The desire to fit in is almost an innate trait in human nature. It is the need to find a niche that is your own yet integrated within the larger community. It starts in childhood, is exaggerated in the teenage years, and becomes nearly life-consuming in the transition to college. When first starting college, students are immersed in a different culture, an academic world. The rules are not the same as high school and the sooner this is discovered, the better. This brings the concept of adapting to a new community,yet again finding your place. This time the roles and the identities may not be as clearly defined or simple as in high school. The rules are no longer clear-cut, and this is not just referring to curfew. Ideas, concepts, and peers become broader and often more abstract. This phenomenon be enlightening, frightening, or often a little of both.
Bartholomae captures this process of adapting to a new community in his writing "Inventing the University." He outlines the struggles that first-year writers face as they attempt to fit the academic discourse when writing. Since they may not feel ready to be included in this community and lack the experience they feel is necessary to fit in, students will alter their writing to fit what they feel is appropriate for the context in which they are writing. It is a process of determining how to use different voices for different roles and allow each to develop. This may require elimination of the "clean" shallow writing which may be safe but does not fit the ultimate discourse of academia.
He also discusses the struggle of writers to create truly original material. When so much has already been said, the "off-stage" voices of previous writing and text mars the originality of most writing. I think that this is why science fields are so intriguing to me. After you spend time learning to do science and think science by studying what has already been done, lies an open frontier. New discoveries retain originality and can be reported without overtones of other voices. This opportunity for invention is why I am pursuing science.
However, Bartholomae's idea that students must engage in "artificial work" before truly being integrated into the academic community holds for science as well. Students must be subject to hours of "knowledge telling" before reaching the next level. I wish this process could somewhat be altered to focus toward making larger connections between concepts. Breaking through the glass ceiling between classroom and the field would be revolutionary to education and student knowledge.
Of course, this would involve overhauling our entire education system.
But it is a thought.
An intriguing thought.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Bridging the gap
I was just writing my paper comparing two genres of writing in the field of exercise science when I decided to switch gears and do some blogging. As I was reading the essay on public intellectuals and how they should function in society, I was shocked with the similarities to the paper I was just writing. I am trying to portray the gap between science research and the reading and practice of the general public. There is so much being discovered on the scientific end that doesn't get filtered down to a broader audience. This is extremely comparable to the role of the "public intellectuals"- people who can bridge the gap between academia and communities to use research to address social issues. I feel like this gap between academia and the human condition has been widening and the longer it goes unaddressed, the more difficult it will be to bridge.
In this time when the economy is so bad and jobs are scarce, there are tons of articles on "hot jobs" in fields that are in demand and growing. Yes, our society is going to need more engineers and doctors but I have yet to see "public intellectual" listed as a booming career. Public intellectual is not so much a job title but a role in society. Public intellectuals can have many job titles but must be intelligent, good communicators, and be willing and able to think abstractly and break down behavior and idea barriers. Bridging the science-humanity bridge takes more than pure engineering but an element of creating connections between people and ideas. This is idealistic in theory but in reality is very difficult to achieve. Not many are able to understand this delicate balance, especially with the unintentional yet well defined class system in society.
At first I was at a loss as to how to identify public intellectuals in my field since the traits seemed too abstract to simply research. However, I called my mom who is a senior center director and listened to her input. She comes in contact with many people who are extremely educated yet are willing and able to make their work accessible to the audience they are addressing.
One example is Dr. Leslie Neuman who is a neurologist that specializes in Parkinson's Disease at St. Mary's Hospital in Grand Rapids. He is a very accomplished researcher yet holds conferences open to Parkinson's Patients such as Meet the Researchers held last November. He has even made multiple trips to Cadillac to speak with the Parkinson's support group. He does a great job of tailoring his presentation to his audience by making it understandable to patients and caregivers. This makes facing the disease a lot easier for these people who are frightened and overwhelmed.
These are the kind of public intellectual that our society needs and will always be a "hot career"- not for the money but for the benefit to society. I hope that I don't lose sight of this idea as I delve deeper into academia.
