Reflective Introduction:
For this major assignment, I chose to examine three articles written on the same subject, and compare how they differed in word choice, structure, and inclusion of information. I then took these differences, and explained why they were present within each article. These articles were taken from Science, New Science, and The Los Angeles Times, all focusing on the creation of a biological robot made from rat cells. This process was very interesting to me, and so I chose those specific articles because of their distinct differences in writing style, with the intent on having an article high in jargon and information, one low in jargon, one and somewhere in the middle of the two. I feel that I had achieved that goal, however my actual analysis of the final product may have been weaker than what I am capable of. This analysis is organized in a loose IMRAD format, with each section being separated by what they would fall under in the IMRAD style. This style is reminiscent of the professional papers written by scientists for their peers, while keeping a hint of irony of the concept of writing for the public, while retaining the IMRAD format. The articles are summarized in the materials and methods section, while the discussion breaks down the similarities and differences between each. From the feedback I received from the tutoring center and my professor, I changed my word choice in several sentences of the paragraph to make them clearer and more concise. Additionally, I went further in my analysis of the examples from Science, to go deeper in the reasoning behind the word choice and structure within the sentence. Finally, I went into more detail in my conclusion about the implications of excluding or including different aspects of the original material. Introduction: The overarching goal of science is to figure out how the universe surrounding humanity works. This is a very lofty goal, broken up into various fields and disciplines that scientists specialize in. The secondary goal of science is communicating the findings a scientist makes, whether its amongst their peers, or the general public. This analysis focuses on that communication between scientists and the general public, specifically amongst three articles written on the creation of an artificial stingray, powered by glucose and light. In the revised version of my paper, due to peer feedback, I had added more to the first discussion paragraph to put further emphasis on what my topic is, as well as summarization in the conclusion. Additionally, I added evidence from my interview to support my statements, as well as a paragraph solely placed as a counterargument. This analysis reflects back to the literary devices we learned throughout the course, the use of those devices and the definition of genre, and how genres shape the community that reads and discusses the literature. Methods and Materials: The main article to be focused on in this rhetorical analysis is “Phototactic guidance of a tissue-engineered soft-robotic ray”, published in the robotics section of Science magazine in July of 2016. This article was the cover-story of that month, and spawned numerous other articles across magazines and social media sites. Additionally, “With gold and rat heart cells, scientists make a robot stingray” published within The Los Angeles Times on July 7th, 2016 and “Watch a cyborg stingray made of rat heart cells swim using light”, published within New Science on July 7th, 2016, were examined to differentiate the differences in writing styles and rhetoric used within the pieces. All three articles were read through several times, back to back, to determine if there are any major differences in terms of sentence structure, word choice, appeals to the audience, and information presented, and what information is included between articles, and what information varies. Additionally, any unique images or media used within the article was also noted, which may tie into the preferred audience each article is written towards appealing to. An interview was conducted with Dr. Sean Colin, of Roger Williams University, on the premise of using his personal experience to gain insight on the language and information used within a scientific research paper, as well as what he looks for when reading papers, and why. I asked him three main questions, focusing on his experience writing papers, what establishes credibility in a paper, and advice he would give when writing a scientific paper or converting a paper to a different format. Results / Discussion: The goal of this analysis is to determine the differences in literary and rhetorical devices within different articles written on the same subject material. The subject is the creation and testing of a synthetic, stingray-like robot. The body of the ray was composed of approximately two hundred thousand genetically modified rat heart muscle cells, silicone gel fusing the layers of cells together, and gold for structure and rigidity within the body of the synthetic ray. All three of these articles state these facts, but how they do so varies. The article within Science focuses more on the process of creating the model ray. Scientists tested different variations of physical structure in terms of body plan and material composition, which was a trial and error process. The Los Angeles Times and New Science focus more on the final product, the ray