Of the research models compared, the steps of the Pitts/Stripling Research Model sounds most similar to the process I usually go through, and prefer to go through, in developing a paper. Of course, on a short assignment when sources are defined in advance by the professor, I am careful to understand the task clearly, as is mentioned as the first step of the Eisenberg/Berkowitz Big Six Information Problem Solving model. And have enjoyed taking the Kuhithau Information Seeking approach in the past, though my tolerance for confusion does vary depending on my interest in a topic and my time constraints during the time I have to craft a product for teach assessment. Whenever I look back on writing a paper, it is always the actual writing that I tend enjoy least. I prefer encountering the different perspectives on a topic, trying to isolate hard facts, and pondering the different interests involved in significant events. Writing a paper is far less enjoyable to me than researching that paper or pulling together sources for a more fluid presentation.

Not unsurprisingly, given how I like to immerse myself within my sources, I tend to narrow a topic according to what is of interest to me personally. Therefore, it seems fair to say that I stick to a modified version of the Pitts/Stripling model that shifts the step of developing a thesis until after I find and analyze a few prospective sources, at a deeper layer of analysis than a topic overview. I tend to focus on sub-topics that interface in what appears to me an interesting way. Often my eventual thesis will look for similarities and differences in several perspectives on a narrow topic.

It is far easier to delete references from a bibliography than it is to manufacture a bibliographical entry when the book or article needing citation is no longer within easy reach. I tend to write down a bibliographical entry as soon as a source has interested me. I know before I finish an introduction or forward if the source is related to my inquiry.

In general, I often find myself waiting too long to decide on a thesis. I’ll stick with a broad topic until I get as much information as I can hold in my mind, and then I ruminate on what can be said with the strongest support from the most interesting evidence that I have collected. I like the challenge of lessening the impact of opinions that do not agree with the conclusions I’ve eventually drawn; I’ve found that the most effective way to debunk a perspective is to pretend that I hold that opinion and then feel out why it doesn’t fit with what I have concluded.

I do find the creation of an outline before I create a paper to be exceedingly helpful (Pitts/Stripling Step 9). That way I have a guide for crafting smooth transitions that can lead my reader on a coherent path through my thoughts on the matter I’ve settled upon.