Evaluation of Rhetorical Situations

In this post, I will analyze the rhetorical situations of three texts related to biomedical engineering. In particular, I will comment on the author, audience, and context of these opinionated public speech acts.

Major, Ted, "RhetoricalTriangle." 01/13/14 via Flckr. Attribution-ShareAlike License.

1. "Embryonic Stem-Cell Research — The Case for Federal Funding"

• Author/speaker: This text is written by Jeffrey M. Drazen, M.D. Drazen is the editor-in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, which is the journal in which this piece is published. As a current resident of Massachusetts, he is a distinguished professor of medicine and physiology at Harvard University. Additionally, he has served on several committees for the National Institutes of Health. Given this background, he seems to be a credible source of information in this subject matter.
• Audience: This piece is published in a scientific journal, so it seems to be intended for other members of the scientific community. It functions mostly as a persuasive text, so the intended audience may be scientists who do not want federal funding for stem cell research. Given the medium of publication and the content, I think it is safe to assume that the text is meant for a scientific audience with opposing viewpoints.
• Context: This article was published on October 21, 2004 in a scientific journal. As such, it can be assumed that the article was peer-reviewed, as is a convention for most texts published in scientific journals. This article may have been a reaction to stem cell research policy under the Bush administration, which banned federal funding for such research. While it is about a decade old, this article is related to the current debate about federal funding for this research as well.

2. "'Bionic Man' Warns of Ethical Minefield

• Author/speaker: This article is written by Vanessa Thorpe, an arts and media correspondent for The Guardian and The Observer from London. While she does not necessarily have a scientific background, she offers commentary on a documentary regarding a scientific and ethical matter. In this case, she seems credible enough to communicate the opinion of the "bionic man," Bertolt Meyer, as expressed in his documentary.
• Audience: The audience of this article seems to include anyone of the general public who has an interest in prosthetic technology. However, Meyer's speech act, as it is depicted in the article, seems to specifically target scientists and engineers who are working to advance the technology. Because Meyer warns about the ethical implications of this technology, he seems to be targeting the people who are responsible for its advancement. 
• Context: This article was published on September 28, 2013 in The Guardian, a general online news source. This medium's typical goal is to convey information to a wide audience in a concise manner. The ethical implications of prosthetics that are communicated in this article seem to stem from the issue of using this technology in the  Paralympic Games as a sort of advantage. The issues that Meyer addresses here are a common topic of debate with regards to prosthetic technology.

3. "Print Thyself"

• Author/speaker: This article is written by Jerome Groopman, a staff writer for The New Yorker. He has been staff writer since 1998, and specifically publishes material related to science and biology. Amongst other things, holds a Chair of Medicine and Harvard University, and contributes to much research related to AIDS and cancer. In addition, he has served on number scientific editorial boards. Due to all of his prior experience, he seems to be a very credible author.
• Audience: This article seems to be intended for anyone who has an interest in this subject. Groopman clearly defines any scientific terms he uses, and rather than focusing the article on scientific studies, he describes case studies in which this technology was useful. The language and content of the article makes it accessible to anyone, with and without a scientific background.
• Context: This article was published on November 24, 2014, in The New Yorker. This medium usually offers commentary on recent topics of interest, in a way that is not always unbiased. Thus, although Groopman clearly communicates his viewpoint, he does it in a way that is fitting with the conventions of this genre. This article directly relates to recent developments in 3-D printing, and the debatable applications of this technology. By expressing his support for the technology, the author contributes to a very polarizing discussion that has recently surrounded the topic of 3-D printing for biological applications.

Reflection

After reading Samantha's and Evan's posts, I have been able to more clearly understand the idea of a "rhetorical situation." To me, it seems like the most interesting rhetorical situations are found in the sources that are clearly opinionated, but still credible. In both Samantha's and Evan's posts, I found that the articles that were clearly biased, but still reliable, were most dynamic and interesting to read about and analyze. 

I think my three sources were sufficiently analyzed in a way that is similar to my classmates' analyses. However, reading their posts has given me some idea of what to look for when I am performing similar analyses throughout this project.

Developing a Research Question

In this post, I will begin brainstorming for Project 2. To do this, I will pose a series of research questions that I might be interested in exploring further for this project.

luckey_sun, "research." 02/16/12 via Flickr. Attribution-ShareAlike License.

1. Should the U.S. government provide funding for controversial stem cell research?

As I was conducting research for Project 1, I read some articles that spoke about funding for stem cell research. Many private corporations, such as the NIH, decided to pull funding from research that involved experimenting on human embryos. This made me interested in what public funding is available for this type of research, and what types of debates circle around this issue.

2. Are prosthetics becoming an unnatural way to enhance an individual's natural abilities?

Before I settled on my controversy for Project 1, I was very interested in exploring this topic as well. Along with genetic engineering, prosthetics have been under much debate, as some people believe that they are an unnatural way to somehow enhance an individual's abilities. I would love to further explore this topic, as I have not really had the chance to learn about this idea before.

3. Are artificial organs made via 3-D printing a good replacement for functional organs?

A couple weeks ago, I came across an article explaining that an organ that was created using 3-D printing was now a functional part of a man's body. While this seemed like it should be a good thing, I was surprised to see that a lot of controversy exists regarding this application of 3-D printing. This is an idea that I would be interested in exploring further, especially because I don't have any prior knowledge regarding the issue.

