In the current state of my preliminary analysis, I was hoping to structure it based on the standard IMRAD paper. I was thinking that using this set up would make my paper more accessible to people within the scientific discourse community for which I was writing. Given that grant proposals are something that most people within this discipline have written, or will have to write at some point, I was thinking that this analysis could work as a way to show them what the most valuable rhetorical techniques are to include in a proposal. In alignment with this, I was hoping that going through the process of analyzing multiple grant proposals would give myself invaluable insight into the genre for when I will eventually need to write one myself.
I made the decision to analyze grant proposals early on in the process, but exactly what within that genre flipped around a few times. I initially wanted to compare the rhetorical techniques between two grant proposals, one for new research and one for known, or previously done, research. This initially seemed difficult to do because it would involve the need to find specific grant proposals that fit this specification, so I switched my focus to comparing the techniques used between successful and failed proposals. While searching for two proposals that fit this second set of specifications, I quickly realized that, in fact, my original idea was easier to accomplish, and found two proposals that were written for the same grant, a year apart, one for a new project and one for a project continuation. Questions/Concerns:
1 Comment
Minor Assignment 52/11/2018 A particularly interesting section of Bazerman’s “Patents as Speech Acts and Legal Object” is his analysis of “The typification of patent forms”. In this section he not only discusses the typification of the standard patent form, but he also discusses the history of the patent form. He dives deep into where and when each section of the form originated and why it did so. For example, he discusses the need for pictures and models by saying, “a drawing might be attached. Until 1881 a model was required, but afterward was to be supplied only on request” (11). This connection to the past and the evolution of the patent form helps to give interesting context about the genre and how/why it changed throughout the years.
This type of historical analysis, I believe, could be interesting to use in my own rhetorical analysis. Perhaps not diving so far into the past but instead within the realms of possibly me interviewees experience. For example, some questions I could ask to add context to my analysis could be: “How has the standardized form of the Grant Proposal changed throughout your research career?” or “In what way would you might want it to change in the future?”. I think these sorts of questions could help shed some light on the discourse communities opinion on the genre, giving some valuable context on the overall writing style. My original idea for my first major assignment was to compare the different kinds of language and persuasive techniques used in grant proposals for pre-examined fields versus grant proposals for unexplored/uncommon topics. After discussing this idea in class and having more time to mull it over, I think it would make more sense to simply analyze grant proposals on a whole and what rhetoric they use. Possibly this comparison could now be analyzing the difference in rhetoric between grant proposals that succeed and those that have failed. I believe that this comparison would be easier to manage, as well as easier to find examples from each side. Minor Assignment 42/6/2018 Given the main purpose of the first major assignment being “To uncover how the functions and features of particular genres shape scientific discourse within a particular activity system or discourse community,” I think I may have settled on what I want to investigate. With my first major assignment, I think I want to investigate the grant proposal genre. The process by which professors and researchers propose for grants has always been somewhat of a mystery to me. To whom are they applying from grants from, and how do they write an effective proposal. Taking it one step further though, if possible, I want to look into the grant proposal process for someone who is a pioneer in their field. Given that a lot of current research is based off of previous research papers and ideas, how would someone apply for a grant for a project that has no previous literature to base their ideas off of? Do they still follow the typification, also defined as “the process of moving to standardized forms of utterance that are recognized as carrying out certain actions,” of the genre, as Bazerman put it (316).
To achieve what I am looking to do in this project, I think I will need to do a few things. First, I believe it will be important to study how “typical” grant proposals are written, to get a base line. Once this is done I will be able to move on and begin looking at grant proposals written for more obscure/un-based (due to lack of better terms) research projects. The difference I am expecting to find is a relation between the amount of explanation needed in the proposal and the “newness” of the research ideas. For example, an established idea will need less explanation than a new one. Finally, I hope to interview a faculty member one campus whose research interests live in the more unresearched area of marine biology. I hope with this insight I will be able to draw more conclusions from my investigations by having an insider’s perspective on the topic. One question/concern I do have however is, are grant proposals an accessible form of literature to the public? And if not, is there a way I will still be able to accomplish my goals? Minor Assignment 32/4/2018 When searching for a journal article to study, I wanted something that I already had previous knowledge on, so I could focus strictly on the rhetoric of the piece. I decided on a paper concerning the swimming dynamics of lampreys, given that is what I currently work on as a research student at Roger Williams. As I looked at “How the bending of kinematics of swimming lampreys build negative pressure fields for suction thrust” by Gemmel and colleagues, I began to appreciate more the rhetorical techniques that Gemmels uses throughout the paper. His use of rhetoric most closely follows rhetorical cannons. The rhetorical cannons are comprised of five pieces: invention, arrangement, memory, delivery, and style.
When applying these to the journal article, invention is the first to arise. Invention, or in other words the process of the work, is first introduced in the materials and methods sections. In this section Gemmel goes into great detail to explain exactly how the process of video analyzing the kinematics of swimming lamprey is done and what exactly can be derived from such work. He also takes the time to explain how lampreys actually swim; by creating negative pressure fields in front and along the sides of their bodies that they are sucked into, instead of the typical backwards thrust that other aquatic animals use. He goes on to add, in detail, exactly how they quantify any data reported, allowing the reader to follow the thought process through the paper. Arrangement and memory, the second and third cannons, can be seen all throughout the paper. Gemmel applies arrangement by following the standard set up for any scientific research paper. Leading with an abstract, then an introduction, materials and methods, and so on. He does however also use quite a few subcategories that help the reader if they need to jump to a specific part of the paper. When discussing a writer’s use of “memory,” it often means the grounding of their work in other sources and supplying the reader with some context outside of their own work. Gemmel is no different when it comes to this canon. He cites a total of fifty-five other published papers throughout his piece, sufficiently grounding his work and giving it credibility through its connection to these previously published authors/papers. The final two cannons, delivery and style, work very well when used together. Delivery is the way in which a paper is designed or presented; with style focusing more on the demeanor and tone. Gemmel uses these well together by not only creating a very visually appealing paper through his use of graphs, charts, and depictions, but also by keeping a very informative and interested tone throughout his paper. The graphics helped to guide the reader through some of the more difficult jargon by supplying them with a visual representation of what is being discussed. His interested tone also helped the paper significantly because it is always easier to get into a topic when the writer shows such compassion for it. Gemmel, whether he meant to or not, developed and used the five rhetorical cannons all throughout his article. He built a paper that was not only interesting to read, but also immensely informational, without being too overbearing on the reader. AuthorSophomore Marine Biology Major, Roger Williams University Archives
April 2018
CategoriesAbout
The purpose of these blogs were to serve as a mode to turn in minor assignments for my Professional Writing Class. Many are responses to reading we did, and a couple are first drafts of various major assignments. |