Paraphrasing is one of the most important skills you can have when writing research papers or any paper where you are using information from outside sources. Poor paraphrasing can often lead to unintentional plagiarism. And even if you didn't mean to plagiarize, if your wording or phrasing too closely resembles another's work, it's still considered plagiarism.
The Art of Paraphrasing
When you are writing, paraphrased ideas are marked by an in-text citation for MLA and APA style or footnote/endnote for Chicago style indicating the origin of an idea or concept. Consider, however, if you're asked to present the same thesis or argument verbally.
Paraphrase indicators allow an author to indicate an upcoming paraphrase through "lead-in" by which listening audiences can easily determine when you are presenting your own ideas or the supporting ideas of others. Using paraphrase indicators is good habit, even if your work will be presented visually, because:
Ever sit down to put something in "your own words" with a thesaurus? It's a common trap. Students (and sometimes other writers) misinterpret the concept of paraphrasing as one that involves "reworking" and "replacing" words so that they appear "new."
Paraphrasing is, in fact, a process that, when done well, allows a writer to both credit the original author while speaking out with their own voice. Learning to paraphrase the ideas of another is a skill that is developed with practice.
The Act of Paraphrasing
The following steps will help you practice careful and considerate paraphrasing. After repeated use, these steps will become habitual.
1. Read the resource through, writing down bullet points on the facts or opinions presented. DO NOT copy down even phrases "word for word" without using quotation marks. Use the notecard feature in NoodleTools and view your notes in 'detail view'.
2. Set the resource and your notes aside. Briefly explain, in complete sentences, the information you have learned from the resource. Use paraphrase indicators to identify the author of the ideas you recall (see lists below).
3. Check your explanation against your notes and make any factual corrections necessary.
4. Compare your explanation to the original. Place quotations around any unique ideas or wording that you directly recalled and quoted. The 'detail view' in NoodleTools lets you look at the original passage with your paraphrase below it.
5. In all cases, include an in-text citation or footnote to the original resource.
When an author has conducted valid research via scientific methods and data collection, their findings may be presented as evidence of fact. Evaluate the credibility of your source (author's credentials + research methodology), then introduce your paraphrase using assertive language such as:
Romanelli asserts…
Holmquist demonstrates…
Loizzo describes…
Wallace enumerates the causes…
Roth establishes…
Shore explains…
Olson presents convincing evidence that…
Sullivan proves...
Peterson provides insight...
Groff recounts his own experiences in…
Paulson reports findings…
Moberg says…
Brothers states…
Eckert testifies…
Carey tells of…
Use multiple credible authors to support and strengthen your arguments. Be sure that the authors are agreeing with the idea based on their own analysis and expertise. Start by paraphrasing the original idea (with citation), following with a paraphrase of agreement, such as:
Brothers affirms…
Gard agrees...
Eastman attests to this…
Meinberg authenticates these findings...
Dimka certifies...
Jefferson concedes that...
Parker confirms...
Weise corraborates these findings...
J. Scott credits Smith with…
Anderson defends…
Stillman echoes…
Kracjo furthers this argument by…
Erickson provides additional evidence…
Bates remarks that…
Scholars use evidence gathered through research to develop theories. This interpretation of findings is not always black and white. If an author's interpretation is debatable, present their ideas as "analysis or opinion." You can begin the paraphrase of such ideas with phrases such as:
Boone advises…
Gudgel assumes...
Hatton believes…
Moberg advocates…
Hatton claims…
Paulson contends…
Hilbelink deduces…
Erickson estimates that…
Phillips expects…
Hatton implies…
Douglas infers that…
Fisher reasons…
Kealy recommends…
Cowell speculates…
Boone theorizes…
Controversial topics generate multiple viewpoints. Acknowledge viewpoints that oppose your main thesis and then COUNTER with evidence or interpretations to support the opposing view. Introduce the opposing viewpoint with a phrase such as:
Marchese admits that while….
Gard contests this, stating that…
Eastman denies the effects…
Bauer disapproves of this approach…
Fisher disputes…
Herpst expresses his concern…
Kelly exposes the flaws...
Perry favors an approach where…
Martin opposes...
Lynch proposes a different idea…
Amundson reacts by…
Meinberg rebuts...
Jensen refutes this…
Elsen voices concern…
* Special thanks to Lora Cowell for permission to use this information.
