So, for this week, I decided I would try something a little different than what I usually do. I’ve had a lot of thoughts on what others have posted in their blogs over the week, and rather than try to log into every system needed to address them, I’m going to work my responses into this post. That is all.
Miller
Normally, I try to cover something from every discrete topic we read about. However, for Miller, I’m pretty much going to stick with “If you don’t have something nice to say, don’t say anything at all.” So, here are all the nice things I have to say about this piece:
1. Miller certainly seems like a perfectly nice and intelligent person. 2. This work is undeniably a landmark paper that has drastically influenced the composition landscape. 3. It is a very high-minded article. 4. It seems like the author truly believes what they’re saying.
Swales and Najjar*
I want to take the opportunity to get the most obvious response out of the way immediately: a text like this practically begs to have its own introduction rhetorically analyzed. By including a summary of the primary findings of the research in the introduction, they are is aligning themselves with the values present in the fields of hard sciences. By about 1/3rd of the way through the article, it becomes undeniably apparent that Swales is deliberately inviting these kinds of acts of rhetorical meta-analysis. By this point, the text has spent several pages explaining the analytic style of another researcher, JP Zeppen, including listing the gaps in a particular piece of analysis on a paper by Neelakantaswamy that Zeppen included as an example. Swales specifically calls out the fact that Zeppen’s method is incapable of accounting for the fact that the Neelakantaswamy refences himself multiple times within the text in an attempt to demonstrate the value of his research over other styles while also providing room to justify further research by him. Swales immediately follows this section with the assertion that there is, in fact, a superior model for analyzing the introductions of papers- the Create A Research Space (CARS) Model. The CARS Model is, of course, a methodology that is inextricably linked with the researcher that created it- John Swales. Swales then references another paper of his, one that relies on the CARS Model for its analytic work, and explains how the model did a great job at allowing the paper to map out and assess other papers. However, obviously enough, the study found another gap in the academic research, one that can only be answered by this paper’s exploration of the inclusion of AFP (Announcement of Paper’s Findings. Swales creates within his own introduction a triple-CARS meta-layer so dense with self-referential irony that it becomes impossible to criticize or assess the topic.
This article stirred up a lot of emotions in me. I know what you’re thinking: “How could the topic of the rhetoric of research paper introductions not?” Sarcasm aside, it is the distinctions/warring ideologies of hard sciences, soft sciences and humanities that managed to tug my heartstrings in a million different directions. When I read this blog post by Aaron L, I was struck by his assertion that those in the humanities had little to no interest in science. At first, I was baffled. Science has always been way more important than literature or arbitrary arguments over meaningless abstractions- everybody knows that! Then, slowly, the weight and reality of his statements began to press on me. Now, I’ve always known that not “everybody” actually understands the fundamental truth that science matters while the humanities do not. The existence of religion is more than enough evidence to demonstrate that. However, it somehow never occurred to me that other people in the humanities actually took their topics seriously. I have always viewed the entire field of studies as an acrobatic performance, a game of gymnastics and flash. When Swales points out that the hard sciences often had AFPs and the Soft Sciences rarely did, I felt like he was almost teasing at how obvious the results were. Most psychological papers, like humanities papers, need to utilize this flashy dancing to hide the fact that there is no empirical evidence or objective platform from which their results or conclusions are derived. It is only with authors like Swales that it becomes possible to actually claim real results, as their premises are too banal to warrant violent objection. (One of the troubles with dealing with quasi-scientific work like this paper is that there are not many different lens that you can examine them from. In order to engage with them at all, you have to buy into the system that they are presenting wholesale, or you end up speaking to them on totally incompatible wavelengths. If I disagree with the assumptions that underlie this paper, I’m not arguing with the results that were obtained- I’m arguing with the CARS Model itself. I really don’t have an answer for this, it’s just something I’ve been struggling with trying to reconcile.)