Kaitlyn
In this time when the economy is so bad and jobs are scarce, there are tons of articles on "hot jobs" in fields that are in demand and growing. Yes, our society is going to need more engineers and doctors but I have yet to see "public intellectual" listed as a booming career. Public intellectual is not so much a job title but a role in society. Public intellectuals can have many job titles but must be intelligent, good communicators, and be willing and able to think abstractly and break down behavior and idea barriers. Bridging the science-humanity bridge takes more than pure engineering but an element of creating connections between people and ideas. This is idealistic in theory but in reality is very difficult to achieve. Not many are able to understand this delicate balance, especially with the unintentional yet well defined class system in society.
At first I was at a loss as to how to identify public intellectuals in my field since the traits seemed too abstract to simply research. However, I called my mom who is a senior center director and listened to her input. She comes in contact with many people who are extremely educated yet are willing and able to make their work accessible to the audience they are addressing.
One example is Dr. Leslie Neuman who is a neurologist that specializes in Parkinson's Disease at St. Mary's Hospital in Grand Rapids. He is a very accomplished researcher yet holds conferences open to Parkinson's Patients such as Meet the Researchers held last November. He has even made multiple trips to Cadillac to speak with the Parkinson's support group. He does a great job of tailoring his presentation to his audience by making it understandable to patients and caregivers. This makes facing the disease a lot easier for these people who are frightened and overwhelmed.
These are the kind of public intellectual that our society needs and will always be a "hot career"- not for the money but for the benefit to society. I hope that I don't lose sight of this idea as I delve deeper into academia.
Kaitlyn
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Scientific literature as argumentation?
Scientific literature has a unique reputation in today's society. I feel as though the vast majority of people rarely interact with scientific journals directly and many may feel intimidated by the scope of publications available and complexity of the language. However, some will attempt to navigate this field of academia to look for a specific topic to satisfy a curiosity, an assignment, or just a quest for knowledge.
However, even among those who frequent PubMed or Nature, I believe that few (including myself) would immediately associate scientific literature with argumentation. However, when I began to think of scientific literature as argumentation, I could make strong associations and see the inherent connection.
A scientific paper is a very structured argument about why the researcher's proposed hypothesis is correct. The methods and results provide a context for the information presented and the discussion states the reasons backed by the evidence already presented. It is beautifully logical. However, not all scientific articles that attempt to make an argument are set up this way.
For example, I came upon a scientific article that was of special interest to me entitled, "Iron supplementation in athletes- first do no harm" that appeared in the journal Nutrition. It was not primary literature but a review that covered many elements of iron supplementation to make the claim that iron supplements should be more tightly controlled and only used by athletes who are clinically iron deficient. The reasoning behind this claim was that additional iron supplementation when normal (or even low) iron levels existed had no benefit on performance. Additionally, higher iron levels may damage the liver or heart and increase the risk of diabetes.
However, I feel like the argument was rather one sided and weak as it failed to recognize that some non-deficient athletes can be helped by supplements and it did not attempt to address the issue of appropriate dosages. I believe it was meant to be read by doctors and health professionals who work with athletes as well as researchers interested in iron regulation. However, the audience may include ambitous athletes who took it upon themselves to learn about professional recommendations in iron supplementation.
I found the argumentation of this article especially interesting because of my own research on iron regulation in female runners this semester. I am working on a project investigating elements that effect iron regulation. We are focusing on hormonal control as well as monocyte recycling. This article made no mention of hormonal control or variations in recycling mechanisms. This is likely because it was published in 2004 before this newer research had been released yet.
I have a unique perspective on the issue as I am a runner who is taking iron supplements after an experience with severe anemia as well as a researcher in the field of iron regulation. I think that this article does a good job of summarizing relevant research in the field but makes a one sided argument. It gives many examples of situations where supplementation is not helpful but I think it is lacking in showing how prevalent an issue it is in certain populations. I agree with many of the points that were made but I think the article fails to recognize what a complex issue this is. Obviously the first objective is to "do no harm," but in this case the long term harm is silent and latent but the potential harm by not supplementing may be an impeding sacrificed competitive season. Iron supplementation only given to the clinically deficient is like waiting for a problem to occur and then fixing it.