that worked as intended, but not as much on the failed attempts. Another shared feature of the articles is that all three of them deliver the main purpose of the study, which was not to create a synthetic ray, but to create a structure out of cells that is capable of moving a fluid medium. The true purpose of the study, according to lead designer Kevin Kit Parker, is to determine the possibility, and develop a potential procedure, for creating an artificial heart. The Los Angeles Times has this statement as the fifth line within their article, while the other two have this possibility at the very end of the writings, with the article in Science stating the potential future for this kind of cellular usage as the very last sentence of the work. This intent of placing the future application, which also happens to be the “end goal” of research in this area, is key in determining what audience the paper is written for. The fact that the Science article added it at the very end is indicative of the discussion section of an IMRAD paper. This illustrates that this article is meant for academics and scientists, if the language and jargon throughout was not enough to dissuade an average reader. This is also where the papers stray from one-another. The New Scientist, while losing much of the jargon associated with the article, stays faithful to the structure of the original paper. Los Angeles Times scraps both of these concepts altogether, moving and presenting information as needed to fit the model the author desired for their piece on the subject. On this subject, Dr. Sean Colin of Roger Williams University, stated that, “I would imagine the biggest hang up is jargon… we try to avoid flowery, wordy terms and sentences, but I don’t think that’s the goal of writing for the public”. Each author strives to impress the audience with the findings of the study, both articles putting great emphasis on the inspiration for the robotic ray, while ignoring the scientific process it took to develop the ray. As Dr. Colin stated, that achievement of creating the stingray is the focus of the two articles, while the entire project is the goal of Science. This is made much clearer in the content of the sentences in each article. From the title, “Phototactic guidance of a tissue-engineered soft-robotic ray”, the Science article is full of wordy sentences, scientific jargon, diagrams, and assumptions that are all thrown at the reader, such as “When immersed in a 37°C Tyrode’s physiological salt solution containing glucose as energy reservoir, and upon optical stimulation, the fabricated ray was propelled by producing forward thrust via the undulatory motion of its fins” (160). The author could have merely stated that when they put the ray into the salt solution and shined a light on it, it flapped its fins, but by stating it as they did, they are establishing credibility and legitimacy towards the research done so that their readers may take them seriously. The words the author used are specific to that field of science, such as the brand name Tyrode, which is an assumption they make that their audience is familiar with the language and technology in the field. This is backed up by its location in the “engineering” section of Science, so people with an interest in the details of the subject are more likely to find it and learn from it. Going off that same idea, the separating the articles into sections based off of category would deter people unfamiliar with the subject from reading, and limit its audience. Within New Scientist, they state the same idea as within Science, albeit phrased differently, “Shining specific frequencies on the robot causes a wave of contractions to spread down its body, making it undulate, and different frequencies make it move at different speeds” (New Scientist, line [The page is refusing to load]). This is a little easier to comprehend, with the information remaining the same, while still sounding fairly sophisticated. Finally, in Los Angeles Times, the language becomes much simpler, with nearly all scientific terminology absent, “When the scientists put the critter in a salt solution (filled with glucose for food) and shone a blue light on it, the heart cells would contract and the ray-bot would swim forward” (Paragraph 12). This difference in language differs due to both audience and purpose for the articles varying, with Los Angeles Times more so to entertain and inform its audience, while New Scientist is more so to spark further curiosity in the subject matter on hand. Science is much colder in tone, not acknowledging its audience, and only explaining itself and terms used when absolutely necessary. This coldness is what sets Science apart from the other articles. It does not try to appeal to emotions of the audience, and instead purely uses information and diagrams to sway the audience and convince them that pursuit of more studies like this would eventually be profitable. That eventuality is key, as the final sentence is the only appeal to morality: that through this technology, humans may be able to create artificial organs that can work just as well as those humans are born with, and perhaps better than organs donated from others, specifically hearts. While the other two articles are easier to mentally digest, they are not set up in this way as they have no need to. Their purpose is to entertain their audience, possibly to spark