Reflection on Project 1

In this blog post, I will reflect on the process of writing my QRG. By answering a series of questions, I will thoroughly examine the process I used in order to finish this project.

Hurley, Andrew, "The Start and Finish Line of the 'Inishowen 100' Scenic Drive." 09/25/11 via Flickr. Attribution-ShareAlike License.

1. What challenges did you face during the Quick Reference Guide project and how did you deal with them?

One of my biggest challenges was understanding the genre of the QRG, and then condensing all of my research so that it was appropriate for this genre. I had an especially hard time making my topic accessible for a larger audience, since I chose a very scientific controversy that can be difficult to understand. I dealt with this challenge by thoroughly researching the genre of the QRG, so that I could gain more insight on how to write in this style. I also had several people with varying backgrounds proofread for me, so that I was sure that a wide audience could understand my QRG.

2. What successes did you experience on the project and how did they happen?

I was successful in finding lots of sources that addressed both sides of my controversy. It was difficult to do this type of research at first, but I was able to find several sources using the search engines we learned about in class. Additionally, I explored some sources that other articles were referencing, which gave me even more information to use in my QRG.

3. What kinds of arguments, rhetorical strategies, design choices and writing practices did you find the most effective for your project? Why?

The most difficult part for me was to remain relatively neutral and unbiased throughout my QRG, so the writing practices I used helped me maintain this neutrality. In order to spend equal time on both sides of my controversy, I specifically chose subheadings that addressed each side. In addition, I used lots of sources and focused on evaluating the credibility of those sources, rather that offering my own opinion. Using this strategy helped me evaluate the controversy from both opposing viewpoints, and thus helped make my QRG more comprehensive and reliable.

4. What kinds of arguments, rhetorical strategies, design choices and writing practices did you find were not effective for your project? Why?

When I first started working on my QRG, I began writing it in the essay-writing style that I had been trained to use. However, I quickly realized that this strategy was not effective for several reasons. The large paragraphs of a typical essay, and the lack of white space this design causes, did not align with the conventions of the QRG. In addition, the somewhat formal tone of an essay did not allow the QRG to be accessible for a wide audience. This strategy was not effective because it did not allow me to make use of the conventions of the QRG.

5. How was the writing process for this project similar to other school writing experiences you’ve had in the past?

Broadly speaking, the overall process for writing the QRG was similar to my other writing experiences.  I began by planning and conducting research, wrote a rough draft, revised that draft, and finally wrote a final draft. While the way in which I went about each of these steps was very different, the overall process was similar.

6. How was the writing process for this project different from other school writing experiences you’ve had in the past?

The QRG is very different from any other genre I've worked with before, so the process was relatively new for me as well. For instance, I was not used to the amount of research I had to do beforehand, as it was important for me to address both sides of my controversy. I also had to learn the conventions of an entirely new genre, and I had to adapt my stylistic choices to fit with this genre. Overall, writing a QRG was very different from any other writing I've done before.

7. Would any of the skills you practiced for this project be useful in your other coursework? Why or why not?

The researching skills I practiced for this project will be especially useful, even if I don't end up studying English. I am a science major, so research is an especially important part of my discipline, and the skills I practiced regarding this will be very useful. In addition, evaluating the credibility of the sources I find is an important skill to have when researching. In this way, the skills that I used in this project will be very useful throughout my academic career.

Reflection

After reading Alex and Hallye's reflections, I realized that we all had similar experiences with this genre. At first it was difficult to adjust to the conventions of the genre, as I don't think any of us had written a QRG before. However, once we become more accustomed to it, the conventions of the QRG actually helped us analyze our controversies in a relatively neutral manner. Of course, we all had different issues that we had to deal with throughout the process, but it sounds like we were all pretty successful in adapting to this genre overall.

Project 1 Quick Reference Guide: "A Renewed Fear of Designer Babies: The Controversy about Genetically Modified Human Embryos Explained"

In this post, I will publish the final version of my QRG. This QRG can be found here.

Chandra, Swati, "Screenshot from my computer." 09/26/15 via Google Docs.

Clarity, Part 2

In this section, I will write about four additional topics that I need to work on in order to improve the clarity of my writing. These topics include: active verbs, mixed constructions, emphasis, and variety.

PDPics, "Fountain, Writing, Pen, Dictionary, Words, Letters." 2014 via Pixabay. Public Domain License.

1. Active verbs: I have noticed that I have frequently used passive verbs unintentionally in my writing. I never thought it was such a big deal, but this section helped me realize how ineffective these verbs really are. Unlike active verbs, passive verbs do not place emphasis on the subject, and they end up making sentences unnecessarily wordy. It is especially tempting to use passive verbs in my QRG, since passive voice is often used in scientific writing and my QRG focuses on a scientific topic. However, I will have to make sure that I only use passive verbs when it is absolutely necessary, or not at all.

2. Mixed constructions: This section helped me understand how easy it is to fall into the trap of using mixed constructions. These constructions often do not make grammatical or logical sense, but I have caught myself using them when I am in a hurry to write all of my ideas down. These sentence structures often make sense in my head, but I now realize that they do not really make sense on paper. I will have to pay special attention to these mixed constructions in my own writing.

3. Emphasis: This section focused on the ways you can use grammatical elements, such as subordinate clauses and coordinating conjunctions, to emphasize key ideas in your writing. I was especially surprised by how influential the grammatical structure can be in your writing. The grammar can drastically change the key idea of your sentence, so I will definitely have to make sure my writing is emphasizing the key points I was hoping to emphasize.

