FINAL PAPER
COSC 418: FINAL PAPER
THE ASSIGNMENT
Write a 7-10 pp. paper (or 1750 to 2500 words, not counting works cited) that takes a position informed
by research on the ethical dilemma(s) associated with the case study you explored in steps 1-4.
Include a Works Cited page (done in MLA format) with at least ten sources consulted to learn more
about not only the case but any associated issues; at least five of your sources should be secondary
critical resources in a peer-reviewed journal or scholarly study of some kind (many academic
publishers have removed their paywalls in light of COVID-19 circumstances, so it might oddly enough be
easier to download relevant research articles and that alone would be an interesting topic of its own).
When directly quoting or summarizing a source, you can then use in-text citations, given the
bibliographic information will be in the concluding works cited page.
MLA STYLE (in a nutshell) + OTHER SOURCING TIPS
Go to a wonderfully clear website sponsored by the online writing and learning (OWL) center at Purdue
University: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/01 .
This link will take you directly to the MLA Handbook. In the menu on the left side, click first on “MLA
Formatting Quotations,” and look at how quotations should be integrated into your prose (these rules
apply for any essay you will write). Next, click on “MLA In-Text citations: The Basics,” and review it
carefully, taking special note of where the punctuation goes when you are dealing with parenthetical
notes. And finally, click on the types of citation you need to format for your Works Cited.
Do also note that any MS Word processing program has a “REFERENCES” tab in the menu ribbon at top
of page that can also guide you through the logistics of citing sources (no matter the format or style
guide). The TU Cook library can also help you access resources, as they do have subscriptions to
databases and services, which means your netlogin ID will enable you to download and see items that
might not otherwise be possible to access: https://libraries.towson.edu/ . Additionally, I on occasion
discover students are not aware of the google scholar search engine, which is a good shorthand way to
find peer-reviewed articles (the regular google search engine has no consistent way to prioritize quality
scholarly sources in their search ranking results pages): https://scholar.google.com/ .
If you now in retrospect understand the case takes up topics relevant to specific textbook chapters, you
have key terms and existing debates and perspectives to factor in how you go about explaining your
position and researching the case further, too.
HOW CASE STUDY STEPS 1-4 ENABLES A WORKING DRAFT TO TAKE SHAPE
Case study steps 1-4 enabled us to lay the groundwork for researching a topic in greater depth after
focusing on a particular case and the various associated issues it raises; we also considered how the
philosophical frameworks covered at start of term bear ongoing relevance to how one would analyze
and reason through broader consequences and impacts.
For the final paper, you will now be attempting to formulate an argumentative thesis statement that
serves as a kind of answer to the ethical dilemma question you posed in the second step of the case
study process and that you further refined into conclusions drawn in step four. If you have rethought
the question or shifted focus after additional research and reflection as the semester proceeded, that’s
fine and should be expected to be an integral part of any process of critical inquiry and learning. Step
three prompted us to sort out how the ethical dilemma question shifted in emphasis, depending on the
philosophical framework at stake, and it could be that further research and ongoing things learned in
the class or through the scholarship of others prompted you to reconsider your thinking. A virtue of an
education is that you can and may adapt and reconsider your thinking when discovering additional
evidence that enables a deeper understanding of a topic. What matters most for writing an effective
paper would be that you are able to explain your reasoning with sufficient evidence and examples that
demonstrate the points made. However, it’s also important to be open-minded about how a “fact” can
be framed or reframed to misdirect attention or to focus on something that does not capture in fuller
complexity how or why a situation has resulted in other ethical considerations. As the tech sector too
frequently takes the position of “move fast and break things!” this kind of deeper, holistic thinking will
be a skill highly valued moving forward in your career and life, no matter what new-fangled technology
comes onto the scene and no matter whatever short-sighted justifications might be used to limit
opportunities to rethink the issues and situations at stake.
CONSIDER THE SOURCE
You listen to a heated discussion on the issues. You hear politicians, celebrities, and pundits bandying
opinions in the media. You explore the tech reviews or opinion pages in a magazine. You browse a blog.
In all of these experiences, you probably do not accept opinions, or even what’s presented as fact,
without some discrimination, some sense of considering the source.
By the same token, when asked to collect research for a paper, you can’t enter the library or use a
search engine with the idea that every source is equally respectable and authoritative. Even assuming
that you’ve narrowed down your topic and are exploring articles that seem relevant, which ones make
the best sources? With so much information available, how do you judge?