curiosity, not to entice potential future research, or new investors in the project. If the Los Angeles Times were to sling the same jargon at its audience, a vast majority of them would turn away, not due to a lack of effort or intelligence, but because it is simply not the writing style of the paper, not what the audience expects, and therefore not interesting or inviting to read. New Science’s audience may have a mixed result, but overall, the level of complexity, and fairly short article compared to the other two, could potential mean that it too would lose potential readers. The overarching difference between the three pieces can be summarized by Dr. Colin, “I think in scientific writing, it’s not the words that convey credibility, but the data and figures”. Flowery language impresses the public and deters readers if used constantly. Typos and grammatical errors turn everyone away from any piece of writing. However, in a scientific paper, the figures and data used establishes that the authors know what they are talking about, as a peer within that field knows what makes data viable, and figures appropriate for the topic on hand. Cut away the jargon from a text, the curt language choices, and what remains is the physical representations of the paragraphs of text. Texts are written to be read by someone at some point. They are meant to hold their audience’s attention, deliver a message, or get their purpose across, and, “The hard part is making all those sections work together to make one cohesive story. You need to write each section while keeping the core of the story in mind”. By changing sentence structure, word choice, appeals, and information used, an author can take a paper written for one audience and rearrange the original structure to spread that information to new audiences, while keeping the core of the story intact. Science’s goal, as previously stated, is to gain a deeper understanding of the universe, and convey that information to others, so that more information and thoughts may gather around the subject matter. Science’s complex and jargon-heavy sentences are purposeful in educating those with experience or knowledge in the field further. New Science and Los Angeles Times serve as an introduction to these subjects, and provide a basic understanding and entertainment in the information, but no more. All pique curiosity in their audience, and inspire further research, which is what part of science desires to achieve.
0 Comments
Introduction:
The overarching goal of science is to figure out how the universe surrounding humanity works. This is a very lofty goal, broken up into various fields and disciplines that scientists specialize in. The secondary goal of science is communicating the findings a scientist makes, whether its amongst their peers, or the general public. This analysis focuses on that communication between scientists and the general public, specifically amongst three articles written on the creation of an artificial stingray, powered by glucose and light. This analysis is organized in a loose IMRAD format, with each section being separated by what they would fall under in the IMRAD style. This style is reminiscent of the professional papers written by scientists for their peers, while keeping a hint of irony of the concept of writing for the public, while retaining the IMRAD format. The articles are summarized in the materials and methods section, while the discussion breaking down the similarities and differences between each. In the revised version of my paper, due to peer feedback, I had added more to the first discussion paragraph, to put further emphasis on what my topic is, as well as summarization in the conclusion. Additionally, I added evidence from my interview to support my statements, as well as a paragraph solely placed as a counterargument. This analysis reflects back to the literary devices we learned throughout the course, the usage of those devices and the definition of genre, and how genres shape the community that reads and discusses the literature. Methods and Materials: The main article to be focused on in this rhetorical analysis is “Phototactic guidance of a tissue-engineered soft-robotic ray”, published in the robotics section of Science magazine in July of 2016. This article was the cover-story of that month, and spawned numerous other articles across magazines and social media sites. Additionally, “With gold and rat heart cells, scientists make a robot stingray” published within The Los Angeles Times on July 7th, 2016 and “Watch a cyborg stingray made of rat heart cells swim using light”, published within New Science on July 7th, 2016, were examined to differentiate the differences in writing styles and rhetoric used within the pieces. All three articles were read through several times, back to back, to determine if there are any major differences in terms of sentence structure, word choice, appeals to the audience, and information presented, and what information is included between articles, and what information varies. Additionally, any unique images or media used within the article was also noted, which may tie into the preferred audience each article is written towards appealing to. An interview was conducted with Dr. Sean Colin, of Roger Williams University, on the premise of using his personal experience to gain insight on the language and information used within a scientific