Quotations Don't Speak for Themselves: Strengthening Academic Arguments Through Proper Framing

Quotations are the lifeblood of research writing in the humanities and the qualitative social studies. Pick up any book in these fields, and you'll find quotations, lots of them. If you want to know why to use quotations or how to punctuate or alter them, just have a look at your favorite style guide. All the major scholarly manuals cover such issues. But there is one critical question they don't address: What's the best way to use quotations to support and further your arguments?

As an editor, it's not uncommon for me to come across a quotation that has just been dumped into the middle of a text without any kind of introductory phrasing or explanation. Quotations don't speak for themselves. You, as a writer, need to give them meaning by contextualizing them; only then can they provide evidence for your arguments. That's why framing quotations with an introduction and an explanation is critical to persuasive academic writing. Let's take a look at how to do so effectively.

Why Quote?

First, we need to pose a basic question: Why do academic writers need to quote others? The answer might seem self-evident. Have you ever picked up a book by a historian or read an article penned by a sociologist? Well, like other scholarly texts, they are certain to contain quotations. Quoting others is just what scholars do!

Indeed, working with the ideas and words of others is standard practice in academic writing. In qualitative social science research and in many humanities disciplines that work with primary textual sources (e.g., history, literary studies) giving authentic citations of what people have said or written has become the "gold standard," and the readers of such texts expect such quotations.[1] As The Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS) aptly notes, "Scholarship has always depended at least in part on the words and ideas of others. Incorporating those words and ideas is central to the act of writing and publishing." But why is it central and what purpose does it serve besides meeting readers' expectations?

According to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), "Scientific knowledge represents the accomplishments of many researchers over time. A critical part of the writing process is helping readers place your contribution in context by citing the researchers who influenced you."[2] The MLA Handbook states that your writing "project should be about your own ideas, and quotations should merely help you explain or illustrate them."[3] Thus, when you quote the work of others, you are contextualizing your own research in the broader scholarly discourse while at the same time illuminating your ideas with the insights of others. Unfortunately, none of the mentioned style guides provide advice on effective ways to do this. So, we must look elsewhere.

Effectively Working with Quotations: Framing

As I've already suggested, quotations play many roles, all in the overarching service of engaging your ideas with the writing of other people. Moreover, how we introduce and punctuate these quotations is itself a critical aspect of effective academic writing. As Lorelei Lingard shrewdly observes, "As writers, we are all guilty of resorting to the default colon as an easy way to tuck quotes into our sentences."[4] As a reader, have you ever noticed an abundance of quotations whose presence is announced by little more than two little dots? I sure have. As a matter of fact, as an editor, I often come across quotations that are just unceremoniously dumped in between the author's own sentences without any punctuation or introductory phrasing at all. In academic writing it is crucial that you frame quotations with your own words; if you don't, your readers will struggle to understand their relevance.

In They Say/I Say, a wonderful guide to crafting academic writing that effectively engages with the ideas of others, Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein emphasize that quotations provide evidence for your ideas; they help convince your readers, telling them "I'm not just making this up."[5]

Graff and Birkenstein identify a major problem some authors have with using quotations: they tend to assume that quotations speak for themselves and that no further interpretation is required. Remember, always think of your readers. Without any contextualization, will they know what a quotation is supposed to mean and how it pertains to your arguments? Probably not. Therefore, as academic writers, we always need to carefully frame our quotations to provide them with the right support to reinforce our own ideas.

They Say/I Say provides an extensive list of templates for how to both introduce and explain quotations. I won't reproduce them here, but you can find such quotation-framing devices in materials produced by Brandeis University.

Vanderbilt University's Writing Studio breaks this approach down to a simple pattern for framing quotations: Introduce quote, give quote, explain quote. This is a formula all academic writers should follow.

Having explored the fundamental principles of framing quotations, we can now examine  how to use these strategies in practice. Lorelei Lingard, a medical writer, masterfully illustrates using such templates to effectively introduce and explain a quotation taken from an interview conducted as part of qualitative research, and in the process contextualize it and use it to support her own arguments.[6] We will analyze how she develops her framing to make it as strong as possible.

Here is the first attempt at framing:

One clinician said: 'Entrustment isn't a decision, it's a relationship'. (F21)

So, there is an introduction, but it's of the weakest variety. "Said" is as neutral as you can get. What does it do for your argument? And for your reader's understanding? Nothing much.

Here is a slightly improved version:

One clinician argued: 'Entrustment isn't a decision, it's a relationship'. (F21)

Ah, now we're onto something! "Argue" is a much stronger verb than "said." It looks like a proper introduction is taking shape! But greater context is lacking, and there is still no explanation.

The next version provides even more context, beginning to hint at a possible explanation for the quoted material:

One clinician in the focus group disagreed with the idea that entrustment was about deciding trainee progress: 'Entrustment isn't a decision, it's a relationship'. (F21)

Lingard's final version looks like this:

Focus group participants debated the meaning of entrustment. Many described it matter-of-factly as 'the process we use to decide whether the trainee should progress', while a few argued that 'entrustment isn't a decision, it's a relationship'. (F21)

If you take a step back and just look at the lines, you'll notice a key visual change here: the quotation is fully integrated into the text as the colon has disappeared. Moreover, the initial quotation has been juxtaposed with another. Now we see the idea the cited clinician disagrees with. The quotation is properly introduced, interpreted, and, thus, fully contextualized.

