The I-Search Paper

Part One

Ken Macrorie rethinks the old research project with his invention of the I-Search paper. I thought the ideas in this first section were great; what a crazy idea to allow students to research something that interests them and is relevant to their lives. The I-Search takes the Atwell and Kirby/Liner issues of choice a step further; it pushes students to a new form of responsibility for their writing. I read a quote once (sorry, I don't have the quote book with me) that said, "We do not write because we want to say something, we write because we have something to say." Macrorie pushes writing entirely into the "real-world" realm, with positive results.

Now I wonder how the I-Search could fit into a literature centered English course. Traditionally, a literature research paper included a trip to the library to find the required number of sources, followed by a skim of these sources for the required number of quotes. The amount of knowledge one had acquired was shown in the number of note cards one had produced. Students hated writing research papers, and teachers hated reading them. I think it would be interesting for students to explore topics of interest to them in a piece of literature, but I worry that this might be unrealistic. First, students would have to discover a topic that "chose them." Second, the primary expert on such topics would be the aforementioned thick heavy literary criticisms, which students loathe. There would be no joy in such an I-Search. In fact, I think that the I-Search paper requires that one research a topic that has personal relevance for that person; literature does not seem to carry this type of personal relevance for many students. Macrorie reflects on the issue of truth telling in chapter four. There is no truth in "research" that is merely an exercise in regurgitating dry literary criticism and citing according to MLA guidelines.

I think the issue here is getting students actively engaged in literature. Perhaps I should think back to Atwell…she managed to get her students actively involved in literary discussion. The notes and thoughts generated by these discussions could result in a very Grammar B I-Search paper in which a student follows his or her own train of thought rather than the more interview oriented examples Macrorie gives.

I also liked Macrorie's views on Engfish and word cutting. I think people write Engfish for two reasons: to sound more intelligent or to fill a word/ space requirement. Students will never be true writers and truly responsible for their own writing until these arbitrary restraints are removed. Grades should be based on content, and it is the responsibility of the writer to decide when their message has been effectively expressed.

Part Two

"Do you ever think about it?" he asks while I sort the money into slots in my drawer, "a new car, a nice house…"

"My student loans…" I add, meeting his eyes and returning his sly smile. "I could put all this back into the bag and meet you outside…"

"Good plan. Of course, we would have to leave the country."

"We'll drive straight to the airport, get on a plane, and go somewhere warm."

"Sounds good. Try to act normal about putting the money back in…large bills, so it isn't so obvious," he suggests.

How have I lived 20 years without Macrorie's wisdom? How is it that the conversation above took place last December, before we started this class and I had ever heard Macrorie's name? I think that Macrorie insults the intelligence of his readers with the amount of explanation he offers. The conversation above took place between a customer and I at the bank. He was making a large commercial deposit, and we engaged in a little mutual fantasy of robbing the bank and spending life in a tropical setting. Essentially, we told a story, and we didn't need to have the fundamentals of storytelling explained to do it.

The other sections of Macrorie were also somewhat helpful, but mostly obvious. For example, most students would probably give praise before criticism in a workshop setting because they are shy about judging the writing of others. In addition, does he need to tell his readers to use shorthand if they can't get everything their interviewee is saying? Most of us would figure that out on our own.

This weekend, I saw the movie Erin Brockovich with Julia Roberts. Erin seems to display Macrorie's ideal combination of objectivity and subjectivity. Her topic interests her so much that she sacrifices her relationship and her kids to research it and see that justice is carried out. She employs book research and interviews to learn about her topic, and she never loses her passion for the pain of the people she is dealing with.