Though the composition of my
blog in its entirety was a compilation of all the critical texts, examples and
class discussion combined, the two texts I kept in mind constantly while
writing it were “Accommodating Science: The
Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts,” by Jeanne Fahnestock and “Blogging:
Digital Media and Society Series” by Jill Walker Rettburg.
Rettberg’s text discussed the fine line between
blogging being considered a medium or a genre. She claims that “scholars have
suggested that, rather than looking at the internet as a single medium, it
makes more sense to consider different authoring software as providing
different media” (Rettberg 32). She explains that the actual blog itself is the
medium, however, what is written on the blog determines the genre of it. With
that in mind, I intended for my text to be in the blog medium, evidently, and
in a “science for the general public” genre. That is what I aimed for as I
wrote it, and I attempted to make sure I satisfied those characteristics.
Furthermore, Fahnestock’s text about
accommodating science to better fit the public sphere resonated with me as
well. Fahnestock was much more lenient than the counter-part article we read,
“Ecospeak: Rhetoric and Environmental Politics in America” by M. Jimmie Killingsworth
and Jacqueline S. Palmer. Fahnestock claims that “the science accommodator is
not telling an untruth; he [she] simply selects only the information that
serves his [her] epideictic purpose” (Fahenstock). Thus, I chose to remember
and apply her principles as I was writing my blog. I am not a scientist, or
even a science-inclined person. With that said, I attempted to find a topic
that I was comfortable and knowledgeable enough to speak about, without
compromising my credibility to my audience.I believe I helped put things into perspective
for a public audience, while not mimicking or simply reiterating the concepts I
read about.
Grant-Davie’s
article was crucial to the build up of my blog as well. I consistently asked
myself what my exigence, constraints and audiences (all kinds) were, and if I
was using the proper terminology and syntax to target the intended audience. "The rhetorical situation" as described and elaborated on by Grant Davie was the backbone of my post. At points I would stop and check if I could still identify the 5 constituents just by what I had already written down.
The
actual primary source I used was the main focus of my blog post. Although the
source was a series of studies on whether taking notes on a laptop was more or
less effective than by hand, I decided to broaden that topic as a whole, and
adapt it to a more public sphere. In order to do this, I generalized it, as
Fahnestock’s article claims tends to happen when adapting a scientific article.
My new main idea was that technology is hindering our generation from learning,
and that doing things manually has its benefits, despite the lack of convenience
in doing them.
Fahnestock,
Jeanne. "Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific
Facts." Sage Publications, 1986. Web. 25 Sept. 2014.
Grant-Davie, Keith. "Rhetorical Situations
and Their Constituents." Rhetoric Review, Spring, 1997. Web. 25 Sept.
2014.
Misner, Jared. "Too Many Campus Alerts?
Officials Worry That Students Tune Them Out."The Chronicle of Higher
Education. 19 Sept. 2014. Web. 25 Sept. 2014.
Mueller,
Pam, and Daniel Oppenheimer. "The Pen Is Mightier Than the Keyboard:
Advantages of Longhand Over Laptop Note Taking." Psychological Science.
Sage Publications, 23 Apr. 2014. Web. 25 Sept. 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment