https://docs.google.com/document/d/16p0dNPhXWF6Z3IDxRZnlZkNaSpZLXtOeJ4EvCCjfZqc/edit
In the passage “The March for Science Can’t Figure Out How to Handle Diversity”, author Zuleyka Zevello conveys the message that Trump’s Administration is placing a variety of restrictions on the field of scientific research and at the same time, jeopardizing science as we know it. With presidential moves such as building a wall to separate the US and Mexico, (a decision that will prevent advancement in international science programs), and even the threat to the American Health-Care act, it seems that the only thing President Trump values is cutting costs rather than show and respect to scientific research. With motivation and desire to act, the March for Science emerged as it was inspired by the impact of the women’s march, but also was sparked due to social media conversations (Zevello, 2). By creating social media accounts and noticing the rapid growth of supporters and flowers, the organization was able to generated over 300 marches to occur in various cities around the world.
One way in which I was able to draw a comparison between this case and what we’ve been discussing through this class is through vocabulary terms. One term is specific that we discussed through this course happens to be a discourse community, which can be defined as a group of individuals in a social group who not only share similar goals, but also have specialized language/customs to distinguish themselves from other groups. One way in which I believe we can consider the people part of the march as their own discourse community is by the way they diversify themselves. First off, they prime themselves off of three main components, which are equity, access and inclusion, as their number one goal is to make everyone feel valued, heard and included. With these specific variables defining what their special group is and what they stand for, I believe we can consider them their own discourse. One way in which I can relate this to our final projects is to pay close attention to importance of identifying your specific/target audience, and realizing that your goal is to convey/persuade your main point. At times, I felt that Zevello lost train of his influential aspect in this article and found himself telling more of a factual story; which is ok, but in terms of our final project, we need our community partners to trust us and buy into what we have researched. In “Discourse Coalition, Science Blogs, and the Global Debate Over Climate Change”, author Graham Smart studies and discusses the phenomena and theory of climate change. Before presenting his findings, Smart identifies two sets of research questions that he used in order to gather and arrange his collected information. The first set questions asked “what discourse coalitions can we identify within the web-based discourse of the climate-change controversy and what can an investigation of discursive interactions between discourse coalitions reveal about how climate-science knowledge is presented to different public and the nature of this knowledge” ((Smart, 164). The second set of questions asked “what rhetorical work do blogs perform- and for whom? Also, how do blogs perform this work” (Smart 164). The second set of research question were more appealing to me as they can be linked/pertain to our very own writing for the science course. Through extensive research, Smart stated that blogs are not only be used to provide information to a vast number of people, but also for others to comment on this date provide and almost debate about the information presented.
One connection that I made between our class and Smarts piece the discussion/use of the term genre. To us, genre can have many interpretations, such as the style we intend on using when presenting to our audience, or even the subject we intend on presenting. Too Smart, he discusses the literary element of genre as researching blog tendencies in communities and how others communicate amongst each other in this field. As for the three different discourse coalitions that Smart talks about, I believe his overall intentions were to distinguish how each group argues their own individual point by taking various approaches to the climate changing topic and supporting their claim to provide their argument. As for my final project, I personally do not believe this information irrelevant to the stance I plan on taking. However, I could open up and sharpen my understanding of what genre could mean and take some examples from Smart that he provides. The text that I have selected to analyze for this blog post is a medical article titled “The Emotional Causes of Cancer”. In this article, author Wendy Myers breaks down the ways individuals can obtain cancer through high-stress level. With this, Myers includes an ample amount of outside scholarly sources such as medical reports and studies in order to support her claim. In order to show her passion for her field of work, she also provides a 6 phase cycle of how one can develop cancer through stress. As for my final project, my goal is to research the role emotional health has on cancer risk and beginning with stress is a major key to my hopeful success on this project.
