In my current major of Business Management, one course that I'm required to take is called Organizational Behavior. In this course, we are studying the habits of people and how they typically act in a workforce. Specifically, we are interested in how these people respond and act to various factors such as moods, emotions, and relationships During our first week of class, we were given the opportunity to read an article titled "A College Student Embraces Career Readiness, Takes it into the Workplace". In this article, author Dara Warn writes to inform readers how the demand for “career readiness” or prior preparation to the real world, is at an all-time high, and, how acquiring “soft skills” can significantly impact your future. Throughout this article, Warn explains how her and a team of colleagues launched a program titled Career Readiness Bootcamp, which strived to help people develop the traits needed to be successful in a business atmosphere In Jack Selzer’s “Rhetorical Analysis: Understanding How Texts Persuade Readers,” the word rhetoric is questioned early in his article, as the term doesn’t possess a true definition. As he continues through his passage, he comes across the study of language and how persuasion has come to play a major role in the term rhetoric. When combining both rhetoric and persuasion, he then states “rhetorical analysis or rhetorical criticism can be understood as an effort to understand how people within specific social situations attempted to influence others through language” (Selzer, 281). This quote stood out to me because through Dara Warns Career Readiness article, her message was to persuade her readers to consider early exposure in a business type atmosphere, as you could learn vital information that you may already not possess. For example, an interview in Warn’s article about a student who contemplated joining the program at first, and then successfully completed it, stated “I remember previously being offered some workplace readiness training, but at that point in my life I thought I knew everything and didn’t think I needed it.” Once he enrolled and started taking the assignments, he realized how much insight the program contained. “It was a lot of information I didn’t know, and I found out I could improve things I’d never thought about,” The final piece of evidence that I pulled from Selzer’s rhetorical analysis was the way he discusses organization and structure. From analyzing two pieces of scientific writing so far, I can tell that there is usually some sort of specific standard, or organization method that is usually followed, such as an introduction, findings, problem, data, and discussion. In most business articles, there is a brief introduction about the author and what you will be reading about, and then it goes directly into the story displaying fact after fact with strong reasons/arguments to follow. Drawing a comparison between these two authors was quite interesting as well, as Selzer seems to focus more on actual analysis whereas Warn establishes credibility as a teacher, and turns attention to research/gathering results. Career Readiness Article Link Here
4 Comments
Montgomery first begins to discuss the rhetoric of science writing on page 9, where he analyzes how this unique form of writing can ultimately be used. First, he states scientific writing can be used to tell a story; you can introduce a problem, analyze your data, and report your findings. Secondly, Montgomery discusses the importance of persuasion. "Science writing is also engaged in rhetoric— it aims not just to tell but persuade. It wants to convince us that the results not only has meaning but is meaningful" (Montgomery Pg.9). Throughout chapter 1 of The Chicago Guide to Communicating Science, Montgomery appears to use the term "rhetoric" in context of persuading an audience in your writing. Persuasion alone is a critical component to writing as it increases credibility, strengthens your claim, and makes your overall work more appealing to an audience. In Montgomery's case, using rhetoric in your writing helps an audience truly understand the message that the writer is trying to get across. Put this in perspective: I am a Business major with no prior exposure to science, or even science writing. If I were to read a science article, I might have trouble understanding some concepts or even the main message of the author. Montgomery stresses rhetoric for situation like this, as science writing needs to be feasible for all audience members.
In chapter 2, The Language of Science, Montgomery draws a connection between science and literature writing, stating that many techniques are shared between the two topics in order to persuade their readers. One technique to convey rhetoric in your writing can be to include the five fundamental questions that are essential to creating a scientific story. They are "what did you do, why did you do it, how did you do it, what did you find and what does this mean". Using these 5 fundamental questions, he then refers to a journal entry to display how using this technique can directly strengthen your writing. To me, I believe rhetoric is important in any form of writing, where it’s a report, a novel, or even a proposal. But for me, I see rhetoric in a science writing class as an opportunity. As a business major, establishing memo's, creating proposals, and analyzing numbers for reports are all first nature for me; I know how to do them efficiently. Using rhetoric in science provides an opportunity to expose myself to a new form of writing, which hopefully can help develop me into a more well-rounded writer. |
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! |