2, How to find, evaluate, and use evidence

Academic writing is not strengthened simply by adding more citations. A paragraph with five footnotes can still be weak if none of those sources actually proves the claim being made. Evidence has a more demanding role: it connects an argument to something outside the writer’s own assertion.

Consider the difference between two sentences. “Urban redevelopment often harms local communities” is a claim. “Following redevelopment, average commercial rents in the district rose by 38 percent while the number of independently owned shops fell by nearly one quarter” introduces evidence. Yet even the second sentence is not automatically persuasive. We still need to know where those figures came from, how they were measured, whether the time period is appropriate, and whether the changes were actually caused by redevelopment.

One of the most common mistakes in student research is beginning with a broad topic and immediately typing it into a search engine.

Suppose your topic is gentrification. Searching simply for “gentrification” will produce millions of results: newspaper articles, government reports, Wikipedia pages, advocacy websites, academic papers, real-estate advertisements, videos, and opinion pieces. Most of them will not answer the question you actually need to investigate.

Research becomes much more efficient when a topic is converted into a specific question.

The second question already tells you what kind of evidence you need. You may want data on commercial rents, business turnover, transit access, neighborhood income, property values, zoning changes, or interviews with business owners.

Your research question therefore functions as a filter. Before opening a source, ask what part of the question you expect that source to help answer.

Good research rarely consists of collecting everything available. It consists of identifying what information an argument requires and searching deliberately for that information.

Research becomes dangerous when the writer decides on a conclusion first and then searches only for material that confirms it.

Search engines make this surprisingly easy.

If you search “why rent control fails,” you will find arguments explaining why rent control fails. If you search “benefits of rent control,” you will find arguments supporting rent control.

Neither search strategy gives you the debate.

Once you develop a tentative argument, deliberately search for evidence that might weaken it：

1， What would someone who disagrees with you cite?

2， Are there cases where the relationship you identified does not occur?

3， Do later studies challenge the paper you rely on?

4， Is there an alternative explanation for the same evidence?

Counterevidence does not necessarily destroy an argument. Often it makes the argument more precise.

Instead of claiming that “X causes Y,” you may discover that the evidence supports a narrower and more defensible conclusion: “X tends to contribute to Y when conditions A and B are present.” It is usually a better one.