Writing in the Sci/Tech Sphere: A Reflection

Link to sci/tech blog: http://encscitech.blogspot.com

Davidson's "Read Naturally" as an Illustration of the Explanatory Genre

In “Read Naturally”, Marcia R. Davidson addresses the issues regarding reading fluency and makes the connection between reading and comprehension by introducing Reading First, which is a component of the No Child Left Behind Act. Davidson predominantly discusses Read Naturally, a program to promote student learning through listening, writing, and repetition (Davidson 5).  She writes about reading fluency, what exactly fluency is, and the ways in which the Read Naturally program helps struggling students become fluent readers. The piece is organized by clear and concise headlines and the content is very straightforward. Davidson uses this straightforward language to construct her audience as individuals who are unfamiliar with the Read Naturally program and may be interested in implementing it.

Davidson’s piece, “Read Naturally,” can be justified as a citizen's explanatory genre. It is important to categorize and justify this paper as such in order to better our understanding of the author’s specific goals and intentions  and to round out our understanding of the paper’s actual content. In order to support this argument I will draw on ideas presented by Jeanne Fahnestock in her article “Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts” and explore concepts found in Killingworth and Palmer’s Ecospeak, Chapter 4, “Transformations of Scientific Discourse in the News Media”.

In “Accommodating Science,” Jeanne Fahnestock states that scientific papers are “to some extent epideictic and deliberative; they cannot ignore creating a reason for their reporting” (Fahnestock 278). In “Read Naturally”, Marcia R. Davidson clearly reports the influences of the Read Naturally program and provides the audience with a comprehensive understanding of the program’s effects. It can therefore be argued that one of the main purposes of Davidson’s piece is to explain the situation. That notion can be taken a step further, however, by using Fahnestock’s descriptions to analyze the deliberative and epideictic elements embedded within the piece. Such an analysis supports the piece’s classification as a citizen’s explanatory genre because it not only recognizes the piece as explanatory, but also acknowledges the piece’s appeal to the public through its discussion and debate of the situation and its implications on future action.

Both Fahnestock and Killingsworth and Palmer assert that popularized scientific writing almost always incorporates issues relating to human interest (Fahnestock 279; Killingsworth, Palmer 134). Davidson’s piece exemplifies that theory since it uses scientific data and explanatory language while simultaneously appealing to readers’ interests through anecdotal commentary. For example, Davidson introduces her argument with, “Many of us remember oral reading from our experiences with such practices as round robin—not pleasant memories for most of us! But reading out loud is an important indicator for reading proficiency even if the round robin reading technique—inspiring boredom in good readers and terror in struggling readers—is not an effective mechanism for improving fluency.” (Davidson 1) This method is employed throughout the paper and works to reflect the notion of a citizen’s genre by appealing to an average reader and explaining scientific research in plain language.

Fahnestock also discusses the importance of value in popular science writing by claiming that scientific writing must have societal implications in order to be popularized. Davidson’s paper addresses value almost exclusively. Her paper describes the practical application of scientific findings and how that application becomes valuable, especially to those who cannot read as fluently as they would like. By taking value into account, Davidson’s readers develop a very strong sense of the piece’s purpose. This is a clear example of how applying Fahnestock’s concepts to Davidson’s paper supports the genre classification, which furthers our understanding of authorial intention.

In their book, Ecospeak, Killingsworth and Palmer claim that scientific research articles aimed at the general public (read: articles that fall under a citizen’s explanatory genre) have an “action agenda” (Killingsworth, Palmer 158). In other words, a scientific study is usually presented to the public in order to change the audience’s actions in some way. This is certainly the case in “Read Naturally,” since Davidson informs the audience of the issue and the tenants of the Read Naturally program, and subsequently calls on the audience to utilize the program, or at least to accept its legitimacy. Davidson’s blatant attempt to influence her audience’s future actions serves as a straightforward example of Killingsworth and Palmer’s description, and thus functions as further proof for the genre classification. This is important because it shapes readers’ comprehension of the paper’s content, which promotes readers’ perception of authorial intention, which ultimately persuades readers to respond to Davidson’s desired call to action.

Similarly to how I am expounding on concepts found in Fahnestock’s and Killingsworth and Palmer’s works in order to argue my point, Davidson integrates ideas from outside sources into her white paper in order to created mediated discourse. For example, to promote her claim that children who struggle with reading skills give up quickly, Davidson integrates research by Stanovich who describes a phenomenon termed the “Matthew Effects,” after the biblical story where “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer” (Davidson 4). This is an example of how “Read Naturally” works as mediated discourse by bringing together concepts and ideas from different sources and texts to form its central argument.