In chapter 19 of The Chicago Guide to Communicating Science, there were a few key techniques Montgomery incorporated that not only stood out to me, but I also noticed that Myers may have used as well. In chapter 19, the first technique that Montgomery points out is the importance of having a strong opening sentence or as he refers to it “the lead”. According to Montgomery, the two first lines within your writing should do two things: deliver the main (intended) message and create interest for the reader to follow (Montgomery, 297). When reading Myers Emotional Causes of Cancer article, the first sentence stating “Cancer absolutely has emotional roots” stood out to me. Being a college student and knowing that I stress every day over school work made me curious and interested to keep reading. I think this is a useful skill as it worked on myself, and I do intend on stealing this technique for my final project. A second technique that I’d like to point out from chapter 19 comes within the body paragraph, or as others refer to as the bulk of your report. The second technique is that the main body of your text needs to include logic to make it flow and cohere (Montgomery, 301). While including logic to support your argument and research, you’re also giving the reader a reason to remain interested and continue reading. In Myers’ medial piece, she does an outstanding job of separating her research findings from her informative/logistic drive research, as this gives the reader the impression that there is a smooth flow and organization style to her writing. Going into depth further into the article, Myers actually includes statistics in her findings section, which link back to providing logistics to ensure a flow as Montgomery stated. With these two moves that Montgomery discusses, I feel that I will be able to not only keep my reader interested, but also form a connection with them. As Montgomery discussed, using simple language and making sure your work contains a passionate flow can take you a long way, and I intend specifically to try this while composing my final deliverable on my final project. For this blog, the article I choose to analyze an article titled “CTE found in 99% of studied brains from deceased NFL players. The reason I choose this is article was because I actually volunteer portions of my summer to research this specific type of disease as I possess a strong passion of making the game of football safer. For those who don’t know what Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) is, it is a progressive disease found in most athlete’s brains due to repetitive brain traumas. With these blows to the head, an abnormal protein forms in the shape of a plate within the brain, slowly killing brain cells over time. At first, I wasn’t sure if that would be considered a “scientific article” but after conducting further research, the study of the brain and mind can be considered cognitive science.
Within this article, author Daniella Emanuel discusses in detail the danger and risk that people are taking when they step onto a football field, as they are putting their lives in jeopardy. To grab the reader’s attention, Emanuel incorporates an appeal of logos as she adds statistics to support her claims. In the seventh paragraph of her article, she states “Out of 202 deceased former football players total, a combination of high school college and professional players, CTE was neuropathologically diagnosed in 177. The disease was identified in 110 out of 111 former NFL players” (Emanuel, 2017). As the article proceeds, Emanuel stresses the importance to seek help and avoid causing lifelong damage. One line that stood out to me was when she stressed the fact that football is an overall choice, but people need to consider the harm they could potentially be doing if they don’t be careful. One technique that Daniella Emanuel used that reflected the styles I analyzed in Montgomery’s Guide to Communicating Science was her ability to provide accurate and specific information that is not only interesting, but it grabs the reader’s attention. With this technique, emphasis is added onto the logical approach an author takes, but also stresses the importance to provide a conclusion to the overall argument the author presented. For example, as Emanuel provides background knowledge, facts and a statement for seeking help, she offers next steps that could not only save people, but the ability to seek clinical help. A second technique that caught my attention from Montgomery’s reading that Emanuel also incorporated by was using smooth transitions into new paragraphs to add a sense of flow to the article. As I mentioned before, Emanuel uses a specific structure of introduction, facts, knowledge, and additional resources to not only tell a story but to give the reader a better understand of what she is trying to explain. With this logical approach, Emanuel makes sure to lead herself into the next paragraph, and reintroduce that idea in the opening sentence of the paragraph. One example would be after she discusses questions raised, she goes into seeking help by immediately states studies have shown. With this, she is appealing to credibility which strengths her ethos and also ensures the flow of transition. One move I might steal that I didn’t discuss above was Montgomery’s ability to propose multiple questions through the article. With this approach, I found myself thinking deeper about the topic at hand which I really liked, so if I incorporate this technique in my final project, I hope the same effect would occur with my audience. The beginning of Caesar’s Last Breath, author Sam Kean opens up by describing in detail the gasses among our earth that ultimately make up the earth’s atmosphere. By opening up with such a broad topic, Kean digs deep and thoroughly explains each layer of the atmosphere in order to persuade and convince his reader of his claim. As the reader, I have to admit I am not too sure who Kean’s audience is. To take an educated guess, I believe Kean intends to reach anyone who is interested in the topic of what earth is composed on internally. The reason that I seem to be confused about his target audience at first was before I opened the book, I assumed this was based for a scientific audience who has an interest in the earth and the evolution of air. However, after rereading the first section and developing an understanding of Kean’s style, I realized that Kean is writing to everyone as his overall purpose is for people to be interested in what he is writing and to write to persuade the reader to continue reading. I was able to tell this as Kean almost displayed a passion through his writing that I picked up on. For example, when reading Kean’s section about air, he went into such excruciating detail that it was almost strange; now looking back, it wasn’t strange, it was an author showing true interest in what he was writing about.
