In the chapter “Patents and Speech Acts,” Charles Bazerman discusses patents. He starts by defining what a patent is, followed by the reason they exist. He then describes some of the history surrounding patents and even includes the actual patent from Thomas Edison’s incandescent light. Bazerman discusses a few issues relating patents to the idea of speech acts, and then concludes the chapter with his analysis of what makes a patent application successful.
Many of the tools that Bazerman uses in his analysis are ideas that we as a class have seen before in previous readings. For example, one of the first thing he discusses is the history of patents through the example of Thomas Edison. This gives the readers a context of the issue in question, allowing it to gain relevancy and importance. By displaying his knowledge of the subject by giving a relevant example, Bazerman also gains credibility among the readers. Later in this chapter Bazerman discusses how the patent form became typified. Its format is very specific, and it is described as “highly regularized.” Based on the previous reading, this implies that patents and patent form are genres of their own. In my own analysis I plan on putting a focus on how communication as a project leader has an impact on the project itself. This could raise questions about how research papers and the intellectual property surrounding it are credited. I could ask the professor I plan on interviewing about the patent process, as he has been successful in patenting a few things. Some of the documents and articles I plan to collect for this analysis are research papers, preferable written by the professor I plan on interviewing and his colleges. I think it would also be helpful to talk to a student on his research team.
1 Comment
One of the major ideas discussed in Charles Bazerman’s “Speech Acts, Genres, and Activity Systems: How Texts Organize Activity and People,” are speech acts. A speech act is, by the simplest definition, the idea that words do not just mean things, but rather have power to accomplish them.
Speech acts are important in the chemistry community because a lot of experiments are done through written instruction. This is a major part of why communication is important. The risk of safety hazards or mistakes skyrockets if lab manuals are unclear. This is a major idea I want to focus on in my preliminary analysis. Bazerman also focuses a lot on the topic of genre. Genres are, according to the article, “communicative patterns that… people are familiar with.” The purpose of genre is to communicate the idea of the text more clearly by creating genre standards. Even though chemistry consists of mainly scientific papers, they still have multiple different genres. For example, it is often a necessity to write to organizations to ask for grants. This kind of paper would be vastly different than a lab report. One of the ongoing grant-based chemistry research projects here at Roger Williams University is done under the instruction of Professor Clifford Murphy. He is working on developing a censor that will be able to test for cyanide in water up to an accuracy of 8 ppb. I would use this assignment to gain a more in depth understanding of what this project includes. Ideally, I will interview Prof. Murphy and ask questions such as; • What are the most important skills when leading a research project like this? • How does writing for a grant differ from writing a scientific journal article? • How difficult are collaboration efforts with other institutions? A scientific article that I found enjoyable was “Missing Neutrons May Lead a Secret Life as Dark Matter,” by Clara Moskowitz. It was published in the journal Scientific American and the link to it is posted below. This article describes a theory in which neutrons decay into the most mysterious substance known to scientists, dark matter. This hypothesis was theorized because two experiments were done to determine the life span of a neutron but had vastly different results. The error may be caused by neutrons decaying into an untraceable mass under specific conditions. If this hypothesis is proven, then physicists will have the first known link to obtain dark matter.
This text was not a fact-based article describing the results of an experiment, but rather it described a hypothetical possibility. This alone makes the article atypical. Its purpose was to propose an idea to the public in order to raise interest and awareness. There were no statements that gave conclusive evidence. This makes me believe that the intended audience are people who are interested in science, but are not experts in fields of physics or chemistry. Spreading ideas to a larger community than one of just experts is important because in the article assigned, Gross states, “Rhetorically, the creation of knowledge is a task beginning with self- persuasion and ending with the persuasion of others.” I interpret this as meaning that as science is more recognized, it generally becomes accepted as knowledge. I personally believe, however, that is was a poor decision to publish an article that backs a claim with no evidence to support it. Although the article was interesting, the author should have waited for more data to be released on the subject. Casual readers may mistake this hypothesis as a proven fact, which could lead to problems in the future. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/missing-neutrons-may-lead-a-secret-life-as-dark-matter/ When doing a rhetorical analysis, some of the most important questions to ask include; who is the audience of the text? How is the text organized? Is the text biased? What is the purpose of the text? I decided to perform my rhetorical analysis on the syllabus for my chemistry 302 class, organic chemistry II. I have attached the syllabus below. A syllabus is different than most other texts that would be seen in my major because most texts are about trying to persuade an audience about how scientific processes work and why. The purpose of the syllabus, however, is to inform students of the professor’s expectations. Also, most scientific texts have an audience of other researchers or professionals equal in power. A syllabus’s audience is significantly different because it is written by a mentor for a student. The organization of a syllabus is particularly important in order to communicate the expectations of a professor to the students. If it is unclear, then these expectations may not be met, and students could see a drop in grade. Ultimately the syllabus is a tool. Its larger purpose is to help prepare the students to one day contribute to a scientific discourse by teaching them what they need to become more qualified on the subject. I found doing a rhetorical analysis on a syllabus is more difficult than doing one of a normal article because it has such a specific niche. Most syllabuses tend to be written in the same style and factual tone that there is not much room for personalization.
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, rhetoric is defined as “the art of speaking or writing effectively.” Within the first two chapters of Scott L. Montgomery’s The Chicago Guide to Communicating Science, he refers to the importance of rhetoric within scientific papers numerous times. The most memorable of these instances is in chapter two. Montgomery refers to J.D. Watson and F.H.C. Cricks paper A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid (1952), a paper whose findings are still considered renowned in the world of biology today. This journal broke nearly every rule that governs scientific papers today yet was still highly influential. Previously in this book, Montgomery also refers to the idea that scientific writing has two purposes; to tell a story and to persuade the reader that the findings are meaningful. Watson and Crick’s paper was so successful even though it was unconventional because its rhetoric made the paper highly persuasive to its audience. It is made clear that Montgomery believes that the most effective papers are the ones that have a logical flow of ideas and have a clear and well written purpose. I agree that writing by these standards would be more effective then following the general rules of scientific papers, such as following IMRAD (introduction, method, results, and discussion) structure, avoiding the first person, removing excess or unnecessary phrases, and using purely analytical data, because it allows for the author to better share their ideas while still being informative. In addition, it would allow the scientific community to reach out to a broader audience. Currently most scientific journals are seen as dry, boring, and near impossible to read. This can often intimidate potential readers outside of the direct scientific community. By allowing scientific papers to follow a looser structure, they can appear friendlier and more approachable to the general public, who would in turn be better informed about the world around them.
|
About the AuthorSophomore |