Often in our academic writing we’re expected to be sure of ourselves – to sound or be authoritative about something, or to know that we’re correct in what we’re arguing. At a final-product level, this is of course really important. But when we’re just starting out on a project, only writing about something we already know the answer to can really limit what experiments in thinking we take up. It can produce papers where people are arguing for something that they are already completely convinced about. I sometimes think of it as paper that have the form, In this paper I will argue that Bad Thing is Bad. Usually I agree that Bad Thing is Bad (it’s right there in the name!) But doing a paper in this mode surprises no one, and often doesn’t open up space for research on what a not-bad thing might be. This approach also can devolve into what Eve Tuck calls “Damage-centered research.”
So I often do this being sure/being unsure exercise as a primer for students starting their longer papers in my classes.
For the first five minutes: Write down the things you’re sure about as you think about your research topic. You can include evidence, reasons you’re sure, things you know without a doubt
For the next five minutes: Write down things about your research topic that you’re unsure about, that you don’t know the answers to, that are live questions for you, or sites of complexity or contradiction.
In my classes, I usually organize people into “writing circles,” and then I would have them go into groups to discuss what came up in this exercise and how they’re thinking of going forward.