Hyland
Hedging texts is for cowards. Er, which is, I, uh, mean to say that it can perhaps be a sign of a lack of confidence in your ideas when you qualify your statements too heavily. It’s clearly just my opinion, and it may be possible that hedging can be used for courageous reasons. However, it is also obvious that there is a chance that I am actually an evil alien doppleganger who has perfectly replicated and replaced the original Paul to such a degree that it would be impossible to distinguish my fiendish alien nature. Surely, it is apparent that academia is a field that doesn’t favor the bold- the word “think” is considered a strong and extremist word. I don’t really expect that it is very likely for me to have a long career in academia. It certainly seems like it’s plausible that I’m the kind of person who will take the kind of all-or-nothing stance that either rockets you to stardom or sends you spiraling downward into a unrecoverable degenerate position. Now, those of us who are reading this blog are likely to know that hedging certainly has a lot of potential benefits for getting ahead in the academy. (But are we really willing to certainly trade away our ethical integrity for theoretical benefits?) Imagine a world where a researcher could simply state their facts and ideas personally and honestly, without worrying as to whether or not they were pleasing or offending the right crowds. Now you should consider going to watch The Invention of Lying. Is it necessary to explain the idea more than I already have? I think not.
If I have understood this Hyland piece properly, and it is possible that I have not, I have created a piece of text here that is simultaneously extremely appealing and extremely repulsive to nearly every signal field of academics. I believe that it appears my work here has demonstrated that there is a possibility of further benefit to the human race in the continued development of blog posts containing experimental styles of textual presentation.
Concluding Thoughts
This is the first collection of readings for this blog that I’ve actually managed to find boring. I can’t help but feel that the authors themselves (with the possible exception of Miller) probably found the topics pretty dull. Of course, the presence of something this boring can only mean one thing- the papers and ideas are fundamental to the topic of rhetoric for academics/writing teachers. A radical and exploratory topic would never dare risk such a lack intrigue- the readers would simply wander off. Now, and I know this is a cheesy cop-out of sorts, but one thing I’ve really enjoyed about all the bloggers for this class is that everybody has been willing to inject some personality into their posts. I would read all the posts out of duty, regardless of how interesting they were. Thankfully, I’ve never had to turn to duty, because people have actually made sure that we don’t have over a dozen near identical pieces of writing to read through. I absolutely loathe classes where nobody has anything personal or new to add to the topic, and this experience has been very refreshing in that regard.
*For the sake of stylistic convenience, I am writing this section as if Swales was the the sole author. This does not mean that Najjar was not of vital importance to the production of the paper. It just means that he will be eternally forgotten, because his name came second.
Normally, I try to cover something from every discrete topic we read about. However, for Miller, I’m pretty much going to stick with “If you don’t have something nice to say, don’t say anything at all.” So, here are all the nice things I have to say about this piece:
1. Miller certainly seems like a perfectly nice and intelligent person. 2. This work is undeniably a landmark paper that has drastically influenced the composition landscape. 3. It is a very high-minded article. 4. It seems like the author truly believes what they’re saying.
I want to take the opportunity to get the most obvious response out of the way immediately: a text like this practically begs to have its own introduction rhetorically analyzed. By including a summary of the primary findings of the research in the introduction, they are is aligning themselves with the values present in the fields of hard sciences. By about 1/3rd of the way through the article, it becomes undeniably apparent that Swales is deliberately inviting these kinds of acts of rhetorical meta-analysis. By this point, the text has spent several pages explaining the analytic style of another researcher, JP Zeppen, including listing the gaps in a particular piece of analysis on a paper by Neelakantaswamy that Zeppen included as an example. Swales specifically calls out the fact that Zeppen’s method is incapable of accounting for the fact that the Neelakantaswamy refences himself multiple times within the text in an attempt to demonstrate the value of his research over other styles while also providing room to justify further research by him. Swales immediately follows this section with the assertion that there is, in fact, a superior model for analyzing the introductions of papers- the Create A Research Space (CARS) Model. The CARS Model is, of course, a methodology that is inextricably linked with the researcher that created it- John Swales. Swales then references another paper of his, one that relies on the CARS Model for its analytic work, and explains how the model did a great job at allowing the paper to map out and assess other papers. However, obviously enough, the study found another gap in the academic research, one that can only be answered by this paper’s exploration of the inclusion of AFP (Announcement of Paper’s Findings. Swales creates within his own introduction a triple-CARS meta-layer so dense with self-referential irony that it becomes impossible to criticize or assess the topic.
