CollegeWriting.info: "Writing an Analysis" Advanced Methods

These advanced ideas and/or applications can help you understand and use this paper's type of thinking better. For additional information, check the chapter's "Links" page, or use a search engine (e.g., www.google.com) with a key word search that uses the name of this type of paper and the words "writing" and "paper."

1. ANALYSIS USING AN ESTABLISHED THEORY

This kind of analysis is a bit more difficult. You must start with a theory, a philosophical stance, or some other specific point of view or position that is meant to explain an entire worldview. Some examples are some type of psychological system, a religious belief system, a developed ethical or moral belief system, or any academic theory of how life or a large portion of it operates. You might want to start brainstorming by applying your theory immediately to your text; however, you might instead wish to brainstorm about your theory by itself before beginning to apply it to the text.

What kind of theory might you choose? You could, for example, choose a system of psychology such as behaviorism, Freudian or Jungian psychology, or any other among dozens of older and more recent systems. You could choose a system or way of viewing art (given that many humanities and art classes require analyses): art as rebellion, art as symbol, art as gendered, etc. You might apply a political or economic system such as capitalism, Marxism, or socialism; a method of behavior or goal development in the workplace such as ISO 9000; or a philosophical, religious, or ethical belief system.

You might, for example, take four elements of Freudian psychology one at a time--such as the concept of the superego, the ego, the id, and the unconscious--and examine one or more parts of your essay using each of these Freudian elements in turn. You might show how various parts of the essay conform to these Freudian elements (i.e., agree with Freud's system), or how various parts of the essay cannot fit with these elements--or how some parts conform and others do not.

2. ANALYZING THE ARGUMENTS OF A TEXT OR SUBJECT

You may analyze a text or subject's arguments, too. However, if you choose to do this, remember that your goal is not to disagree with or debate the person or author whose arguments you are using. Rather, you must take an unbiased, fair, and balanced point of view in which you are willing to fully explore opposing viewpoints on a subject without arriving at your own conclusion. To successfully analyze in this way, you’ll need to start with a person or author who is actually making a debatable, one-sided argument—not merely describing or reporting on something, and not offering his or her own unbiased description of several points of view. In other words, choose a text, speech, or the like that has a one-sided point of view with which some people would disagree. You probably also will need to have some experience with or knowledge of the argumentative issue. It also will help you if you do not feel strongly for or against the issue. Your attitude as you write should be one of fairness, balance, and lack of anger or other negative emotions. Here’s one way to write this kind of analysis:

Choose several main arguments the subject makes. With each in turn, complete the following steps.
First take the subject’s point of view. Briefly summarize his/her argument. Then explain—from the subject’s likely point of view—the argument’s meaning, importance, or value.
Second, take a supportive point of view. Find one or two additional reasons and/or examples of why the argument may be true.
Third, take an opposing position. Provide one or more positions/arguments opposing the subject’s argument, and explain (using reasons and examples) why these opposing positions also merit consideration.
(Optional) Fourth, take a higher analytical point of view. Describe briefly which of these positions on this argument appear the most logical or complete—based on what is given in the texts themselves, and not on any information you have from other sources or within yourself—without bias on your own part.

3. RHETORICAL ANALYSIS

It also is possible to examine the actual writing itself in your chosen text. This is called a "rhetorical" analysis—an analysis of the rhetoric in the text. You can develop a rhetorical analysis by examining and describing the ways in which the author uses various rhetorical devices to make her point, devices such as cause and effect, comparison/contrast, argument, definition, exemplification, etc. To try this, see the description of these rhetorical devices in an earlier chapter. To use this method, you might examine a text and decide, for example, that there are two important instances of comparison-contrast, three exemplifications, an overall argument with two sub-arguments, and one instance of cause-and-effect reasoning. You would describe each in some detail, explain how it is developed, and show how it fits into the whole text.

Another way of using rhetorical analysis is to do what Ann E. Berthoff calls "close reading" as a form of "practical criticism": show patterns of use of prefixes, suffixes, singulars vs. plurals, and other parts of speech (see her essay "Reclaiming the Active Mind" in the scholarly journal College English, Vol. 61, No. 6, July 1999, 671-80), or even the patterns of "metaphor, syntax, word, line" or the differences in the text between "saying" and "meaning" (Berthoff 677). It even is possible to examine the rhetorical value—the persuasion value or purpose—of the organizational structures of a text: the frequency, order, and nature of paragraphs, subtitles, topic sentences, graphics, etc.

You could, for example, develop a rhetorical analysis describing the patterns of use of four parts of speech in a text: you could, for example, describe the use of singular vs. plural nouns and pronouns, the frequency of adjectives, the use of active versus passive verbs, and the use of nouns versus pronouns--all with the purpose of describing the readability (or lack of it), style, voice, and tone of the essay you have chosen. If I were to write some kind of rhetorical analysis of our textbook, for example, I might say something about how it makes frequent use of words such as "you," probably to give readers the feeling of being more involved; that it often makes use of short sentences and paragraphs, perhaps to make text it easier; that it offers a large number of subtitles and sub-subtitles, again, probably, to make reading easier; etc., etc.

