Javaney Thomas
Writing for the Sciences
Professor Grove
May 29, 2018
Self-Assessment
In the beginning of this class I believed I had nothing more to learn in the process of writing. Before, I would happily construct sentences similar to a stroll in the park, with little regard for the trips and falls that are innate to drafting papers and conducting research, as I thought I had mastered these. Throughout the semester, it was apparent that this idea of “an ease” would not be the case. Assignments such as the Literature Review and the Research Proposal, proved to be challenging. Terms such as “meticulous”, “methodical” and “conscientious” were all basics that described the level of writing expected for this class, or to be achieved from it. In this assessment I aim to acknowledge both my achievements and downfalls in grasping the course learning outcomes and portray the improvements I have gained in all the aspects of writing that were focused on in this class.
The first thing I recall is the study of jargon in published articles such as Pennycook’s paper on “The reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit”, in which the class examined what exactly he was talking about and focused on how he defines the difference between “bullshit” and facts. This exercise helped me to identify how to talk to specific audiences, how to be clear about my topic and what type of words should be employed. In short, I sharpened my rhetorical sensitivity skills. For example, Kennedy’s paper on “Biological effects of Space Radiation and the Development of Effective Countermeasures”, mostly employed terminology geared towards an audience educated in the science field, whereas Pennycook’s paper was able to be read by the general audience, more specifically, the average layman. In both papers they overused words or simply constructed sentences that were not needed, which, at times, led to confusion. Therefore, in reflecting on such framework, I was able to recognize this in my papers and therefore attempted to write papers that had a sophisticated element and yet was an easy read. In my research proposal draft, I discussed why scientists should study the epidemiological factors and evolution of Ebola to achieve a vaccine, I made sure to briefly define complicated terminology. Hence, after presenting the idea that, “Genetic Drift is the reason as to why the Ebola virus has not yet been vaccinated”, I went on to briefly define genetic drift. Secondly, before I delved into the discussion of genomes and structures of the Ebola virus, I gradually led the discussion towards a biological standpoint, in the context of Ebola’s resilience in humans. Therefore, I explained acronyms such as VP24 (viral protein 24), GP (glycoprotein) and any others, along with the impacts of these in the human body. Overtime, in writing this paper I noticed the more information I found, the greater the necessity of accurately organizing body paragraphs and the citing of sources became.
I now realize that the locating, synthesizing, revising and editing of the information in my papers elevated to a higher standard after the assignment of the Literature Review and improved again post Research Proposal. This is because the Lit. Review forced me to look for compelling evidence to support a claim or side I chose and present valid counterarguments that were disproved by my chosen argument. Thus, I found more efficient ways to verify information. For example, if I found an article a good way to know the information is valid is by finding some background information on the researchers involved, factors such as education, cross references, if it is peer-reviewed and the popularity of the article are great ways to know if the article is worthy enough for a source. These methods were complemented by the BEAM method (Background, Exhibit, Argument, Method) discussed in class, which essentially prompted me to employ a process of elimination in choosing sources for a paper. This came in handy for my research proposal as I came across many scientific articles on the virology of Ebola, but most of them became simply background information for the context of the paper, while only three served to aid in the main argument. For example, observe my research proposal draft here.
Through eliminating articles, I learnt about the topic in-depth and eventually was able to recognize “bogus” or inaccurate findings. This resulted in me revising my claims and formulating my thesis many times, until I arrived at a strong claim based on data and observations from accredited sources and highly referenced papers. Prior to this strategy of reviewing countless sources I would skim through at most three articles that all agreed with each other and pay little attention to papers with a counterclaim. I realized skimming was a bad habit, especially with information and fields completely foreign to my knowledge. Therefore, I was encouraged to improve my time management skills. I recall in a class discussion on the topic of time management and processing information, my Professor revealed to the class the personal tactic of reading while commuting, with the goal of finishing at least one page for a 40 minute commute (for dense papers). I had a 2 hour commute and thus, during my research proposal assignment, found myself reading, annotating and choosing information from my sources on a daily basis. This really propelled my work speed and pulled me forward to where the rest of the class was in terms of completing the assignment. I got most of my understanding of virology and specifics of the Ebola virus through reading these sources on my commute to and back from the campus.
Additionally, changes in my writing style have occurred. My style is one of a casual nature, I try, as I believe most writers do, to connect with the reader as if we were in a conversation. Therefore, I would employ pop-culture references, pauses, subtle humor and thought provoking questions. This runs the risk of a one-sided conversation I admit, but a worthwhile one nonetheless. Here in this class, I realized that while that may be a good way to write, it does not always apply. Scientific writing does not have to be atonal or continuous paragraphs of information, but there is such a thing as too little reliance on factual writing, and attempting to downplay the facts in a scientific article to entertain readers is nonsense. A sense of humor is refreshing, however when one speaks of the tragedy of an Ebola crisis or critiques the possible incompetence of a governing health organization, humor may be insensitive or overlap the main idea of the paper. This was the case in the literature review draft, which led me to generalize and influence an opinion in the reader.
Thankfully, I overcame those hurdles. All aspects of writing in a science class such as this complement each other. For example, I concluded that the best way to cite information quickly and accurately, was to employ footnotes. I prefer this way due to the clutter an in-text citation may cause, especially if there are many citations in a paragraph. Secondly, when I read I want the idea of the argument given to me quickly and easily. That’s how I feel about my papers as well, the reader should browse through the paper and come out with new information. Therefore, why should one me stopped by a name, website link or publication date, when it is provided at the bottom of the page and in the bibliography. Then there is the idea of organization. Footnotes are neatly placed at the bottom of the page and the references/works cited page is at the end of the document. These are sufficient for validation of the document. Without the aspect of citation, paraphrasing, class discussions and the BEAM technique, my writing would not be challenged and pushed to improve.