One way Kean effectively told his story was by using explanations and examples throughout Making Air: Our First Four Atmospheres. As I mentioned above, the context contained a plethora of rich information, and also had some appeals of logos as Kean incorporated statistics to enhance his theme. Secondly, Kean arranges his piece in a specific way in which I believe can be directly linked to why his style was so effective. After closing the introduction, he went right into his story, where he went on about his passionate topic and overloaded the reader with facts and terms that he felt were important. After this, Kean provided explanations and support for what he talked about in his story, which can be extremely influential as he is providing support after he has presented his claim over and over. One move that I might steal from Kean in terms of my own final project is to take a small aspect what I’m researching, and completely overload the reader with facts and research to support my claim. In terms of Kean and as I mentioned above, he goes on to discuss air in rich detail only to tie it back into what makes up the earth. Also, I like the style Kean uses, specifically telling a story. In my final project, as Gloria Gemma has a heartwarming story behind their message, I may tell the story of how the organization came to be if I were to present this to anyone other than the nonprofit themselves. One potential question that I would ask Kean is what motivated/influenced him to go into such detail about the four layers of the earth outside of pure interest? As you can tell that he is interested in this field, I’m wondering if he has any outside experience with this topic. Behind every successful organization across the globe, there is one person who is responsible for motivating employees, providing final decisions, and ensuring success; this person is given the title of Chief Executive Officer (CEO). Within a company, CEO's are in charge of overseeing almost every aspect of the company all to ensure that one goal is achievable: generate a large profit margin for the company. The one question that I am most interested in however, is what genres do CEO's use to effectively communicate to an activity system (employees/staff). For a company to succeed, communication through an organization is critical as a company must always be on the same page; what canons will a CEO incorporate in order to deliver a pathos-driven speech? These are the crucial points I intend to cover.
As I continue with my research, three questions I am looking for feedback on proceed as followed: Should focus on one of the one specific question (the one I introduced in the introduction) or write to more then one as I'm also interested how this informtion from the CEO is perceived as well. Secondly, are there any additional key points from Bazerman/Selzer’s texts that I could use that I may have missed? Finally, am I using the scientific discourse terminology correctly throughout my analysis? As this brief introduction doesn’t provide a tremendous amount, I invite you to read my first draft and provide comments there as well. In Bazerman’s “Patents as Speech Acts and Legal Objects”, there are many analytical tools incorporated for the reader to analyze, as they are used to clarify text and establish a flow of ideas. One section that stood out to me the most, however, was “Some Issues in Speech-Act Theory”, as Bazerman provides specific examples of difficulties one may face when testing the speech act theory. As Bazerman goes on to present multiple difficulties, one that I was able to connect with stated “the second difficulty act is the polysemousness of speech acts. Any speech act may be uttered and interpreted with a variety or a multiplicity of intentions and frameworks for attributing meaning. Any utterance may serve different functions for different utters and different auditors, and these multiplicities of functions and meanings may be operating simultaneously (Bazerman, 15-16). To me, this quote meant that various people will interpret what you’re saying in various ways, so it is important to make sure you always get your point across in a clear and professional manner.
With the analysis of difficulties in speech acts, I believe incorporating these tools and avoiding the common mistakes Bazerman discusses will enable me to establish an effective preliminary analysis. For example, when Bazerman goes on to discuss how the “formalization of speech acts can best characterize a dominant appearance in a multiple acts” (Bazerman, 16), this technique will be critical when conducting an interview for major assignment one. Conducting an interview on a topic that I’m vocal and passionate on will display confidence, and full conceptualization of the material discusses. As for my current idea for our upcoming major assignment one, I remain interested in researching the various genres CEO’s use within an organization to control a workforce, as well as manage it. Some additional questions that can be formulated after reading “Patents as Speech Acts and Legal Objectives” could be: Can a CEO remain effective even if he falls victim to these difficulties in speech acts, or what role do speech acts ultimately play in a work environment as far as connections and relationships go. Also, as I strive to gather as much information as possible during the interview, I may ask to borrow texts to refer to throughout my research to strengthen ethos. These books would include Leadership Indexes, Organizational Behavior Textbooks and even anything that has to do with running a successful business. As there are many variables that go along with speech acts within an organization, I am committed to identifying the role they play as I will take the difficulties of speech acts into consideration when conducting research. |
Nick GrayAlways looking for comments, questions and concerns. Please do not hesitate to comment! Archives
April 2018
NotesTo comment, click the title of my blog and once the page loads, scroll to the bottom and leave a response! |