“Read Naturally” acts as explanatory through Davison’s deliberate use of rhetorical strategies, hard facts, and experimental data in convincing readers of the program’s success. Because this analysis is constrained by length, it merely scratches the surface of a complex argument exploring how the categorization, mediation, and organization of a text can influence the text’s interpretation and effect. Justification for “Read Naturally” as an explanatory genre can be seen through the exploration of concepts in pieces by Fahnestock and Killingsworth and Palmer and, as a result, it furthers our understanding of the piece’s content, intentions, and implications, both as an individual text and as an element of mediated discourse.

In Response to "Can Blogs Stand As Their Own Genre?"

In her blog post, “Can Blogs Stand As Their Own Genre?” Christina Morgan explores the history of blogs, social media culture, blogging in relation to journalism, and the idea of blogs as a genre, in response to Blogging: Digital Media and Society Series by Rettburg and “Blogging as Social Action: A Genre Analysis of the Weblog” by Miller and Shepherd. Christina creates a wonderful synthesis of ideas in the two different text when she states, “As the ‘eagerness of humanity to communicate’ [Rettburg] has led to the transformation of what we consider to be blogging today, the intent to both cultivate the self and to provide for the public has created a unique and vast medium that is a genre of its own.” 

In response to Carolyn Burke, an online diarist mentioned by Rettburg, who claims that blogging allowed people to freely expose their lives for the first time, Christina asks, “What happens when people can freely communicate and expose their inner lives? What are the results of this free communication? And what will be the results of anyone being able to expose their inner lives?”

Free communication generates endless new ideas that are shared and debated instantaneously. Like most things, the results of anyone being able to expose his or her inner lives will have positive and negative effects. As we regularly see in pop culture through the many celebrities who struggle with increased publicity, too much exposure of private lives can be very detrimental to a person. Giving people the ability to freely share their lives, however, exposes people to a wide range of new thoughts and ideas. This can be interactive and makes the world a smaller place. Being honest and open is progressive as long as it is done genuinely and wisely.

“Are people really being open and honest or is the system abused at times?” Some people actually are genuine in their openness and honesty but, of course, this approach can also be abused. In her blog post, Christiana mentions Rettenburg’s research in a survey: “61.4 per cent of respondents stated that they read blogs because there was ‘more honesty’, while 50.3 per cent found the ‘transparent biases’ of blogs an important factor in their choice to read blogs”. Apparently people perceive blogs as more credible (than journalism) because blogs are honest and personal, but the public’s constructed image of honesty can be taken advantage of. For example, blogger Jonah Lehrer used the format and genre of blogging to his advantage in order to conceal his dishonesty. People reading Lehrer’s blog had the general assumption that his sources were credible and he did little to prove them wrong. It was not until his deception was discovered and his credibility was eradicated that his misuse of the medium became apparent. In most instances, however, blogs evoke a sense of validity.  

Christina questions why bloggers are creating this sense of trust and validity in their readers. Blogs rely on personal authenticity and bloggers build trust individually. I think a sense of trust and validity is created because a blog is part of a person’s identity. When information is attached to personal identity we are able to better connect with it and it becomes more believable in its appeal.

Technical and Ethical Questions About the Gap Between the Scientific and Journalistic Outlook

“Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts” by Jeanne Fahnestock is an article that discusses the way information changes as a function of rhetorical situation, particularly in scientific discourse. By basing her argument on comparisons between content in science writing that is aimed toward the scientific community and that which is aimed toward the general public, Fahnestock explores what happens to scientific information in the course of its adaptation to various audiences, genres, and purposes.

In Chapter 4, “Transformations of Scientific Discourse in the News Media”, of Ecospeak, Killingsworth and Palmer discuss the problems with scientific news and the way in which science is marginalized to cater toward human interests.

Scientists tend to write cautiously about their findings, usually admitting to a possible insufficiency in evidence. Journalists tend to take the same information and categorize it as fact, sensationalizing the information to increase its significance, certainty and interest. Killingsworth and Palmer argue that the emphasis on human interest is responsible for the gap between journalistic and scientific writing.

It is clear that changes occur in information as it passes from one rhetorical situation to another. Writers and journalists aim to make their work entertaining, emphasizing certain information in order for the piece to be more interesting for their audience. But distortions in reporting research could have serious consequences. How can we solve issues in misrepresentation of research in writing while keeping the information interesting and worth reading? How do we, as writers, appeal to a reader who is seeking some form of entertainment but also remain truthful? Fahnestock remarks that writers must effectively bridge the gap between what the public has a right to know and the public’s ability to understand. So how exactly do we bridge the gap?

Both articles discuss the human desire for immediacy, relevance, wonder, application, and human-interest when it comes to scientific discoveries. It is therefore no surprise that journalists editorialize scientific language. But why, as an audience, are we so deterred by plain language? What are the implications of the power of language and diction on how we perceive an issue? Finally, as a writer, do you feel a sense of responsibility to avoid bending the truth, or do you think it is necessary to use certain language as a resource for gaining interest and engaging an audience? 