STARTING POINTS FOR EVALUATION
Timeliness: Use the most recent statistics you can find. If your source isn’t recent, then consider
whether the ideas/opinions/facts need to be understood differently based on the time that’s passed.
Author: What’s the educational and work experience of the author that lends authority to the
argument? What else has this person published, and was it well reviewed? Is there any personal
experience that affects this person’s point of view, making them a more immediate and useful source or
which contributes to potential partiality in views?
Institutional endorsement, publication, so forth: What connection does the
author/publication/webpage have to universities, hospitals, businesses (including tech companies),
government agencies, museums, or other well-recognized institutions that carry weight or which might
affect the point of view expressed?
THE WILD WEST OF WEB RESOURCES
The Modern Language Association’s (MLA) eighth edition (2016) recommends that modern-day citation
practices follow a few principles rather than inventing new rules for each web portal or other emergent
technologies.
MLA recommends that you cite basic traits shared by most works; the following template identifies the
core elements generally included — though all may not always apply, it depends on other source context
factors:
Author
Title of Source
Title of Container
Other Contributors
Version
Number
Publisher
Publication date
Location
ASSESSING SOURCES ON WEBSITES
A starting point for evaluating websites can be understanding how general top-level domain names (or
gTLDs) work. Here’s a shortlist, by no means comprehensive:
.edu means the site comes from an educational source (though you need to assess whether it’s
a random student’s website, something backed by the university or a scholar’s own academic
page).
.gov indicates government websites, which usually can be reliable for data and information
about an issue. Some, however, of course support the agency that supports them or might have
tacit political assumptions that determine what is or isn’t publicly shared. The county
commission’s website won’t criticize the county government, for example.
.org indicates non-profit status, which may make it an advocacy group of some kind.
Information is intended to support a point of view, so just make sure that you’re aware of what
that is and the reputation of the group. Their arguments may or may not be non-partisan and
useful, but check their data sources no matter what!
.com addresses are usually selling something. They might still have useful information, but be
wary and understand these are not scholarly sources.
If you wish to learn more about how that internet naming system continues to evolve in purpose and
use, you may take with a grain of salt another source, the Wikipedia entry for gTLDs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_top-level_domain
BOTTOM LINE: be careful, precise and thoughtful whenever and wherever you engage sources.
DOCUMENTATION & LINKS
• Does the source cite its own sources or are these varied and evenly engaged? Do you detect any
lack of credibility or bias?
• Are there critical reviews or links that lend credibility?
LOOKING MORE CLOSELY
Purpose: What’s the agenda? Look at the title, headlines, table of contents and preface. Find a thesis
statement, skim the text, and read the conclusion. Is it informative, persuasive, propaganda? Is there an
inherent bias that makes the source unreasonable or that must be considered when you present this
source?
Audience: You might reject a source because it’s too simple or too complex in its language or meaning,
which might mean that you and your audience don’t match its intended audience. Also, understanding
the intended audience can often help you understand the purpose of the piece.
Basic Quality: Does the writing itself seem intelligent? Is this a well-balanced, well-researched source
which, whether it remains objective or not, seems willing to discuss all sides of the issue? Is it clear
enough that you feel confident you fully understand it and won’t misunderstand it or take something
out of context?
Any Deceptive Practices?: A source might appear factual while actually camouflaging the truth. Read
carefully for logical fallacies, and for outright deception. For example, you see a graph that at a glance
seems to show no disparity, but when you look more closely, the unit of measurement is unreasonably
large. Likewise, a graph might seem to show a marked upward trend, but actually, the Y axis measures
only between 30% and 40%, so that vertical only shows a 7% increase! Or, you check an endnote to
learn that the vague accusation you nearly believed has no valid evidence, or that the test group had a
minute sampling. So many ways to manipulate evidence!
THE POINT IS: you’re not only looking for what will carry authority, you’re also making sure that you are
aware of any bias or perspective that might be relevant to the argument. Ideally, your statistical sources
will be based in data or measured facts of some kind, but these and other sources can be used for some
agenda. So, before you utilize a source, you have to understand it. For example, your argument
promoting holistic medicine might rely heavily upon interviews with practitioners and patients who have
experience. However, you don’t want your source to be the flyer promoting a new “remedy”. Choose, if
possible, someone whose lengthy experience is touted, whose practices and writings have some support
from a well-recognized medical facility. Recognize also that statistics published by a major mainstream
drug company might serve that company’s purposes.
Write Well! When in doubt, feel free to ask questions!