research paper, as well as what he looks for when reading papers, and why. I asked him three main questions, focusing on his experience writing papers, what establishes credibility in a paper, and advice he would give when writing a scientific paper or converting a paper to a different format. Results / Discussion: The overarching goal of this analysis is to determine the differences in literary and rhetorical devices within different articles written on the same subject material. The subject is the creation and testing of a synthetic, stingray-like robot. The body of the ray was composed of approximately two hundred thousand genetically modified rat heart muscle cells, silicone gel fusing the layers of cells together, and gold for structure and rigidity within the body of the synthetic ray. All three of these articles state these facts, but how they do so varies. The article within Science focuses more on the process of creating the model ray, testing different variations of physical structure in terms of body plan and material composition, which for the scientists involved, was a trial and error process. The Los Angeles Times and New Science focus more on the final product, the ray that worked as intended, but not as much on the failed attempts. Another shared feature of the articles is that all three of them deliver the main purpose of the study, which was not to create a synthetic ray, but to create a structure out of cells that is capable of moving a fluid medium. The true purpose of the study, according to lead designer Kevin Kit Parker, is to determine the possibility, and develop a potential procedure, for creating an artificial heart. The Los Angeles Times has this statement as the fifth line within their article, while the other two have this possibility at the very end of the writings, with the article in Science stating the potential future for this kind of cellular usage as the very last sentence of the work. This intent of placing the future application, which also happens to be the “end goal” of research in this area, is key in determining what audience the paper is written for. The fact that the Science article added it at the very end, indicative of the discussion section of an IMRAD paper, illustrates that this article is meant for academics and scientists, if the language and jargon throughout was not enough to dissuade an average reader. This is also where the papers stray from one-another. The New Scientist, while losing much of the jargon associated with the article, stays faithful to the structure of the original paper. Los Angeles Times scraps both of these concepts altogether, moving and presenting information as needed to fit the model the author desired for their piece on the subject. On this subject, Dr. Sean Colin of Roger Williams University, stated that, “I would imagine the biggest hang up is jargon… we try to avoid flowery, wordy terms and sentences, but I don’t think that’s the goal of writing for the public”. Each author strives to impress the audience with the findings of the study, both articles putting great emphasis on the inspiration for the robotic ray, while ignoring the scientific process it took to develop the ray. As Dr. Colin stated, that achievement of creating the stingray is the focus of the two articles, while the entire project is the goal of Science. This is made much more clear in the content of the sentences in each article. From the title, “Phototactic guidance of a tissue-engineered soft-robotic ray”, the Science article is full of wordy sentences, scientific jargon, diagrams, and assumptions that are all thrown at the reader, such as “When immersed in a 37°C Tyrode’s physiological salt solution containing glucose as energy reservoir, and upon optical stimulation, the fabricated ray was propelled by producing forward thrust via the undulatory motion of its fins” (160). The author could have merely stated that when they put the ray into the salt solution, and shined a light on it, it flapped its fins, but by stating it as they did, they are establishing credibility and legitimacy towards the research done, so that their readers may take them seriously. Here, within New Scientist, they state the same idea as within Science, albeit phrased differently, “Shining specific frequencies on the robot causes a wave of contractions to spread down its body, making it undulate, and different frequencies make it move at different speeds” (New Scientist, line [The page is refusing to load]). This is a little easier to comprehend, with the information remaining the same, while still sounding fairly sophisticated. Finally, in Los Angeles Times, the language becomes much simpler, with nearly all scientific terminology absent, “When the scientists put the critter in a salt solution (filled with glucose for food) and shone a blue light on it, the heart cells would contract and the ray-bot would swim forward” (Paragraph 12). This difference in language differs due to both audience and purpose for the articles varying, with Los Angeles Time’s more so to entertain and inform its audience, while New Scientist is more so to spark further curiosity in the subject matter on hand. Science is much colder in tone, not acknowledging its audience, and only explaining itself and terms used when absolutely necessary. This coldness is what sets Science apart from the other articles. It does not try to appeal to emotions