# Active Reading Response Taxonomy Templates for generating productive intellectual responses while reading secondary sources. Use these during the second pass (critical reading) to identify research problems and argument positions. The goal is not to force a response on every passage, but to recognize when a passage triggers a genuine reaction and give that reaction a precise form. --- ## Part 1: Creative Agreement Types Use when you believe what the source argues. Agreeing is not passive — it is an opportunity to extend, strengthen, or broaden the source's claim into new territory. ### Agreement Type 1: Offer Additional Support **Pattern:** The source makes a claim with existing evidence; you can support the same claim with better, newer, or different evidence. **When to use:** The source's evidence is old, thin, or limited to a particular context and you know of stronger or more current evidence. **Template:** > [Source] supports [claim] using [type of evidence], but [stronger/newer evidence] provides better support for the same claim. **Patterns:** - Source supports claim with old evidence → you offer new evidence - Source supports claim with weak evidence (anecdotes, single case) → you offer stronger evidence (meta-analysis, multiple cases, experimental data) - Source supports claim in one domain → you offer evidence from a different domain confirming the same pattern **Example:** > Smith uses anecdotal accounts to argue that the Alamo story had mythic status beyond Texas, but editorial coverage in major Northern newspapers during the 1840s-1860s offers stronger systematic evidence for the same claim. --- ### Agreement Type 2: Confirm Unsupported Claims **Pattern:** The source speculates about or assumes something; you can provide evidence to prove it. **When to use:** The source flags a gap ("further research is needed," "we might expect that...") and you can fill it, or the source assumes a premise without demonstrating it. **Template:** > [Source] speculates/assumes that [X], but [evidence] shows that it is actually the case. **Patterns:** - Source speculates [X] might be true → you offer evidence that it is - Source assumes [premise] is true without proving it → you can prove it - Source identifies a pattern in one period → you can show it holds across time **Example:** > Smith recommends visualization techniques for improving athletic performance but provides no mechanism. Neuroimaging studies of athletes during mental rehearsal show activation of the same motor pathways used during physical practice — providing the mechanistic basis Smith assumes but does not demonstrate. --- ### Agreement Type 3: Apply a Claim More Widely **Pattern:** The source correctly applies a principle or finding to one case; you can show it applies to additional cases. **When to use:** The source's claim is restricted to a specific population, time period, domain, or type — and you can demonstrate it applies more generally (or in a new specific context). **Template:** > [Source] correctly applies [claim] to [context A]; the same principle applies to [context B]. **Patterns:** - Source applies finding to one population → you show it applies to another - Source claims [X] is true in a specific situation → you show it is true generally - Source applies one explanatory framework → you apply the same framework to a new case **Example:** > Smith argues that learning through multiple metaphors improves conceptual retention in medical education; the same pattern appears in engineering and legal education, suggesting a general principle of analogical scaffolding rather than a domain-specific phenomenon. --- ## Part 2: Creative Disagreement Types Use when you find something puzzling, inaccurate, or simplistic in a source. Do not dismiss disagreements — they often point directly to a research problem worth pursuing. ### Disagreement Type 1: Contradiction of Kind **Pattern:** The source categorizes something as a type of X; you argue it is better understood as a type of Y (or not a type of X at all). **When to use:** The source's classification misrepresents the nature of the phenomenon and the misclassification has consequences for the analysis. **Templates:** - Source claims [A] is a kind of [X], but it is better understood as a kind of [Y] - Source claims [A] always has [feature] as one of its qualities, but it doesn't - Source claims [A] is normal/significant/useful in the way [X] are, but it isn't - Reverse: Source claims [A] is *not* a kind of [X], but it is **Example:** > Smith classifies graffiti as a form of vandalism and analyzes it accordingly; it is better understood as a form of public art, which changes what counts as quality, who counts as a legitimate practitioner, and what role the community plays as audience. --- ### Disagreement Type 2: Part-Whole Contradiction **Pattern:** The source mistakes how the parts of something relate to the whole, or mistakes the relationship between sub-components. **When to use:** The