coherence throughout.

Essential Reading

Bhatia, V. K. (1997). Genre Analysis Today. Revue Belge de Philologie et d’Histoire, 75, 629-652.

https://doi.org/10.3406/rbph.1997.4186

Chapman, S., & Routledge, C. (Eds.). (2005). Key thinkers in linguistics and the philosophy of language. Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2008). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
Lycan, W. G. (2018). Philosophy of language: A contemporary introduction. Routledge.
Martinich, A. P. (2024). Philosophical writing: An introduction. John Wiley & Sons.
Martinich, P. (2000). The philosophy of language (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (Eds.). (2013). The handbook of English for specific purposes (Vol. 592). Boston: Wiley-blackwell.
Stewart, L. (n.d.). Genre analysis: Methods, techniques & application. Atlas.ti Research Hub. 
Swales, J. (n.d.). Genre and English for academic purposes [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W--C4AzvwiU

Wentzel, A. (2017). A guide to argumentative research writing and thinking: Overcoming challenges. Routledge.