Jacob Fies
Preliminary Analysis Reflective Introduction
The first major project for the course is a Preliminary analysis. Within this project we are tasked with completing a “Rhetorical genre analysis of scientific discourse in a discourse community to which you belong or with to gain entry”. Through this rhetorical analysis it is hoped that we would gain a deeper understanding of a specific genre, that could potentially benefit us in the future.
I made the decision to analyze grant proposals early on in the process, but the specific comparison I wanted to make changed 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. I then switched my focus to comparing the techniques used between successful and failed proposals. This switch was made because it initially seemed easier to find two grant proposals that fit these specifications. While searching for two proposals that fit this I quickly realized that there were no failed grant proposals available to view. Upon reaching this road block I decided that I would just try and find any available grant proposals. Finally I found a couple that I could analyze. When I found these two it turned out that one was written for “new” research and the other for “old” research, so my original idea would work after all.
When deciding which organizational style I wanted my preliminary analysis to take, I decided on the IMRAD stlye. I decided that using this set up would make my paper more accessible to people within the scientific discourse community, which was my main audience in mind. Additionally when taking my peer feedback in mind, I decided that keeping the analysis as short detached sections, and the discussion as longer paragraphs, was still my best choice. I came to this decision, after a lot of thought, with the reasoning that the analysis couldn’t be written as effectively in long paragraph form, and the discussion would not have flowed as well in short paragraph form. Since neither could be written in the same form, they inevitably had to stay the way they were. Given that grant proposals are something that most people within this discipline have written, or will have to write at some point, I thought that this analysis could work as a way to demonstrate what rhetorical techniques are most important to include in grant proposals. 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.
After the final draft was submitted, I received additional feedback from my my professor on some changes I could make. These included things like: integrating a separate reflective introduction as a cover page while still having a more project specific introduction on the full page, including some images so the reader can see what is being analyzed throughout the analysis section, and finally cleaning up some of the prose throughout the discussion so that it does not simply copy what the analysis has already said. With these in mind I began editing my preliminary analysis. The first thing I did was add onto my reflective introduction, in the hopes of shedding a clearer light onto the process of writing the project, and the decisions I made. Next, I gave the reflective introduction its own page so that it could act as a cover sheet for the rest of the project. After that I went through the two grant proposals and pulled the most relevant images I could to incorporate into the analysis section, and attempted to format the page to make it easy to follow. Finally, while I was suggested to completely incorporate my current discussion into the analysis section, and rewrite the discussion, I prefer to keep the same general set up I have but edit just the discussion section so that it acts as a comparison and discussion section. I feel this will allow the analysis section to maintain its "analysis per proposal" set up, while the comparison and discussion sections will take what was found in the analysis and equate them.
With this project in mind, I was hoping to connect it back to two of the student learning outcomes: discourse community knowledge, and rhetorical knowledge. Both outcomes were met through the analysis of the two grant proposals. I had to use my discourse community knowledge to understand and identify what discourse community expectation and standards were present in the proposals. This understanding allowed me to have an overall deeper analysis of the grant proposals by already knowing what was commonly expected in the discourse community. Going through this process also allowed me to see the importance of understanding discourse community knowledge, and how paying attention to something that seemed so little can have a big impact while writing and analyzing work. Rhetorical knowledge was then used to identify what rhetorical techniques made each of the grant proposals successful. Having this understanding allowed me to take the rhetorical techniques we learned in class and apply them directly to my analysis of the grant proposals. Without the use of these two outcomes, the analysis of the proposals would not have been as complete or successful.
I made the decision to analyze grant proposals early on in the process, but the specific comparison I wanted to make changed 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. I then switched my focus to comparing the techniques used between successful and failed proposals. This switch was made because it initially seemed easier to find two grant proposals that fit these specifications. While searching for two proposals that fit this I quickly realized that there were no failed grant proposals available to view. Upon reaching this road block I decided that I would just try and find any available grant proposals. Finally I found a couple that I could analyze. When I found these two it turned out that one was written for “new” research and the other for “old” research, so my original idea would work after all.
When deciding which organizational style I wanted my preliminary analysis to take, I decided on the IMRAD stlye. I decided that using this set up would make my paper more accessible to people within the scientific discourse community, which was my main audience in mind. Additionally when taking my peer feedback in mind, I decided that keeping the analysis as short detached sections, and the discussion as longer paragraphs, was still my best choice. I came to this decision, after a lot of thought, with the reasoning that the analysis couldn’t be written as effectively in long paragraph form, and the discussion would not have flowed as well in short paragraph form. Since neither could be written in the same form, they inevitably had to stay the way they were. Given that grant proposals are something that most people within this discipline have written, or will have to write at some point, I thought that this analysis could work as a way to demonstrate what rhetorical techniques are most important to include in grant proposals. 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.
After the final draft was submitted, I received additional feedback from my my professor on some changes I could make. These included things like: integrating a separate reflective introduction as a cover page while still having a more project specific introduction on the full page, including some images so the reader can see what is being analyzed throughout the analysis section, and finally cleaning up some of the prose throughout the discussion so that it does not simply copy what the analysis has already said. With these in mind I began editing my preliminary analysis. The first thing I did was add onto my reflective introduction, in the hopes of shedding a clearer light onto the process of writing the project, and the decisions I made. Next, I gave the reflective introduction its own page so that it could act as a cover sheet for the rest of the project. After that I went through the two grant proposals and pulled the most relevant images I could to incorporate into the analysis section, and attempted to format the page to make it easy to follow. Finally, while I was suggested to completely incorporate my current discussion into the analysis section, and rewrite the discussion, I prefer to keep the same general set up I have but edit just the discussion section so that it acts as a comparison and discussion section. I feel this will allow the analysis section to maintain its "analysis per proposal" set up, while the comparison and discussion sections will take what was found in the analysis and equate them.
With this project in mind, I was hoping to connect it back to two of the student learning outcomes: discourse community knowledge, and rhetorical knowledge. Both outcomes were met through the analysis of the two grant proposals. I had to use my discourse community knowledge to understand and identify what discourse community expectation and standards were present in the proposals. This understanding allowed me to have an overall deeper analysis of the grant proposals by already knowing what was commonly expected in the discourse community. Going through this process also allowed me to see the importance of understanding discourse community knowledge, and how paying attention to something that seemed so little can have a big impact while writing and analyzing work. Rhetorical knowledge was then used to identify what rhetorical techniques made each of the grant proposals successful. Having this understanding allowed me to take the rhetorical techniques we learned in class and apply them directly to my analysis of the grant proposals. Without the use of these two outcomes, the analysis of the proposals would not have been as complete or successful.