4. Variety: This section outlined different ways you can add some variety to your sentence structures. I have noticed in my own writing that it is easy to fall into the trap of relying only on one type of sentence structure. I might use too many simple and compound sentences, but end up neglecting complex sentences, or vice versa. This section gave me many tips on how to avoid doing this, which will prove to be very helpful in my own writing.

After reading through my QRG, I realized that the topics I reflected on above really do influence the clarity of my writing. For instance, I noticed some sentences that used passive verbs rather than active verbs, as shown below:

"In this way, Twitter has been used by many with and without scientific backgrounds to express conflicting viewpoints regarding the issue."

However, when I change the sentence so that it uses an active verb, the sentence becomes much more concise:

"In this way, many with and without scientific backgrounds have used Twitter to express conflicting viewpoints regarding the issue."

I also found some mixed constructions, as demonstrated by this sentence:

"Others, such as Dieter Egli, a member of the team of researchers at New York Stem Cell Foundation, expressed his support for the research through a well-respected news corporation, the MIT Technology Review."

The use of a plural subject and a singular noun does not make sense, so I changed it to correct this inconsistency:

"Others expressed their support for the research through well-respected news corporations. For instance, Dieter Egli, a member of the team of researchers at New York Stem Cell Foundation, offered his insight to the MIT Technology Review."

Identifying Basic Grammar Patterns

In this post, I will reflect on the grammar that I use in my own writing. I will do this by identifying the grammatical structures that I used in the longest paragraph of my QRG. The longest paragraph can be found here.

PDPics, "Grammar, Magnifier, Magnifying Glass, Loupe, Book." 02/28/13 via Pixabay. Public Domain License.

This exercise mainly taught me one thing: I use a lot of different grammatical structures in my writing without even realizing it. I noticed so many complex and simple sentences, and my writing had no shortage of subordinate clauses. I realized then that I could make my writing more effective if I consciously used those grammatical structures. If I were to use these structures with a specific purpose in mind, it might help me communicate my point more efficiently.

Although I was able to find most of the grammatical elements suggested in my writing, there are definitely a few I want to use more often. One thing I didn't use a lot was the simple sentence structure. Sometimes, a simple sentence is more effective when you want to concisely communicate your idea, but my writing is crowded with lots of subordinate clauses and compound sentences. I think using the structure of a simple sentence would help me be more concise in my writing. I also would like to explore other sentence purposes, as I mostly used declarative sentences in my QRG. While I feel that this helps communicate my ideas most effectively in my QRG, I would like to experiment with the other sentence purposes in the future.

Paragraph Analysis

In this blog post, I will reflect on the paragraph analysis I conducted on the rough draft of my QRG. In particular, I will comment on the strengths and weaknesses of my draft.

Enokson, "Parts of a Paragraph." 09/07/11 via flickr. Attribution license.

With regards to strengths, I think I do a good job summarizing the main points of each paragraph. Each paragraph seems to have a definite purpose, and that purpose is usually stated towards the beginning of the paragraph. This main point is usually followed by some type of evidence, either in the form of a quotation or a hyperlink to some other source. This helps logically develop the main point. In addition, most of my paragraphs seem to have some type of transition that links it to previous ideas, so this helps add to the flow of the overall document.

There are definitely some weaknesses to my paragraphs as well. One thing I noticed while completing this exercise was that some of my paragraphs lack analysis of my main point. The paragraphs generally have some purpose and illustration of that purpose, but oftentimes that illustration lacks sufficient explanation. In addition, while most of the paragraphs have transitions, there are definitely a few paragraphs that don't seem to flow with the rest of the document. It logically makes sense to me, but it does make me concerned that the audience might be confused by the lack of transition. These are some things that I will have to work on before submitting my final paper.

The paragraph analysis can be found here.

Reflection on Project 1 Draft

In this post, I reflect on the audience and context of my QRG. During the peer review process, I reviewed Samantha Walker's draft and Chloe Durand's draft. I will use this peer review process to reflect on my own QRG.

SEO, "Is Your Writing Engaging?" 06/08/10 via flickr. Attribution-ShareAlike License.

Audience

• Who is going to be reading this document?: This document will primarily be read by my classmates and my instructor.
• What are their values and expectations?: My audience expects to read a well-written QRG that adequately explains both sides of my controversy. They expect this QRG to be brief, concise, and explanatory. I think I do explain the arguments in my controversy, but I do need to work on being as brief and concise as possible throughout the QRG.
• How much information do I need to give my audience?: My topic is very scientific, as it has to do with biotechnology. Because most people will not be experts on the field, I need to provide enough context about the controversy for everyone to get the gist of the issue. Although this doesn't mean that I have to explain every aspect of the science thoroughly, I do need to make sure I provide enough information for people with different backgrounds and interests to understand.
• What kind of language is suitable for this audience?: Because the QRG is meant to be relatively informal, it would make sense to stay away from using very formal diction. In addition, I want to make sure I don't use scientific jargon that would confuse the reader. I think the best approach here would be to use language that any college student would be able to comprehend.
• What tone should I use with my audience? Do I use this tone consistently?: The tone of this document should be professional but not formal. This is not an essay, so I don't need to use a very formal tone. At the same time, this document is not something that I would put on social media, so it can't be too informal. The tone should consistently create a balance between a formal and informal tone.

