Thesis - Antithesis - Synthesis

Kerry introduced the triad thesis-antithesis-synthesis to assist us in forming good arguments and developing reasoning based on evidence. He mentioned that thinking or writing in terms of thesis-antithesis-synthesis can also help us position ourselves in the flow of scholarly discourse regarding our topic. Additionally, he mentioned that existing literature is essentially an on-going argument, so if we can show such a pattern of thought in a literature review, the literature review is likely to be comprehensive, thorough, and sophisticated.

The thesis is essentially an idea that we propose (e.g. high social self-efficacy enables a person to be successful in dating). In research, the thesis is the proposition. The antithesis is a response to the thesis asserted, a negation of the thesis (e.g. Z argued that people with high social self-efficacy tend to be flirts instead, hence people tend to avoid dating them). As illustrated in both examples, a conflict exists between the thesis and the antithesis. Based on the antithesis, a person with high social self-efficacy would not be successful in dating since he/she is usually known as a flirt. Perhaps social self-efficacy is one of the necessary traits for a person to be good in dating, but we also have to consider the person's appearance, personality, and experience to determine if he/she will be successful in dating. I have positioned the new idea as a synthesis of the thesis-antithesis dyad. In other words, the synthesis solves the conflict between the thesis and antithesis by reconciling both and forming a new thesis, thereby starting a new cycle of thesis-antithesis-synthesis.

Applying the thesis-antithesis-synthesis thought process has given me a better idea of how I can go about formulating good, robust, and persuasive arguments. Despite Kerry's constant emphasis on making good arguments, I have struggled considerably in this aspect. This was evident in the first literature review assignment of this course in which Kerry remarked that I have not addressed the gap, even though I have found and indicated that there is a gap in existing self-efficacy literature. Consequently, I decided to practice using the thesis-antithesis-synthesis approach on my current qualitative research project on self-efficacy beliefs and perceived career options. The exercise is shown below:

(1) Thesis: Current literature suggests that gender is by far the most important demographic factor that influences a person's self-efficacy beliefs, and his/her subsequent perceived career options.
(2) Antithesis: However, in most of the interviews which I have conducted (which involve full-time ANU CBE students), a person's social capital appears to be the most influential demographic factor that affects his/her self-efficacy beliefs and perceived career options.
(3) Synthesis: A possible explanation is that the traditional gender roles have already evolved such that the influence of gender on a person's self-efficacy beliefs and perceived career options is diminished. Consequently, a person's social capital has become the most important demographic factor in determine the level of self-efficacy a person possesses, and the formulation of his/her perceived career choices (possibly as a result of greater social inequality).

I found this exercise to be extremely useful in helping me understand what is lacking in a salient argument. From now on, I will definitely be using the above approach when constructing arguments!