This article stirred up a lot of emotions in me. I know what you’re thinking: “How could the topic of the rhetoric of research paper introductions not?” Sarcasm aside, it is the distinctions/warring ideologies of hard sciences, soft sciences and humanities that managed to tug my heartstrings in a million different directions. When I read this blog post by Aaron L, I was struck by his assertion that those in the humanities had little to no interest in science. At first, I was baffled. Science has always been way more important than literature or arbitrary arguments over meaningless abstractions- everybody knows that! Then, slowly, the weight and reality of his statements began to press on me. Now, I’ve always known that not “everybody” actually understands the fundamental truth that science matters while the humanities do not. The existence of religion is more than enough evidence to demonstrate that. However, it somehow never occurred to me that other people in the humanities actually took their topics seriously. I have always viewed the entire field of studies as an acrobatic performance, a game of gymnastics and flash. When Swales points out that the hard sciences often had AFPs and the Soft Sciences rarely did, I felt like he was almost teasing at how obvious the results were. Most psychological papers, like humanities papers, need to utilize this flashy dancing to hide the fact that there is no empirical evidence or objective platform from which their results or conclusions are derived. It is only with authors like Swales that it becomes possible to actually claim real results, as their premises are too banal to warrant violent objection. (One of the troubles with dealing with quasi-scientific work like this paper is that there are not many different lens that you can examine them from. In order to engage with them at all, you have to buy into the system that they are presenting wholesale, or you end up speaking to them on totally incompatible wavelengths. If I disagree with the assumptions that underlie this paper, I’m not arguing with the results that were obtained- I’m arguing with the CARS Model itself. I really don’t have an answer for this, it’s just something I’ve been struggling with trying to reconcile.)
Hedging texts is for cowards. Er, which is, I, uh, mean to say that it can perhaps be a sign of a lack of confidence in your ideas when you qualify your statements too heavily. It’s clearly just my opinion, and it may be possible that hedging can be used for courageous reasons. However, it is also obvious that there is a chance that I am actually an evil alien doppleganger who has perfectly replicated and replaced the original Paul to such a degree that it would be impossible to distinguish my fiendish alien nature. Surely, it is apparent that academia is a field that doesn’t favor the bold- the word “think” is considered a strong and extremist word. I don’t really expect that it is very likely for me to have a long career in academia. It certainly seems like it’s plausible that I’m the kind of person who will take the kind of all-or-nothing stance that either rockets you to stardom or sends you spiraling downward into a unrecoverable degenerate position. Now, those of us who are reading this blog are likely to know that hedging certainly has a lot of potential benefits for getting ahead in the academy. (But are we really willing to certainly trade away our ethical integrity for theoretical benefits?) Imagine a world where a researcher could simply state their facts and ideas personally and honestly, without worrying as to whether or not they were pleasing or offending the right crowds. Now you should consider going to watch The Invention of Lying. Is it necessary to explain the idea more than I already have? I think not.
If I have understood this Hyland piece properly, and it is possible that I have not, I have created a piece of text here that is simultaneously extremely appealing and extremely repulsive to nearly every signal field of academics. I believe that it appears my work here has demonstrated that there is a possibility of further benefit to the human race in the continued development of blog posts containing experimental styles of textual presentation.
This is the first collection of readings for this blog that I’ve actually managed to find boring. I can’t help but feel that the authors themselves (with the possible exception of Miller) probably found the topics pretty dull. Of course, the presence of something this boring can only mean one thing- the papers and ideas are fundamental to the topic of rhetoric for academics/writing teachers. A radical and exploratory topic would never dare risk such a lack intrigue- the readers would simply wander off. Now, and I know this is a cheesy cop-out of sorts, but one thing I’ve really enjoyed about all the bloggers for this class is that everybody has been willing to inject some personality into their posts. I would read all the posts out of duty, regardless of how interesting they were. Thankfully, I’ve never had to turn to duty, because people have actually made sure that we don’t have over a dozen near identical pieces of writing to read through. I absolutely loathe classes where nobody has anything personal or new to add to the topic, and this experience has been very refreshing in that regard.
No comments:
Post a Comment