Context

• What are the formatting requirements of the assignment? Do I meet them?: The assignment requires that I write using the format of a QRG. After comparing my draft to the conventions of the QRG, it seems like I follow all of the requirements. I include subheadings, images, hyperlinks, and the other conventions listed.
• What are the content requirements for the assignment? Do I meet them?: The content requirements for this project can be found on the grading rubric. The requirements include providing relevant background information, political/cultural context, an evaluation of the credibility of sources, and other such information. I think I provide sufficient background information and I provide information about both sides of the argument. However, I think I could add analysis about the credibility of the sources, and I could tie it in to the current political/cultural climate as a whole.
• Does my draft reflect knowledge or skills gained in this class in addition to my own ideas and voice?: I think this draft reflects a lot of what I've learned about the QRG genre. I tried to incorporate all of the conventions we were taught in this class into my draft. It also reflects the analysis of credibility that we were taught in class; however, I realize that I could do more to elaborate on that credibility. I tried to communicate my own voice through the tone of the paper, but I think my voice sometimes get lost in the paper. This is again something I need to work on.
• Have I addressed any grammatical issues that my teacher highlighted in class or in my previously-graded assignments?: I haven't had any graded assignments that comment on my grammatical issues yet, but I hope I addressed most of the grammatical problems while I was revising my own writing. Hopefully my peers will be able to point out more issues while they are reviewing my draft.

Clarity, Part 1

In this post, I will write about four topics that I need to work on in order to improve the clarity of my writing. These topics include: needed words, wordy sentences, appropriate language, and exact words.

King, Dave, "Hand Writing." 03/24/09 via flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License.

1. Needed words: This section focused on words that must be used in order to improve the clarity of a sentence. I have found that I often unintentionally leave out words in an effort to make my writing brief, and this section helped me understand which words I cannot leave out. I was surprised to see what a difference small words actually make in a sentence. For instance, I sometimes overlook the importance of articles, but this section showed me that I really need to focus on using these words to improve the clarity of my writing.

2. Wordy sentences: I have always had trouble expressing my ideas in a concise manner, and this section gave me some pointers on how to improve unnecessarily wordy sentences. I was especially surprised by how often I unintentionally make my sentences redundant. The book suggested several ways to reduce redundancies by using simpler sentence structures. For instance, instead of saying "at all times" I could say "always," and this significantly decreases the number of words used. This will be especially useful in writing a QRG, since I need to keep it brief and concise to keep to the conventions of the QRG.

3. Choose appropriate language: This section focused on how to use language that is appropriate for the paper. It helped me realize how easily it is to slip into jargon. Because the topic for my QRG has to do with an especially scientific topic, it can become difficult to stay away from scientific terms. However, I will have to adopt language that is easy to understand for any audience, and this means working with my writing and choosing language that is appropriate for the QRG.

4. Exact words: This section focused on providing the right tools to help make writing concise and to the point. It was especially useful in its advice on selecting words with the appropriate connotations. More often than not, I have used words that did not have the connotations I was looking for, and that decreased the effect of my writing. In addition, the book suggests using concrete nouns to more clearly express my thoughts. This advice will help me make my writing more concise.

Reflection:

As I paid special attention to my peers' use of language in the QRG drafts, I realized how the topics I mentioned above, although seemingly small parts of writing, made a huge difference in the drafts. The choice of words really impacted the overall strengths of the QRG, and it helped me realize that I need to learn how to follow the advice given in Rules for Writers.

For instance, in Samantha's draft, I noticed that the wordiness of some sentences detracted from her overall point. This can be seen in the following excerpt from her writing:

"There is also the concern that teachers have with the system and that is the fact that the tests occupy such a huge portion of the curriculum, it is felt that they distract from the class content" (page 2).

In this sentence, Samantha makes a great point about the issue. However, the sentence is a little too wordy, which distracts me from its main goal. In this case, fixing the wording would add to the clarity of the sentence as a whole.

Another example if how the language impacts the writing can be seen in Chloe's draft. Chloe does a great job introducing her topic at the very beginning of her QRG. However, she doesn't define what "MFA" stands for, and this could cause some confusion for the reader. This can be demonstrated by this sentence:

"Thus, it has been hotly contested how people should learn to write - as in, Creative Writing MFA programs" (page 1).

In this quote, Chloe doesn't define "MFA," and this detracts from her main point. By defining this term, Chloe could make her QRG accessible to a wider audience.

Thoughts on Drafting

In this post, I will comment on the essential parts of drafting as explained in the Student's Guide. In particular, I will address what aspects of drafting are helpful when it comes to writing a QRG, and what aspects are perhaps not as helpful.

Whytock, Ken, "Poster: '21st century writing process.'" 06/01/11 via flickr.  Attribution-NonCommercial License.

1. What parts of the book’s advice are helpful for writing in this genre?

• Thesis: The books advises that a thesis statement be interesting and specific. This is true for any genre of writing, whether it's a standard essay or a QRG. This piece of advise will definitely be important in my QRG.
• PIE: While some parts of this structure might not apply to the QRG, the general method remains the same. Even in the QRG, it is important to begin with some point or topic, elaborate on this using examples and illustrations, and then explain those example in the context of the paper. 
• Conclusion: The process for writing a conclusion in a QRG is very similar to how it is outlined in this reading. Answering the "so what" question in the conclusion is especially important in this genre, since your audience may not be someone who is trained in the subject matter.

