For the first major assignment, I analyzed the similarities and differences between three articles all covering the same subject: an engineered, stingray-like robot made from mouse heart tissue, gold, and silicone gel. The articles, published in Science, Los Angeles Times, and New Scientist, offer a broad array of language, depth of analysis of the project itself, and rhetorical strategies used within their pieces, which were perfect candidates for my pursuit. Starting with the similarities in information and subject matter, I branched off into the differences of structure and vocabulary between pieces, which then shifted to changes in the appeals made by each paper. I attempted to tie in the appeals made with the structure and language of the papers, for example, Science’s piece lacked any appeal to emotion, and instead heavily focused on logical benefits and a singular moral appeal, at the very end of the piece, which also happens to be the same sentence that proposes future uses for this research and its findings. This style of writing, while convoluted in some points, made the ethicality and possibility of the future of synthetic, semi-biological machines much more powerful than the Los Angeles Times simply stating the engineers’ true intentions for the project. It is this dynamic of audience, intent, and information that I am interested in.
However, in terms of the project itself, I still need to interview the professor I contacted, and hope that through him, I may get a personal reflection of what the process is like, and what he looks for in a paper, and on what occasions would he read articles such as these. I do need to figure out how to incorporate the information I receive, most likely within the introduction and discussion sections of the paper, that would answer my original question. Additionally, I feel as though I need to delve a bit deeper into the differences in genera these articles can be categorized as, despite them all being published web articles, the differences in content and style can be enough to differentiate them. A paragraph or two more may be beneficial to add to the piece.
2 Comments
Jacob Fies
2/25/2018 07:43:36 am
Something that I particularly liked when reading through your preliminary analysis for the first time was the flow of your piece. For example in your results/discussion section, you didn't split tit up by paper, but instead by rhetorical technique and wove each paper through the analysis. This way of doing it made it much easier to follow and read. Additionally, I liked your particular analysis on what each paper was trying to appeal to. This analysis gave a deeper sense of understanding into what each of the papers was trying to accomplish and allowed the reader to immediately know what each paper was going to be focusing on, and then with the other analysis, how they were going apply that focus.
Reply
Tory Stoddard
2/26/2018 09:46:06 pm
Zach- I really like the topic you chose to base your articles off of. I think the robot-stingray made of mouse heart tissue, gold, and silicone gel sounds very interesting. I like that you chose three very different articles on it, all with very different points of view. It gives a good variety for your analysis. I think you did a good job paying attention to appeals and and recognizing how each article appealed to different audiences. By doing this, you show that there are different types of scientists that think differently. It shows that it is for important for scientists to collaborate so you can get those different viewpoints. It will be helpful for you to interview your professor to get an outsider’s perspective besides your own that is an experienced member of the marine biology community. I think it's a good idea to add some more detail about the genre and style because that is the main part of the paper and explaining it more could never hurt. I enjoyed the way you ended the analysis and thought the wording was a great way to conclude the analysis. My suggestion is to tie in pieces of what you learned from the interviews by not going into too much detail. You should already have a few body paragraphs discussing the interview so if you lightly touch upon or reference the body paragraph in the conclusion and introduction, I think it will flow nicely together. I suggest incorporating your interview in pieces throughout the analysis and adding your input or going into more detail about each question after its answered. Rather than just putting in all in place like
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorZachary Wagner Archives |