Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Today, we will be looking at how to make a Parlor Map using Bubbl.us.
A Parlor Map is a visual technique you can use to discover the logical connections among the sources you’ve found for your research paper;
these connections will help you understand the previous work on your topic better and explain it more clearly to your readers.
The concept of the Parlor Map comes from Kenneth Burke,
a scholar who compares academic debates to a large conversation taking place in a parlor.
The idea is that when you prepare to write an essay, it is like walking into the middle of a conversation.
Before you can participate, you will need to figure out what’s already been said and by whom.
The Parlor Map helps you enter the conversation by mapping out the positions on your issue
so that you know where and how to best contribute to the debate.
While the Parlor Map may help you state and support your position throughout your entire research project,
it will probably be of the most help in creating the literature review section of your paper.
In order to make your own Parlor Map, you’ll need your annotated bibliography with your 8 or so sources, and bubbl.us open on your computer—
or a piece of paper that you can use to mimic the bubbles as we go along.
Let’s get started. First, go to bubbl.us. It may ask you for permission to store information on your computer. Click allow.
It will now ask you if you want to create an account.
Go ahead and create an account as you will not be allowed to save or print your map if you do not.
Pause this tutorial now if you need time to do this.
This program allows you to create bubbles and link them together with logical connections.
The bubbles will usually represent specific articles or scholars.
However, feel free to name the bubbles with ideas or positions on your topic;
you can always attach relevant sources to those positions— whatever works for you.
Before we get started, you should be aware of some of the common logical connections or “argument lines”
that you may find linking your research sources together.
First we have compare and contrast. This is one of the most common argument lines students discover when researching their topics.
Use this argument line if the authors in your literature review fall into 2 or 3 camps
that disagree about the best way to define or do things.
In this example, the student’s annotated bibliography boils down to two camps of scholars who disagree
about the best way to limit carbon emissions: one favors cap-and-trade, and the other favors strict limits on emissions with no trading.
The student will connect relevant sources from her bibliography to these two camp bubbles.
Use the Cause & Effect argument line if you are primarily interested in showing how one development has led to another in your topic.
In the example, the student found a group of sources discussing the Constitutional amendment that prohibited alcohol sales,
and then some other sources that discussed how the practice of bootlegging arose in response to Prohibition.
Division is useful when you need to carve up a bigger issue into smaller issues to make it more manageable.
In this example, a student has found that to discuss the problems scholars have raised with Obamacare,
it’s best to treat the previous research in two categories—problems with the policy itself, and problems with implementing the policy.
Again, individual sources will be attached as child bubbles to these category bubbles.
These aren’t the only argument lines; as long as you can name the connection between your bubbles, that’s all that matters.
And of course you can combine argument lines in your map; we’ll look at that later.
Let's begin with a simple map.
We are going to look at the topic of gun control. We already have an annotated bibliography completed with ten sources.
Before we can add the sources to the map, however, we need to decide what our main categories are going to be
and what argument line best connects them.
For this issue, we were able to determine that the authors fall into three camps:
Just enforce current laws
extend the ban to all guns but hunting rifles, or, instead, concentrate on providing mental health care.
Let’s now create these three bubbles.
To create a new bubble, hold down on the command key (or the control key) and then click wherever you would like the bubble to be.
It can easily be dragged later if you want to move it.
Notice that if you hover above the bubble, a toolbox opens up which will allow you to change the color of the box and the text.
Great, now we’ve got our main categories. Time to add our articles.
First we’ve got Sanchez (2010) who argues that if current laws were truly enforced, the last 5 school shootings would likely not have happened.
Let’s attach him to category one.
Second, we have an article by Epstein (2012) that argues that we should be treating the root of mass killings (mental illness) not the symptoms
…meaning the particular weapons used. Okay, let’s attach her to bubble #3.
Third, we’ve got Chang (2011) who argues from precedents in European countries that handgun bans have greatly reduced gun violence.
Hmmm, let’s attach him to bubble #2.
And so on with our remaining scholarly sources.
The important thing to remember is that every source you’ve found should be logically connected to the others along an argument line.
If you have a source that you can’t connect, there are three possibilities:
If you have sources that are not directly relevant to the issue of gun control, come back to them some other time.
If you have sources that don’t argue a point but provide helpful background history or facts, such as a news article or Wikipedia page,
attach it to a bubble off to the side that says “Background/Context.”
Your instructor will also help you figure out the most appropriate place to put this useful background information in your paper.
This source argues a point but is not written by experts on gun control; it’s written by the editors of a well-respected newspaper.
Your instructor may allow you to place this source under bubble #2;
however, your instructor insists on your using only scholarly or peer-reviewed sources in your literature review.
Ask your instructor how best to deal with opinion pieces such as this editorial.
Remember that they may still provide helpful background and context and might be able to be used in the introduction of your paper
even if they’re not allowed as scholarly sources in the body of your paper.
Let’s take a look at our work. Notice any issues?
Bubble number three only has one supporting source.
This will be a problem when you go to write your paper as you have not represented one perspective very well.
So how do you fix this issue? There are a couple of options.
First, you could re-read the sources you’ve listed in your background/context category and see if they reference any new authoritative sources
you could add to the third camp. Or, you can use OneSearch,
CQ Researcher, or other library sources to help find more reliable research; ask your instructor or a knowledge center expert for help if you need it.
Now category three isn’t looking so weak anymore.
There’s a basic Parlor Map. Here’s another one that needed two argument lines to effectively connect and explain previous research.
First, the student needed to show how fuel cell technology developed over time;
then, the student needed to show that a controversy has recently developed over the two top options for car fuel cells.
If you’d like, you can stop the video now and start thinking about how to turn this map into an outline for your literature review section
of your research paper. However, if you know the stance you want to take on this issue in the next section of your paper,
you’re ready to do a bit more with the map.
Let’s go back to our first map. Say you decide after doing your research that you agree most strongly with the mental health camp.
Add a bubble beneath it and type your thesis statement into the bubble. Next, add your major reasons to your thesis as child bubbles.
Finally, if you see a source in the previous research that you think supports your stance really well, ask your instructor if you can use
this source twice, or if you need to move it from your literature review to your stance section and find another source to replace it up above.
As you move ahead with your project, remember that all positions—whether they’re yours or others’—will need to be well-supported.
Also remember that you will need to respectfully address the concerns of any positions that disagree with your stance
or propose alternatives to it.