2. What parts of the book’s advice might not be so helpful, considering the genre you’re writing in?

• Thesis: While the aspects of the thesis I outlined above are helpful, some of the advice on writing thesis statements might not be so helpful when it comes to QRGs. Unlike the thesis in an essay, the thesis in the QRG might have to be more broad and address both sides of the topic. The QRG's main goal is to explain the topic to the audience in a way that is not necessarily biased, and the thesis statement should reflect this.
• PIE: Unlike the PIE structure in an essay, the QRG might not use this method in the typical manner. Rather than making one point per paragraph, the QRG might use multiple paragraphs so that there is plenty of white space throughout. This helps make the QRG scannable for the reader.
• Organization: The QRG doesn't use the typical structure of an essay. That is, it doesn't use an introduction, main body paragraphs that build on the thesis, and then a conclusion. While the QRG does have an introduction and conclusion, the bulk of the QRG is not in the body paragraphs. Rather, the QRG makes use of smaller explanatory paragraphs to maintain its structure.

Reflection

Andrea and Samantha's posts really helped me understand the QRG genre a little more. I agreed with much of what they talked about, and it helped me understand that there are definitely a few things I could work on in my QRG. Here are some things I'll have to pay more attention to: 

1. Being brief and concise: Samantha's post focused a lot on the importance of being brief yet concise throughout the QRG. I have found that I have a lot of trouble with this, so I'll definitely need to decrease some of the content in my QRG.
2. Informality: Because I am used to writing in a relatively formal tone in essays, I've found that the thesis and overall language in my QRG sometimes reflects that. I will need to work on using a tone that makes my QRG appealing to a wide audience.
3. Organization: Even though the QRG is not formatted in the same way as an essay, it is still important to have my ideas flow together throughout. This is something I've been struggling with, and as a result I feel that my QRG sounds a bit choppy. Again, I will have to go back and revise this aspect of my QRG.

Extra Credit: Putting Quotes in Context

In this post, I will address two quotes, one from Taylor Swift and one from Chris Pratt, and put those quotes into context. I will address how the context of the quote affects the quote itself, as well as the celebrity's image.

Rinaldi, Eva, "Taylor Swift Speak Now Tour Hots Sydney, Australia 2012." 03/09/12 via Wikimedia Commons. Attribution-Share Alike License.

Taylor Swift

“I wrote an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal this summer that basically portrayed my views on this. I try to stay really open-minded about things, because I do think it's important to be a part of progress. But I think it's really still up for debate whether this is actual progress.”

1. Describe the context: This quote is taken from an interview conducted by Chris Willman from Yahoo! Music. Published on November 6, 2014, this interview addresses Taylor Swift's success with her album 1989, and it discusses Swift's war with free music streaming services. Willman asked Swift about her issues with the streaming services, and this question led to Swift discussing her op-ed piece that she wrote for the Wall Street Journal.
2. Explain how knowing the context shapes our understanding of the quote: Before I knew the context of the quote, I had no way of telling what this op-ed piece was about, and who wrote the piece. The context of the quote helps me understand where this debate about "actual progress" is coming from. Without context, this progress could mean anything, from scientific progress to political progress. Knowing the context helps me understand that Swift is referring to progress within the music industry as it relates to free music streaming services.
3. Analyze how the quote-in-context shapes your view of the celebrity who said it: I would have honestly never pinned Taylor Swift as someone who had written for the Wall Street Journal. When it comes to Swift, the media often focuses on her relationships and music, not her writing published in esteemed online newspapers. This quote helped me understand another side of her that is working to change and make a meaningful impact on the music industry through her outspoken distaste for public music streaming services.

Chris Pratt

“I do know what it feels like to eat emotionally, and…to be be sad and make yourself happy with food. And then to be almost immediately sad again and now ashamed and then to try to hide those feelings with more food. I know what that’s like. It’s a vicious cycle and it’s a very real thing.”

1. Describe the context: This quote is pulled from something Chris Pratt previously said about his uphill battle when he was training for Guardians of the Galaxy. The article, published on July 22, 2014, addresses body image issues that the media has focused on lately, and relates this to Pratt's struggles with the same issue.
2. Explain how knowing the context shapes our understanding of the quote: The context of the quote really gives me some foundation to base my assumptions off of. Before reading about the context, it was impossible to tell where this bit about emotional eating was coming from. It is a quote that could have come from anyone who had unhealthy eating habits. Knowing that this is something Pratt said helps me understand that this is coming from someone who really had to try hard to achieve the body image he wanted.
3. Analyze how the quote-in-context shapes your view of the celebrity who said it: While Chris Pratt is often in the media for his action movies, he is rarely portrayed as someone who once struggled to gain the image he now has. This quote, now that it's been put in context, helps me see a side of Pratt that is not often addressed by the media. It shows the contrast between how I usually see him (the star of huge action movies) and how this article portrays him (someone who struggled with body image issues).

Draft of Quick Reference Guide

In this blog post, I will share a draft of my Quick Reference Guide (QRG), and I will address what type of feedback I hope to get on it.

McPhee, Nic, "Editing a paper." 01/26/08 via flickr. Attribution ShareAlike License.