4. ANALYSIS USING DECONSTRUCTION

This is one of the most difficult methods of analysis. Deconstruction is the opposite of construction. To deconstruct a text is to take it apart, especially by comparing each of its main elements to their opposites, in order to show underlying truths or meanings in how the text fits into the larger reality around us.

For example, if were to deconstruct Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, we might discuss points (among several others as well) about Scrooge, Tiny Tim, and the Christmas turkey. First, we might point out that in reality, there are many rich people who care nothing about Christmas or other people, and they live happy, productive lives without suffering guilt, grouchiness, or meanness of spirit. Concerning Tiny Tim, we might add that this figure is more myth than reality in our present society, as most disabled people have accommodations, or conversely that it actually is rare to find a disabled person like Tim who has such a sweet disposition and a wonderful family—the more normal situation in a desperately poor family is to find serious dysfunctions, either as causes or results of the poverty. Further, we might point out, concerning the Christmas turkey given to Tim’s family by Scrooge, that such a gift is little more than a symbol—almost a cruel one at that—because one turkey dinner will not solve poverty; in addition, a huge amount of meat given to a family little used to eating meat because of its poverty may prove harmful to the family’s physical health and may only leave them wanting more of what they cannot normally afford. We might conclude form such a contrarian analysis that the story of Scrooge and Tiny Tim is little more than a play on our emotions or at best an emotion-laden myth that has little to do with real needs and real actions in the world.

Deconstruction often appears (and, in a sense, is) negative, for it is a taking apart—a tearing down, piece by piece. It is not, in and of itself in general usage, a building process. However, in its purest form (as used by one of its most powerful proponents, a French thinker, Jacques Derrida), it often delivers a "rebuilt" view of the text that shows how the text demonstrates difficult, unpleasant, or unsettling opposites in our political and social systems of poor versus rich and of authority versus powerlessness.

A deconstruction also may seem quite argumentative in nature. However, it is a logical process with a logical, analytical purpose, for it simply means to show opposites of important elements in a text and then to develop some sense of what the text really might mean if some or all of the opposites possibly are true. It is a way of more deeply examining society, art, and ourselves.

5. ARGUMENTATIVE ANALYSIS: See "Argumentative Analysis" in the "Writing a Dialogic Argument" chapter.

It is possible to consider analysis as the primary way of responding to texts, and to consider most other types of responses as just specialized forms of analysis. This way of envisioning responses to texts may especially be useful to those of you who have instructors who like to have students work primarily with different kinds of analysis. In other words, if analysis is the ability to see a text from several different points of view, then one might argue that the following types of response papers are just different forms of analyis:

For more discussion of how analysis is such an essential function that it can be described as the central methodology for most forms of higher communication, see the "Theory" section below.

Classification, Comparison-Contrast, and Rhetorical Analysis Using the Modes

If you are working with the rhetorical modes, an analysis can use any or all of them. In a good analysis, you may need to define viewpoints, types of people, or theories; you need to argue succinctly and logically from the standpoint of each; and you must provide good descriptive detail or exemplification of your applications of viewpoint or theory to your text.

However, there are two rhetorical modes in particular that are very strongly related to analysis. One is classification. A classification paper really is a specialized version of an analysis. It uses a clear system specific to a particular discipline or method to classify someone or something. To read more about this type of analysis, see "Classification" in the "Rhetorical Modes" chapter.

Another is comparison-contrast. This already has been explained in "Analysis by Comparison-Contrast" in the "Basic" part of this chapter as one type of analysis. You may find it helpful to also see how it is described in more detail in "Comparison/Contrast" in the "Rhetorical Modes" chapter.

A third important element of using the modes exists as the development of a rhetorical analysis using the modes. A general rhetorical analysis is discussed briefly above. It is possible to use the rhetorical modes in particular as a method to analyze a text: one simply identifies the modes that are used in the text and, perhaps, their quality, frequency, patterns of use, which could be used more and which less, and/or how they may assist or hinder the content and the text's ultimate purposes. A discussion of this method of analysis, "Analyzing Readings Using the Modes," is at the end of the "Rhetorical Modes" chapter.

This part briefly discusses the theories that instructors use to teach and assign this kind of paper.

After I had been using this textbook for several years, I began to feel I needed a chapter in it on analysis. It took me several more years to write it, and I'm very glad I did. Over the ten years or so that I've had it in this textbook, a number of students have used it as an alternative assignment. However, I have to say that writing this chapter and then gradually revising it as students used it was difficult: this was one of the hardest chapter to write in this textbook.

