AE #1 (10%)
due 9/23/14 by 7:00 p.m., submitted as .doc or .docx to Bb Assignments
The Situation
As we will soon discover in class, scientific and technical writing is a fairly broad sphere that encompasses experimental reports, theoretical essays, and technical papers, alongside other genres, and much of its success hinges on how well its writers can earn their public’s trust. One of our goals in this unit is to investigate how certain principles of scientific and technical discourse carry themselves into the mediated public sphere. What qualities, aspects, or conditions of a discourse situation are essential to what we call “scientific” or “technical”? How do those conditions change when their information “goes public”? And how does any of this matter for building a theorized practice of composing and editing public discourse?
I’d like you to compose an informed rhetorical analysis in which you consider what makes your text “scientific,” how it responds to being taken public, and/or how it demonstrates its aim. Grant-Davie defines “aim” as the intent or effect that the discourse should have on a specific reader in a specified time, place, and context. Please use this question only as a prompt--a starting place--to help you come to a more nuanced discovery that reflects how the text functions as discourse. Please choose one of the following for your analysis (all of them are located in “SciTech Articles and Blogs,” under “Case Studies & Genres” in Bb):
- Mann’s essay on life expectancy (Bb)
- Wald’s article on renewable ethanol (Bb)
- Walsh’s article on invasive species (Bb)
- Barron’s blog essay on Internet immortality (Bb)
- Wright Treadway’s "Redrawing the City" and Biello's "The Green Apple" (both on Bb)
- Joy’s "Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us" and one piece from DiSalvo’s "Daily Brain" blog (both on Bb)
To help you conduct your analysis, please use at least two of our critical texts from this unit--other than D'Angelo or Grant-Davie. You might consider types of evidence, patterns of organization, and stylistic norms. You might look for the stases on which the argument is conducted (Fahnestock), the patterns of logic and language that point to explicit forms of audience construction or community construction (Killingsworth/Palmer; Porter), or aspects of blogging that justify it as citizen journalism and social action (Rettberg; Miller/Shepherd). While there are no guarantees about how any text is valued or received, these concepts help us to build theories about how some texts can be read or received. Ultimately, your analysis should lead you to a unique realization or claim about what you read--something not obvious, but meaningful and significant.
Citations for Genre Samples
- Mann, Charles C. “The Coming Death Shortage.” The Best American Science and Nature Writing 2006, Ed. Brian Greene. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 2006. 157-171.
- Wald, Matthew L. “Is Ethanol for the Long Haul?” Scientific American (Jan 2007): 42-49.
- Walsh, Bryan. “Invasive Species.” Time (Jul 28, 2014): 20-27.
- Barron, Dennis. “The Right to Be Forgotten.” The Web of Language. Aug. 2014. Available at <http://illinois.edu/blog/view/25>.
- Wright Treadway, Laura. “Redrawing the American City.” OnEarth. Dec. 2009. Available at <http://www.onearth.org/article/redrawing-the-american-city?page=1>.
- Biello, David. “The Green Apple: How Can Cities Adapt to Climate Change?” Scientific American. Jun. 2010. Available at <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-can-cities-adapt-to-climate-change/>.
- Joy, Bill. “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us.” Wired.com. Condé Nast Publications. Apr. 2000. Available at <http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html>.
- DiSalvo, David. “Title of Article.” The Daily Brain. Date of article. Available at <http://www.daviddisalvo.org/the-daily-brain>.
Evaluation Criteria
Audience Construction – Although I am the first evaluator of the essay, you should compose it for an audience somewhat broader than me. Assume a skeptical reader who needs to be convinced of your careful handling of textual and contextual evidence. You can assume some familiarity with our critical texts, but you should still find a way to implicitly communicate your reasons for writing and you should help your reader(s) understand the dilemma that prompts you to write.
Thesis & Argument – Your essay should be guided by a thesis statement (or statements) that demonstrates the complexity of your unique realization or claim, is not simply a summary of the texts’ main purpose or theme, and does not simply state the obvious about the texts you are reading. Your thesis may act like a “thread” for your main and supporting points. Think of this as your stasis—the question that you set out to answer. If you are comparing two texts, your thesis may involve discussing how they work together or what you learn about one from analyzing it alongside another.
Focus & Scope – Your analysis should make a unique claim—preferably, not too broad or general that it cannot be sufficiently supported, and not too narrow that it cannot be sufficiently developed. Your essay should demonstrate a knowledgeable (and even sophisticated) use of the concepts we are learning. If page length helps you get a sense of scope, then plan on 2-3 single-spaced pages, not counting “Works Cited.”
Organization & Coherence – How you organize your analysis should ultimately reflect the claim you want to support. This includes an engaging introduction and conclusion, useful transitions, and adequate development of each point. Offer your realization near the beginning of your essay, and consider your conclusion a synthesis rather than a summary.
Evidence & Justification – Above all, your claim should be relevant and valid to the discourse situation in which the text was written. It should provide reliable and specific examples from the genre sample(s) you examine, the critical texts we have read in class, and other relevant texts if you find you need them. It should adequately set up or introduce any quoted passages, explain outside references, and put these passages and examples into conversation with each other (beyond just referencing key terms). Please cite specific incidents, images, and other textual details, using parenthetical citations when you paraphrase or quote from any source. Please avoid extensive block quoting.
Language & Style – Your analysis can be confident and still carry a balanced tone, with neutral language and strong sentences. Your use of terms should be thoughtful, even elegant. You should not need to rely on excessive metadiscourse, “I think/feel/believe,” or “In my opinion” statements to carry your argument forward. It should always be clear who is saying what. Try putting dense or complicated language into your own words, and be sure to report names and titles accurately. No patterns of sentence- or paragraph-level error should get in the way of meaning. Spelling and punctuation should be checked.
Discourse Conventions – In addition to following MLA style for your parenthetical citations and Works Cited, please format your essay so that it is easy for me to read, including 11- or 12-pt. font, and standard 1” margins. Titles are important for foreshadowing your analysis and establishing common ground with an unfamiliar reader. The title of your analytical essay should engage us while also reflecting the argument you will ultimately make. Remember to cite or attribute visual components.
Please feel free to ask me if any part of the assignment is unclear or if you’re stuck while working through an idea. Start early!