As I was writing my QRG, I realized very quickly that scientists have a hard time staying away from scientific jargon. I tried to explain the context of my controversy as best as I could, but please let me know if there is too little/too much explanation. I also realized that I sometimes ramble and summarize a little too much. I'm especially worried that some sections are too long and don't have enough analysis in them. Please let me know if there is anything you think I need to address in my QRG or something I might need to leave out. Don't be afraid to leave feedback, as I am really looking to improve my writing and would love some critique! Thank you!

Link to the draft of my Quick Reference Guide: https://docs.google.com/a/email.arizona.edu/document/d/1IEFr_x3RQZJ1T9-_KXvID4WgNmduOmZxw70OSADVm2s/edit?usp=sharing

Practicing Quoting

In this post, I will show a paragraph that includes two quotes from each opposing side of my controversy. This paragraph is a way for me to practice using quotes in my own writing.

Kim, Jonathan, "Writing." 03/26/07 via Flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial License.

Screenshot of my writing:

Chandra, Swati, "Screenshot from 'Practicing Quoting' Google Doc.'" 09/11/15 via Google Docs.

Legend:

Chandra, Swati, "Screenshot from 'Practicing Quoting' Google Doc.'" 09/11/15 via Google Docs.

QRGs: The Genre

In this blog post, I will explore the genre of the Quick Reference Guide (QRG). In order to do so, I will answer a series of questions regarding the conventions, purpose, and audience of this genre.

1. What do the conventions of this genre - the Quick Reference Guide - seem to be?
This genre seems to include a series of elements that are necessary for any Quick Reference Guide. These conventions include:

• Title: The title of each QRG explicitly informs the audience of the QRG's purpose. In addition, the relatively informal tone of the title makes the QRG accessible to a wide variety of people. For instance, the title "The only guide to Gamergate you will ever need to read" explains what the QRG is about, and also utilizes an informal tone.
• Introductory paragraph(s): The introduction contextualizes the topic of the QRG, and gives a brief explanation of what the rest of the writing will be about. For instance in this article about e-cigarettes, the introduction gives some context for these cigarettes, and also gives some information about what the rest of the QRG will be about.
• Questions in subheadings: Each section of the QRG is introduced as a question. These subheadings help the audience find information easily, and it makes the QRG easy to scan. It also helps keep the audience engaged, since the questions are generally predictive of what the readers might want to know. For example, in the article about e-cigarettes, each major question is introduced as a subheading, such as "Key question #1: How dangerous are e-cigarettes?"
• Use of images with citation/graphics with statistics: These visual tools offer more information for the audience. Images generally make the subject of the QRG more concrete by offering some perspective. They also sometimes add emotion to the writing, as shown by the picture of the little girl in this QRG about Greece's debt crisis. Graphs with statistics also help organize information and help put these statistics in context. Graphic displays with statistics can also be seen in the QRG about Greece's debt crisis.
• Hyperlinks: Hyperlinks direct the audience to the sources that the author of the QRG referenced, which adds to the author's credibility. Hyperlinks also help keep the QRG brief, since the links give more information about a topic that the author might choose not to focus on. For instance, instead of describing the entire study that the author references in the article about e-cigarettes, the author merely provides some information and then a link to the study on the American Heart Association's website. This drastically decreases the amount of explanation necessary in the QRG

2. How are those conventions defined by the author’s formatting and design choices?

Each QRG uses the question-and-answer format to make the QRG brief and to the point. In addition, most of the authors use bold/bigger font for the questions (for example, look at the questions in this article), making the questions stand out in comparison to the rest of the article. The use of white space and pictures/graphics throughout also make the QRG easy to read and scannable.

3. What does the purpose of these QRGs seem to be?

The QRG's purpose seems to be to briefly inform the audience about the topic in question. Oftentimes, QRGs do this by presenting both sides of a certain argument, and by giving enough context to understand the issue. For example, the QRG about Gamergate gives enough context and information for the audience to understand Gamergate and what the entire issue is about, without overwhelming the reader with excessive information.

4. Who is the intended audience for these different QRGs? Are they all intended for similar audiences? Or different? How & why?

QRGs seem to be intended for all types of audiences, from people who are informed about the subject at hand, to people who might only be learning about the issue for the first time. Of course, the audience might vary depending on the interests of the readers, but overall, the authors seem to intentionally make QRGs easily accessible for all audiences. For example, the article about Greece's debt crisis introduces the audience to the issue in case the readers don't know much about it. However, it also throws in some statistics and other information that even well-informed readers might be interested in. By doing this, the author ensures that the QRG can be read by almost anyone interested in the subject.

5. How do the QRGs use imagery or visuals? Why do you think they use them in this way?

Imagery is often used in QRGs to give some concrete examples to the audience. Pictures often add some perspective or emotion to the situation, as shown by the picture of the little girl below. Graphs with statistics introduce numbers to the situation, often to put those numbers in context and to easily organize the information. This is demonstrated by the graphs about Greece's unemployment and GDP below. These visual devices also help make the QRG more scannable and easy to read. Below, I show two examples from this QRG about Greece's debt crisis

Chandra, Swati, "Screenshot from 'Greece's Debt Crisis Explained.'" 09/11/15 via  The New York Times

Chandra, Swati, "Screenshot from 'Greece's Debt Crisis Explained.'" 09/11/15 via  The New York Times

Reflection

After reading  Elliot, Casey, and Evan's overviews of the QRG, I definitely noticed some trends. For the most part, we all mention the same conventions that all QRGs hold in common. I especially found each person's analysis of the QRG interesting, as some people stress the importance of scanning QRGs in their blog posts, while others focus on what type of audience it is aimed at. This really helped me realize that there are many different parts of the QRG that I have to focus on in my own writing in order to effectively use this genre.