I asked myself "Why?" On the face of it, you would think analysis is such a basic skill that it would be simple to teach. However, I have realized during the past ten years that analysis is different from many other types of paper. First, it is one of the most common types of papers assigned in college--possibly even more common than an argument paper if you consider all the different types of analyses there are. Because of this wide use of it as an assignment, there are many different versions of analysis, different meanings, and differing definitions. There also are so many different disciplines that use this word, analysis, as an assignment. The word can refer to something as simple as a breakdown of the basic points of an essay, as diverse as a lab report or nursing case study, or as complex as a professional recommendation report or a study of a book using several major theories. Indeed, the word has almost too many meanings to teach--or at least to teach easily.

The second reason that analysis is so different from many other types of papers is that in its most common form, it usually requires advanced or additional knowledge of a theory or theories or of some kind of system. In other words, you usually are not given an assignment to analyze something unless you also are given a system or theory at the same time: for example, the elements of painting or a sculpture in an art class, the elements of literature in a literature course, or theories of psychology, history, sociology, etc. in classes of those types. This makes an introductory chapter on analysis in a composition class even more difficult to write.

I solved my writing problem in two ways. First, I offered a wide number of options from which readers can pick. Second, I discovered that I could encourage readers to analyze from a type of theory everyone knows by the time he or she reaches college: the viewpoints of different types of people readers know. I don't expect readers to know the viewpoints of the types of people they choose with complete accuracy, but everyone entering college has some sense of how different people--like religious leaders, politicians of differing beliefs, teachers, police, bakers, butchers, etc.--perceive an issue from their own particular point of view. This makes the ability to write an analysis available to everyone, even if they know no particular academic or intellectual theory to apply. Thus was I able to find a simple solution to a complex problem.

There also is a simple but profound educational point that you should try to take with you as you move from this discussion of analysis to other courses and to your profession. Analysis is one of the most central methods of thinking in any kind of advanced work, writing, or speaking, and it is transferable to almost all general activities in life and work.

To emphasize this point, it may be helpful to take a look at one of the most quoted "taxonomies" developed in recent decades. A taxonomy is a classification system in which there are steps, with each step requiring the one before it. In 1964, B. S. Bloom classified educational objectives. His classification reads from the bottom up, with the lowest level being the simplest educationally and intellectually:

(from Taxonomy of Educational Objectives published by David McKay in New York)

This taxonomy or classification system shows six skills that students need to learn. What is more, these skills occur in steps, each requiring the one before it. This means, for example, that a student cannot learn "Application" until he or she has a reasonable mastery of both "Recall" and "Comprehension." The very top skill, "Evaluation," requires mastery and use of all five skills below it.

"Analysis," which I have highlighted, is fourth from the bottom, which means that three simpler thinking skills must be mastered before good analysis can occur. Everyone who reaches college is capable of and experienced in the first three skills ("Application," "Comprehension," and "Recall"). Most are capable of analysis, but if they do not learn to master it quickly, they are unlikely to succeed in college. Almost all courses--and certainly all degrees and certificate programs--require the ability to analyze, at the least, a situation and develop sound, logical, clear results. This is true whether you are a paramedic trying to assess how to handle a victim, a medical assistant trying to develop an intake diagnosis of a new patient, or a student in a liberal arts class learning to interpret meanings. And if you are attempting a four-year degree or more (and sometimes even a two-year degree), you will have to master not only analysis but also the two educational objectives that follow it and are highest in Bloom's taxonomy, "Synthesis" and "Evaluation."

If analysis is so important, how can you transfer what you have learned in this chapter to future classes and work? Simply remember that whenever you are confronted with a task involving thinking, analyze the task. Break it down into its parts. And ask yourself, "How am I supposed to perceive or explain the parts?" Every task of this kind--every one--can be broken into parts and analyzed accordingly. Of course, other kinds of thinking skills such as intuition, creativity, and freewriting (and free speaking!) are very useful, too. However, whether you use an outline, a visual diagram, a discussion with others, or some rough drafting of ideas on your own, eventually you will need to break down a subject and then think about its parts, step by step, using a theory, viewpoint(s), or method. Whenever you have a problem at work (or in your personal life), this is how you will eventually solve it if you solve it efficiently and thoroughly.

Look everywhere around you in the academic world in which you now live, at courses, at lectures and discussions, and at textbooks (including this one). Analyses are everywhere: someone has taken the time to look at a problem, situation, or subject, break it into its parts, and then decide how to talk about these parts, step by step, so that others can understand them, too. That is, in fact, exactly what this chapter--and this discussion of analysis--is doing now. It divides the task of analyzing into different parts and then discusses them from several viewpoints--of a college student just learning analysis, of a college student taking advanced college courses, and of a college student going into the professional world.

And this is what you need to remember from this chapter. Break down the problem or subject. Decide what your theory, theories, viewpoint(s), or attitude is supposed to be. Then use it to explain the parts.

For a discussion of the value of writing about readings in composition courses, please go to this major section's "Theory and Pedagogy for Instructors" page.

The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author.The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota.

The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author.
The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota.