When Should You Paraphrase?

When determining when to paraphrase or cite quoted material in full consider the following:

• How long is your quote?
• Are there any specific data points you should include?

Given the lack of data points in the following source material, it might be best to paraphrase in order to get straight to the point:

Both versions objectively describe the procedure in quest, only the quoted material is more visceral and potentially impacting the reader more deeply on a human level.

Citing in APA Style

Original Material:

Examining Basic Assumptions in the Argument Culture

In an argument culture, the first key assumption is that adversarial communication is required for truth and justice to prevail. As noted earlier, this assumption is at the heart of adversarial communication in legal, governmental, and academic contexts. While understandable, this assumption is founded on a false dilemma . It supposes that there are two views–presumed opposites–and that we must choose between them, elevating one as truth and rejecting the other as false. While apparently promising clarity, adversarial communication actually promotes a power struggle between between oversimplified and mutually exclusive positions. Faced with this false dilemma of having to be either right or wrong, individuals struggle over whose perspective will prevail at the expense of the other. Consequently, when advocates are pitted against each other, winning becomes the goal in a disagreement. This second assumption follows from the first. If there are two mutually exclusive points of view, and only one can be “right,” then successful advocates must ensure that their positions are victorious. When winning is what matters, how victory is achieved becomes less important. This approach to engaging differences, as demonstrated throughout the chapter, opens the door to harmful communication habits, as people resort to defensive and combative patterns in an effort to win or otherwise protect their status and reputations.

— Josina M. Makau and Debian L. Marty, Dialogue and Deliberation

Paraphrased Material:

In Dialogue and Deliberation, Makau and Marty (2013) unpack some of the assumptions inherent in what they call “adversarial communication,” in order to demonstrate that the communication style we take for granted is problematic at best. They argue that when participants in a discussion see themselves as adversaries in a zero-sum game, they are primarily concerned with winning, so concern for the humanity of opponents is secondary, if it’s considered at all.

Alternative Paraphrased Material:

In Dialogue and Deliberation, Makau and Marty (2013) unpack some of the assumptions inherent in what they call “adversarial communication,” in order to demonstrate that the communication style we take for granted is problematic at best. They argue, “When winning is what matters […] people resort to defensive and combative patterns in an effort to win or otherwise protect their status and reputations” (p.16). In this formulation, individuality, though typically understood as a key feature of American identity, is presented as the foundation of the problem, since individual victories are painted as more important than the truth or a community’s ability to thrive.

APA Citation:
Makau, J.M and Marty, D.L. (2013). Dialogue & Deliberation. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.