Cluster of My Controversy

In this blog post, I will describe the cluster that I created to organize my thoughts regarding the controversy I am writing about.

In this cluster, I organized my thoughts into two main groups: ideas that support the experimentation on genetically modified human embryos, and ideas that oppose this. These groups are further broken down to elaborate on (1) who the major speakers/writers are, (2) what media platform they are using to make their voices heard, (3) what they are saying about the controversy, and finally (4) what values and ideologies they believe are most important. Both sides of the controversy are broken down in this way.

The cluster for this controversy can be found here.

Chandra, Swati, "Screenshot of my cluster." 09/11/15 via Coggle.

Reflection

Overall, these clusters reminded me that each person's thought process is different. Some people like including lots of details, while others only include the brief explanations for each point. I found that  clusters are meaningful and helpful, but only if you organize your thoughts in a way that works for you. The way I think is different from everyone else's, and these clusters reflect that.

Victoria's cluster was very detailed, as she had a detailed explanation for each category. Even though it was so detailed, I really liked how organized it was. I personally only included brief statements in my cluster, because putting a lot of information into these types of brainstorming activities usually only ends up confusing me. However, I might consider adding a little more detail next time, like Victoria did.

Alex's cluster was very similar to mine. He set up his cluster in a way that each category was covered, and only included brief explanations for each. This is how I usually like to set up my clusters as well, since I don't like crowding my brainstorming too much.

Annotated Bibliography in APA Style

In this post, I have written an annotated bibliography in APA style. This includes all of the sources 
found in earlier blog posts about the controversy regarding the Chinese stem cell research and its 

applications to the genetic modification of human embryos.

Benvenisty, Nissim. "Embryonic Stem Cells." 09/25/2011 via Wikimedia Commons. Creative Commons Attribution License.

Baltimore, D., Berg, P., Botchan, M., Carrol, D., Charo, R. A., Church, G., …Yamamoto, K. R. (2015, March 19). A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification. Science, 348, 36-38. doi: 10.1126/science.aab1028

            In this paper, the authors give a technical overview of the process of genetic engineering in order to inform members of the scientific community. After discussing the current applications of this research, the authors argue that a set of guidelines must be put forth before this research continues. By suggesting a series of guidelines to ease ethical concerns, this paper asserts that transparency is vital in this new era of genetic engineering, and this can only be done through his outlined ideas. I will use this source in my paper to analyze the bioethical concerns that the embryo-editing in China caused and use the guidelines mentioned in this paper to add tangible evidence to the discussion concerning the opposition towards genetic engineering in the biomedical field.

Bioethics.com [bioethicsdotcom]. (2015, July 6). ‘Designer Babies’ Are an Unregulated Reality: (New York Post) – “Designer babies” are discussed as ... ‪http://bit.ly/1H6y8MQ  ‪#bioethics [Tweet]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/bioethicsdotcom/status/618139859920621568

            This tweet cites an article that voices concern over the increasing popularity of artificially engineered babies. As more people show interest in altering the genetic physical characteristics of babies, the article clearly demonstrates its disapproval of this type of engineering. By using this article as evidence, bioethics.com concludes that artificially engineered babies are becoming a popular and debated idea. By using this organization’s disapproval of genetic engineering as an example, I will show that stem cell research within the field of biomedical engineering does raise some serious ethical problems. The opinions regarding this vary widely, as shown by this article, and I can use this to show the fears that many people harbor regarding this idea.

Liao, L., & Zhao, R. C. (2007). Stem Cell Research in China. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 362, 1107-1112. Retrieved from http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org.            

            This paper outlines stem cell research in China, both historically and in the present day. By summarizing related studies that have occurred in China, and by explaining the research guidelines that the Chinese government implements, the authors conclude that the stem cell field is going to continue to grow in China. The loose guidelines for research and the huge amounts of money available for this type of research help the authors predict this field’s growth. I will use this source in my paper to analyze the growth of biomedical research in China, and to compare and contrast the research in China and in the US. This will provide useful background and context for the controversial idea that is the focus of my writing.

Regalado, Antonio. (2015, April 22). Chinese Team Reports Gene-Editing Human Embryos. MIT Technology Review. Retrieved from http://www.technologyreview.com.

            Regalado summarizes an experimental procedure in which a group of Chinese scientists attempted to modify human embryos that were carriers for the beta-thalassemia gene. After informing the public of the experiments that occurred, Regalado explains that, although the embryos used in the procedure were abnormal, many are voicing ethical concerns. He concludes that many unforeseen mutations in the embryos caused the scientists to obtain inconclusive data, meaning that this procedure cannot be performed on normal embryos. I will use this source in my paper to further elaborate on the scientific process that was implemented. In addition, because this Regalado’s opinion seems to lean slightly in favor of the scientists who conducted the experiment, this article will be useful to analyze this particular stand on the subject.