Lingard points out the advantages of the latter approach of integrating quotes into narrative structures: First, fully contextualizing quotations in this way helps interpret them for readers and provides meaning. Second, it introduces variety, a key component in compelling prose. By effectively framing quotations, you'll be making your arguments stronger and your work more readable.

Now, let's look at a practical application of this strategy.

A Real-life Example

As I've mentioned, it's not uncommon for me to run across quotations "dumped" into the middle of paragraphs, without any of the framing that is so crucial to context, meaning, and argument. I'd like to share one such example, and examine how the author, with my guidance, better incorporated what were originally unframed and uncontextualized quotations into his writing, strengthening his arguments and improving the text's readability.

One of my regular clients approached me to work on his paper "Negotiating the Representations of the Villages in Socialist Czechoslovakia," which he planned on submitting to the journal Rural History. (SPOILER ALERT: It was eventually accepted and published!) The study explores how different population groups in Communist Czechoslovakia viewed the country's rural areas and its inhabitants.

In a section devoted to architects' perceptions of the countryside, I came across a paragraph containing two quotations that lacked any type of framing. I could tell the author had picked some strong sources that had the potential to enhance his arguments, but he was committing a cardinal sin in academic writing: he was letting them speak for themselves, and I, as a reader, struggled to interpret their meaning in the given context. Here is the original, lightly edited version:

Architects also described the countryside as being backwards. But for them the reason was the underdeveloped nature of the building stock. "In 1950 … it was discovered that on average 30–35 percent of buildings were ruined, uninhabitable, or had such fundamental flaws that the only way to remove them was by erecting new replacement buildings." Similar criticism had earlier been voiced in the interwar period and emphasised how unhealthy and unhygienic living in such houses was. "Still today, up to 35 percent of the rural population is supplied with unhealthy water … fully functioning sewerage systems are lacking in most villages." These shortcomings were considered the legacy of capitalism, which, according to the authors, only exploited the countryside.

The paragraph contains two quotations, neither of which are framed with introductions. Looking at the first quotation, I'm not sure who made these discoveries about the building stock. As a reader, I have several questions: Did architects write this? If so, which ones? What geographical area is the quotation talking about? As an editor, I posed these questions to the author. Here is how he revised the sentence:

A survey of a selection of villages in Moravia in 1950 showed "that on average 30–35 per cent of buildings were ruined, uninhabitable, or had such fundamental flaws that the only way to remove them was by erecting new replacement buildings."[7]

Here, the author has filled in the missing information, providing a proper introduction to the cited material and fully contextualizing it.

I had similar misgivings about the second quotation, too. Did it come from the mentioned architects? Or is this now criticism from "the interwar period"? The final explanatory sentence even mentions "authors." But it doesn't mention any specific text. As a reader, I was lost. Again, I queried the author about these issues. Here is how he revised this section:

The same survey led to the finding that "up to 35 per cent of the rural population is supplied with unhealthy water […] fully functioning sewerage systems are lacking in most villages." These shortcomings were considered the legacy of capitalism, which, according to architect Aleš Viklický, only exploited the countryside.[8]

Here he frames the quote by restating that the presented data come from the same survey, establishing continuity. He also provides greater context in his explanation of this quotation by paraphrasing a concurring idea put forth by another author (Viklický), which lends extra weight to the argument being presented. The quotations now follow the simple introduce-quote-explain formula. These editorial interventions certainly improved the text.

Summing It All Up

In this post, we've looked at the importance of using quotations in academic writing. Although citing others' words is central to engaging in academic conversation and producing effective scholarly writing, researchers sometimes neglect to properly introduce and explain the material they are quoting.

If there is one thing to remember, it's this: Quotations cannot speak for themselves. Unframed quotations can weaken your arguments and leave readers and reviewers confused. You don't want that! Framing quotations brings the words to life, strengthens your arguments, and clarifies your position.

The easiest way to frame quotations is by following this simple formula: Introduce quote, give quote, explain quote. If you are currently working on a paper or book, take a careful look at your quotations and check if they follow this pattern. Ask yourself these questions: Are the quotations properly introduced? If so, could the introductions be made stronger to better contextualize the cited material? Am I providing explanations or interpretations of the quotations? How do they contribute to reinforcing my arguments? Do the quotations help readers better understand my ideas?

By thoughtfully framing each quotation, you transform what could be disconnected meaningless fragments into powerful meaningful evidence that bolsters your arguments and engages your readers in academic dialogue.

If you still feel you could use some help better incorporating quotations into your writing, get in touch with me. I'd be glad to assist!

[1] Ann Catrine Eldh, Liselott Årestedt, and Carina Berterö, "Quotations in Qualitative Studies: Reflections on Constituents, Custom, and Purpose," International Journal of Qualitative Methods 19 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920969268.

[2] Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 6th ed. (American Psychological Association, 2010), 169.

[3] MLA Handbook, 8th ed. (Modern Language Association, 2016), 75.

[4] Lorelei Lingard, "Beyond the Default Colon: Effective Use of Quotes in Qualitative Research," Perspectives on Medical Education 8, no. 6 (2019): 360. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40037-019-00550-7.

[5] Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein, They Say/I Say (W.W. Norton, 2017), 42.

[6] See Lingard, "Beyond the Default," 363.

[7] Roman Doušek, "Negotiating the Representations of the Village in Socialist Czechoslovakia," Rural History 35 (2024): 404. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0956793324000086. I would like to thank Roman for allowing me to share this story about how this quotation evolved in his writing.

[8] Doušek, "Negotiating," 404–5.