of the audience, and instead purely uses information and diagrams to sway the audience, and convince them that pursuit of more studies like this would eventually be profitable. That eventuality is key, as the final sentence is the only appeal to morality, that through this technology, humans may be able to create artificial organs that can work just as well as those humans are born with, and perhaps better than organs donated from others, specifically hearts. While the other two articles are easier to mentally digest, they are not set up in this way, as they have no need to. Their purpose is to entertain their audience, possibly to spark curiosity, not to entice potential future research, or new investors in the project. If the Los Angeles Times were to sling the same jargon at its audience, a vast majority of them would turn away, not due to a lack of effort or intelligence, but because it is simply not the writing style of the paper, not what the audience expects, and therefore not interesting or inviting to read. New Scientist’s audience may have a mixed result, but overall, the level of complexity, and fairly short article compared to the other two, could potential mean that it too would lose potential readers. The overarching difference between the three pieces can be summarized by Dr. Colin, “I think in scientific writing, it’s not the words that convey credibility, but the data and figures”. Flowery language impresses the public and deters readers if used constantly. Typos and grammatical errors turn everyone away from any piece of writing. However, in a scientific paper, the figures and data used establishes that the authors know what they are talking about, as a peer within that field knows what makes data viable, and figures appropriate for the topic on hand. Cut away the jargon from a text, the curt language choices, and what remains is the physical representations of the paragraphs of text. Texts are written to be read by someone at some point. They are meant to hold their audience’s attention, deliver a message, or get their purpose across, “The hard part is making all those sections work together to make one cohesive story. You need to write each section while keeping the core of the story in mind”. By changing sentence structure, word choice, appeals, and information used, an author can take a paper written for one audience, and rearrange the original structure to spread that information to new audiences, while keeping the core of the story intact. Despite the differences between the three pieces, they do tell the same story, and as long as that is conveyed, that is the only factor that matters. An overarching note: I have not done my interview yet, as soon as I do, I will add the information gleaned from my personal research Introduction: The introduction will go here, with all its depth and glory Methods and Materials: The main article to be focused on in this rhetorical analysis is “Phototactic guidance of a tissue-engineered soft-robotic ray”, published in the robotics section of Science magazine in July of 2016. This article was the cover-story of that month, and spawned numerous other articles across magazines and social media sites. Additionally, “With gold and rat heart cells, scientists make a robot stingray” published within The Los Angeles Times on July 7th, 2016 and “Watch a cyborg stingray made of rat heart cells swim using light”, published within New Science on July 7th, 2016, were examined to differentiate the differences in writing styles and rhetoric used within the pieces. An interview was conducted with [Professor’s name will go here] on the premise of using his personal experience to gain insight on the language and information used within a scientific research paper, as well as what he looks for when reading papers, and why. [More will be added here once the interview is complete] All three articles were read through several times, back to back, to determine if there are any major differences in terms of sentence structure, word choice, appeals to the audience, and information presented, and what information is included between articles, and what information varies. Additionally, any unique images or media used within the article was also noted, which may tie into the preferred audience each article is written towards appealing to. Results / Discussion: The articles analyzed all cover the same subject, which was the creation and testing of a synthetic, stingray-like robot. The body of the ray was composed of approximately two hundred thousand genetically modified rat heart muscle cells, silicone gel fusing the layers of cells together, and gold for structure and rigidity within the body of the synthetic ray. All three of these articles state these facts, but how they do so varies. The article within Science focuses more on the process of creating the model ray, testing different variations of physical structure in terms of body plan and material composition, which for the scientists involved, was a trial and error process. The Los Angeles Times and New Science focus more on the final product, the ray that worked as intended, but not as much on the failed attempts. Another shared feature of the articles is that all three of them deliver the main purpose of the study, which was not to create a synthetic ray, but to create a structure out of cells that is capable of moving a fluid medium. The true