Snyder, A. [mobilewashunit]. (2015, May 1). Fear of designer babies shouldn't distract us from the goal of healthy babies ‪http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/01/fear-of-designer-babies-shouldnt-distract-us-from-the-goal-of-healthy-babies … ‪#ethics, ‪#bioethics [Tweet]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/mobilewashunit/status/594121678936002560

            In this tweet, Snyder takes a stand in favor of stem cell research and its potential in the curing of hereditary diseases. By tweeting an article that supports this type of research, Snyder shows his public approval of this research, even amidst fears of artificially engineered babies becoming prevalent in society. The article that Snyder tweeted about concludes that this technology, if used responsibly, can prove to be a useful tool to cure certain diseases in the future. I will use this tweet and the article to show that some people do support this research, even after addressing the fears and concerns associated with it. This will give an essential look into public opinion that favors stem cell research.

Stein, Rob. (2015, April 23). Critics Lash Out At Chinese Scientists Who Edited DNA In Human Embryos. National Public Radio. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org. 

            In this article, Stein describes an experiment in which Junjiu Huang and his team of scientists attempted to make changes to a gene in 86 human embryos in an effort to prevent the blood disorder beta-thalassemia. Stein goes on to explain how both sides of a controversy were brought to light by this experiment. Some claim that the scientists overstepped an ethical boundary by experimenting on human embryos, but by describing the experiment, and then citing evidence from people who support and oppose the experiment, the author concluded that this procedure was not successful enough to apply clinically and that it will not be replicated exactly, so concerns are a moot point. However, the argument about whether this research should continue in different forms is still a source of debate. In my essay, I will use this perspective to introduce the topic, because it efficiently introduces and describes both sides of the argument. This will help me establish context in order to evaluate the controversy further.

Additions

Cooper-White, M. (2015 April 24). Scientists Genetically Modify Human Embryos For First Time. Are We Facing A New Era Of Eugenics? The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/24/embryo-genomes-edited-first-time_n_7127640.html

            In this article, Cooper-White describes the experiment in which scientists genetically modified human embryos in order to correct a certain gene. She goes on to describe the sudden onslaught of disapproval from bioethicists around the world who fear that these scientists have gone too far and crossed ethical boundaries. By quoting many individuals who both approve and disapprove of this scientific procedure, the author seems to conclude that this science is too premature to implement in clinical procedures. This also means that bioethicists should not be too concerned about this process being used as a way to selectively choose traits for human beings. I will use this article to summarize the arguments being made in this controversy, and to show what seems to be a middle ground in the discussion. It shows that, while there are people who oppose and approve of this experimentation, there are others who feel that the science is too new to even consider as a serious issue.

Knoepfler, P. (2015, August 20). Conversation with Kelly Hills: human genetic modification & bioethics [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://pknoepfl.tumblr.com/post/127197811608/conversation-with-kelly-hills-human-genetic

            In this blog post, Knoepfler interviews Kelly Hills, a science writer and editor who specializes in bioethics. The article focuses on some key issues regarding genetic modifications with humans that bioethicists have, such as the opposition between what is normal and abnormal, and the issue with using biomedical technology on embryos who cannot consent to the treatment. By answering a series of questions regarding the issue, Hills concludes that the publication process for scientific papers must be modified to address these bioethical concerns, and to ensure that ethical guidelines are not crossed in the name of science. I will use this blog post in my project in order to offer a bioethicist’s perspective on my controversy.

Newman, L.H. (2015, April 30). NIH Won’t Fund Research That Involves Editing DNA in Human Embryos. Slate. Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/04/30/nih_bans_gene_editing_research_in_human_embryos.html

            This article discusses one of the outcomes of the Chinese experimentation on human embryos. In the article, Newman describes the experiment, and then goes on to report some of the public outrage that ensued. After giving some context for this event, she concludes that, on account of this type of experimentation being deemed hazardous and unethical, the National Institutes of Health will not fund any studies that make use of human embryos. This article can be used in my project to demonstrate the bioethical argument opposing genetic modification of human embryos. It will show some of the long-term effects of this experiment on the scientific community.

The Lip TV. (2015, April 26). Are Mutated Babies Coming? [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=275&v=LsOhjG-UGlQ

            In this news story, Jo Ankier discusses the experiment that occurred in China and the bioethical concerns that it caused with broadcast journalist John Fenoglio. Throughout this discussion, the two talk about the controversy that ensued from this experiment, and Fenoglio voices his opinion that this experiment is not necessarily a cause for concern. He concludes that, as long as necessary precautions are taken, this type of experimentation is necessary for the advancement of science. I will use this video in my project to demonstrate a perspective in favor of genetic experimentation on human embryos.

Note: An example annotated bibliography in APA style can be found here.

Reflection

Victoria's annotated bibliography, which was also written in APA style, helped me assess my own bibliography for its citation style. Overall, it seems like our citations use the same style, as we both followed the same rubric. Her bibliography helped me realize why APA asks us to cite our sources in this way, as the citation gives important information so that anyone can go back and find the source.

Michael's annotated bibliography, written in IEEE style, helped me understand a citation style that is very different from the one I used. There were definitely some striking differences in the way he cited his sources, but it was interesting to see how our citation styles overlapped. They both give some essential information about our sources, such as the author and title, but in a slightly different manner. I also really liked how he annotated his sources, as his annotations were very thorough and concise.

Overall, reading my classmates' bibliographies helped me assess my own bibliography. One thing it definitely made me realize is that I can cut down on the length of my annotations slightly, and still include all of the necessary information. I sometimes tend to summarize a little too much, so hopefully I can use this idea in my future writing.