The Rhetorical Situation and Intertextuality in Lehrer's "The Future of Reading"

Earlier today, two people in front of me in line were discussing how when they read, most of the time they will be halfway through a page of text and realize that they have no idea what they just read. Their mind was simply somewhere else. I think we all can relate to becoming numb to words on a page or, in Lehrer’s argument, especially, words on a screen.

In his article “The Future of Reading”, Lehrer draws on his personal experiences to explain that the technological advances of text are making the act of reading too easy, and therefore jeopardizing our conscious contemplation of a sentence’s meaning.  

Lehrer recounts a study by Stanislas Dehaene that explains that when we passively read we use a “pathway” in our brain known as the ventral route, a direct and efficient area that accounts for the majority of our reading. It makes it possible for us to read without feeling as though we are exerting any effort. Dehaene explains that when we actively read we stimulate a part of our brain know as the dorsal stream, used when we pay conscious attention to the words of a sentence. Clearly the two people in line in front of me were discussing their passive reading habits.

Lehrer elaborates on Dehaene’s research by claiming that familiar words printed in Helvetica on clear screens can be read quickly and effortlessly. “Meanwhile, unusual sentences with complex clauses and smudged ink tend to require more conscious effort, which leads to more activation in the dorsal pathway.” (Lehrer)

In his essay “Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents” Grant-Davie claims that a rhetorical situation involves exigence, rhetors, audience, and constraints. James Porter, in his essay “Intertextuality and the Discourse Community” focuses on the relationship between intertextuality, which stems from the idea that we all have a shared web of meaning, and discourse community. Drawing on ideas of Grant-Davie and Porter, the rhetorical situation of Lehrer’s “The Future of Reading” can be described as intertextual. These elements of the rhetorical situation and intertextuality work together to make Lehrer’s article effective. We see that not only Lehrer’s message, but the way in which he delivers his message, is responsible for the article’s success. 

Based on Grant-Davie’s ideas, the rhetorical situation in Lehrer’s article is constructed using four key concepts, but I will focus on the exigence, constraints, and audience. The exigence in this particular situation is the increasing popularity of digital texts, and the constraints include genre, length, and medium, just to name a few. Lehrer seems to have analyzed his audience by focusing on the intertext of the discourse community, which Porter suggests is the most effective way to reach an audience.

Intertextuality is used as Lehrer introduces Stanislas Dehaene’s findings. This boosts Lehrer’s argument and credibility. All of the short anecdotes Lehrer incorporates, such as quips about auxiliary cords, overweight baggage at the airport, HD TV, and the use of Helvetica also serve as intertextual elements.  The intertext Lehrer offers with these anecdotes unites the reader and writer by bringing about mutual understanding about a topic.

Lehrer’s rhetorical situation is what the audience responds to, but the intertext embedded in Lehrer’s writing shapes the article and creates a discourse community. Lehrer plays on the idea of community by using the shared understanding among readers to his advantage. Even if a reader does not personally relate to Lehrer’s experiences, he or she can still appreciate and understand his message through his intertextual anecdotes and becomes influenced by his pathos.

In text production, medium influences content. One of the most important ideas Lehrer mentions in his article is that “every medium starts to influence the message…technology will feedback onto the content, making us less willing to endure harder texts.” Like he said earlier in the article, technology is constantly making it easier for us to perceive content. Reading is not necessarily supposed to be easier, the most rewarding books or ideas require effort. This idea is actually quite profound, and Lehrer does an excellent job using Aristotelian logic to elicit readers’ consideration without exaggerating his point.

Porter explains that the intertextual nature of discourse shifts our attention away from the writer as an individual and instead focuses on the sources and social contexts from which the discourse arises. Upon first reading this, one may draw the conclusion that it is not applicable in Lehrer’s case because Lehrer’s article is very personal. Since the article is in first person, most of the information comes through the writer as an individual; however, by using rhetorical techniques, Lehrer manages to focus the content on the social context of the discourse. The reader is left feeling as if these were his or her own thoughts and is hardly thinking specifically about the author, but rather the implications of the article’s content.

Just as Grant-Davie stresses the importance of the timing and social context of a rhetorical situation, Porter emphasizes looking beyond the intertext to the social framework that regulates textual production. One of the most effective aspects of Lehrer’s writing is that it is relevant in today’s society.

Lehrer’s implementation of rhetorical strategies shapes his argument and appeals to the discourse community. He introduces the exigence in an entertaining and relatable way and offers a solution to it. The article is concise but the reader does not feel cheated of information.

As the people in line with me were talking, one of the girls admitted that she even fell asleep while she was reading on her phone. This exemplifies Lehrer’s argument perfectly. Even Lehrer acknowledges that the pleasure of reading on his easy-to-read Kindle might explain why it helps him fall asleep.