purpose of the study, according to lead designer Kevin Kit Parker, is to determine the possibility, and develop a potential procedure, for creating an artificial heart. The Los Angeles Times has this statement as the fifth line within their article, while the other two have this possibility at the very end of the writings, with the article in Science stating the potential future for this kind of cellular usage as the very last sentence of the work. This intent of placing the future application, which also happens to be the “end goal” of research in this area, is key in determining what audience the paper is written for. The fact that the Science article added it at the very end, indicative of the discussion section of an IMRAD paper, illustrates that this article is meant for academics and scientists, if the language and jargon throughout was not enough to dissuade an average reader. This is also where the papers stray from one-another. The New Scientist, while losing much of the jargon associated with the article, stays faithful to the structure of the original paper. Los Angeles Times scraps both of these concepts altogether, moving and presenting information as needed to fit the model the author desired for their piece on the subject. What the author desires as well, is important in each piece, as each author strives to impress the audience with the findings of the study, but each paper goes about it in a very different way. From the title, “Phototactic guidance of a tissue-engineered soft-robotic ray”, the Science article is full of wordy sentences, scientific jargon, diagrams, and assumptions that are all thrown at the reader, such as “When immersed in a 37°C Tyrode’s physiological salt solution containing glucose as energy reservoir, and upon optical stimulation, the fabricated ray was propelled by producing forward thrust via the undulatory motion of its fins” (160). The author could have merely stated that when they put the ray into the salt solution, and shined a light on it, it flapped its fins, but by stating it as they did, they are establishing credibility and legitimacy towards the research done, so that their readers may take them seriously. Here, within New Scientist, they state the same idea as within Science, albeit phrased differently, “Shining specific frequencies on the robot causes a wave of contractions to spread down its body, making it undulate, and different frequencies make it move at different speeds” (New Scientist, line [The page is refusing to load]). This is a little easier to comprehend, with the information remaining the same, while still sounding fairly sophisticated. Finally, in Los Angeles Times, the language becomes much simpler, with nearly all scientific terminology absent, “When the scientists put the critter in a salt solution (filled with glucose for food) and shone a blue light on it, the heart cells would contract and the ray-bot would swim forward” (Paragraph 12). This difference in language differs due to both audience and purpose for the articles varying, with Los Angeles Time’s more so to entertain and inform its audience, while New Scientist is more so to spark further curiosity in the subject matter on hand. Science is much colder in tone, not acknowledging its audience, and only explaining itself and terms used when absolutely necessary. This coldness is what sets Science apart from the other articles. It does not try to appeal to emotions of the audience, and instead purely uses information and diagrams to sway the audience, and convince them that pursuit of more studies like this would eventually be profitable. That eventuality is key, as the final sentence is the only appeal to morality, that through this technology, humans may be able to create artificial organs that can work just as well as those humans are born with, and perhaps better than organs donated from others, specifically hearts. While the other two articles are easier to mentally digest, they are not set up in this way, as they have no need to. Their purpose is to entertain their audience, possibly to spark curiosity, not to entice potential future research, or new investors in the project. If the Los Angeles Times were to sling the same jargon at its audience, a vast majority of them would turn away, not due to a lack of effort or intelligence, but because it is simply not the writing style of the paper, not what the audience expects, and therefore not interesting or inviting to read. New Scientist’s audience may have a mixed result, but overall, the level of complexity, and fairly short article compared to the other two, could potential mean that it too would lose potential readers. Texts are written to be read by someone at some point. They are meant to hold their audience’s attention, deliver a message, or get their purpose across. By changing sentence structure, word choice, appeals, and information used, an author can take a paper written for one audience, and rearrange the original structure to spread that information to new audiences, and spread the growth of informational wealth. Sources: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/353/6295/158.full.pdf https://www.newscientist.com/article/2096442-watch-a-cyborg-stingray-made-of-rat-heart-cells-swim-using-light/ http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-robotic-stingray-cells-20160707-snap-story.html |
Details
AuthorZachary Wagner Archives |