source treats a part as the whole, or claims one sub-component relates to another in a way that is incorrect or incomplete. **Templates:** - Source claims [A] is a part of [B], but it is actually [a whole / a distinct category] - Source claims one part of [X] relates to another in [way], but the relationship is actually [different] - Source claims every [X] has [feature] as one of its parts, but it doesn't (or only some do) **Example:** > Smith treats procedural memory as a component of declarative memory in his model of learning; current cognitive science treats them as distinct memory systems with different neural substrates — making them parts of a larger whole (long-term memory) rather than one being a part of the other. --- ### Disagreement Type 3: Developmental or Historical Contradiction **Pattern:** The source mistakes the origin, history, or developmental trajectory of something. **When to use:** The source claims something originated in a particular place or time, developed in a particular direction, or is currently changing in a particular way — and the evidence contradicts that account. **Templates:** - Source claims [X] is changing in [direction], but it isn't (or it is changing in the opposite direction) - Source claims [X] originated in [place/time], but it actually originated in [different place/time] - Source claims [X] develops in [way] over time, but evidence shows [different developmental pattern] **Example:** > Smith argues that public trust in newspapers has been declining continuously since the 1970s; survey data from 1985-2005 shows the decline plateaued and partially recovered before resuming — making the trajectory non-linear in ways that complicate Smith's causal account. --- ### Disagreement Type 4: External Cause-Effect Contradiction **Pattern:** The source mistakes a causal relationship — claiming X causes Y when the relationship is absent, reversed, or more complex. **When to use:** The source's causal claim is central to its argument and you have or can identify evidence that the causal mechanism is wrong, incomplete, or conflated with correlation. **Templates:** - Source claims [X] causes [Y], but evidence shows they are both caused by [Z] - Source claims [X] is sufficient to cause [Y], but [Y] requires [X + other conditions] - Source claims [X] causes only [Y], but [X] also causes [Z] (with different implications) - Reverse: Source claims [X] does *not* cause [Y], but evidence shows it does **Example:** > Smith claims that legalizing marijuana increases use among teenagers; longitudinal data from states with early legalization shows no significant change in teen use rates compared to states without legalization — suggesting the causal relationship Smith posits is not supported by the available evidence. --- ### Disagreement Type 5: Contradiction of Perspective **Pattern:** The source analyzes a topic from within one framework, but a different conceptual framework reveals aspects the source's framework cannot see. **When to use:** The source's conclusions are limited not by the evidence but by the analytical lens it applies. A different framework — economic, historical, feminist, ecological, philosophical, etc. — would yield different and arguably more complete or accurate conclusions. **Templates:** - Source discusses [X] from the perspective of [framework A], but viewing [X] through [framework B] reveals [new truth] - Source analyzes [X] using [theory/value system A], but [theory/value system B] yields a more accurate or complete account - The standard view treats [X] as [type of problem]; reconceived as [different type of problem], [X] is better understood as [reframing] **Example:** > Smith treats advertising exclusively as an economic phenomenon, optimizing for product sales. Analyzed as a cultural form, advertising also functions as a medium for public art and social commentary — a function that the economic framework renders invisible but that matters for understanding advertising's social effects and regulation. --- ## Notes on Using This Taxonomy **Not every passage calls for a response.** Use the taxonomy when you feel a genuine intellectual reaction — agreement that surprises you, or disagreement you want to pursue. Forced responses produce hollow arguments. **Disagreements are more generative than agreements** for finding research problems. But do not discount creative agreements: extending a strong finding into new territory is a legitimate and often undervalued form of research contribution. **Categories overlap.** A single response might involve both a causal contradiction and a perspective contradiction (e.g., the source's causal claim is wrong because it uses an incomplete framework). Use the taxonomy to clarify your thinking, not to force a single label. **Keep your responses separate from the source's argument.** In your notes, mark your responses explicitly as [MY RESPONSE] so you do not later confuse your interpretation with what the source actually says.