Reading this article makes me want to sit down with the researchers and writers and ask them about their claims. Since there is still a lot of grey area in this field, I am really curious on other's ideas and perspectives. It is enjoyable to be able to read a scientific article with a critical eye because usually the scientific jargon and level of understanding of material is beyond the scope of my current knowledge.
I will revisit this issue in the future as this iron research project is ongoing and I am hoping that this blog can help me to share my findings and ideas.
Kaitlyn
However, even among those who frequent PubMed or Nature, I believe that few (including myself) would immediately associate scientific literature with argumentation. However, when I began to think of scientific literature as argumentation, I could make strong associations and see the inherent connection.
A scientific paper is a very structured argument about why the researcher's proposed hypothesis is correct. The methods and results provide a context for the information presented and the discussion states the reasons backed by the evidence already presented. It is beautifully logical. However, not all scientific articles that attempt to make an argument are set up this way.
For example, I came upon a scientific article that was of special interest to me entitled, "Iron supplementation in athletes- first do no harm" that appeared in the journal Nutrition. It was not primary literature but a review that covered many elements of iron supplementation to make the claim that iron supplements should be more tightly controlled and only used by athletes who are clinically iron deficient. The reasoning behind this claim was that additional iron supplementation when normal (or even low) iron levels existed had no benefit on performance. Additionally, higher iron levels may damage the liver or heart and increase the risk of diabetes.
However, I feel like the argument was rather one sided and weak as it failed to recognize that some non-deficient athletes can be helped by supplements and it did not attempt to address the issue of appropriate dosages. I believe it was meant to be read by doctors and health professionals who work with athletes as well as researchers interested in iron regulation. However, the audience may include ambitous athletes who took it upon themselves to learn about professional recommendations in iron supplementation.
I found the argumentation of this article especially interesting because of my own research on iron regulation in female runners this semester. I am working on a project investigating elements that effect iron regulation. We are focusing on hormonal control as well as monocyte recycling. This article made no mention of hormonal control or variations in recycling mechanisms. This is likely because it was published in 2004 before this newer research had been released yet.
I have a unique perspective on the issue as I am a runner who is taking iron supplements after an experience with severe anemia as well as a researcher in the field of iron regulation. I think that this article does a good job of summarizing relevant research in the field but makes a one sided argument. It gives many examples of situations where supplementation is not helpful but I think it is lacking in showing how prevalent an issue it is in certain populations. I agree with many of the points that were made but I think the article fails to recognize what a complex issue this is. Obviously the first objective is to "do no harm," but in this case the long term harm is silent and latent but the potential harm by not supplementing may be an impeding sacrificed competitive season. Iron supplementation only given to the clinically deficient is like waiting for a problem to occur and then fixing it.
Reading this article makes me want to sit down with the researchers and writers and ask them about their claims. Since there is still a lot of grey area in this field, I am really curious on other's ideas and perspectives. It is enjoyable to be able to read a scientific article with a critical eye because usually the scientific jargon and level of understanding of material is beyond the scope of my current knowledge.
I will revisit this issue in the future as this iron research project is ongoing and I am hoping that this blog can help me to share my findings and ideas.
Kaitlyn
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Collision of science and rhetoric
After reading my previous blog post, I would like to use this post to refine my claims of death of mature reasoning in our society. Although it may appear like mature reasoning is on the decline after following politics or watching certain television shows, perhaps mature reasoning is just taking different forms.
As I familiarize myself with blogs, I am finding more and more quality material written with mature reasoning. They definitely don't fit my first perception of mature reasoning, but I think that may be why they are an intriguing media form to analyze.
I came upon a very intriguing blog on exercise physiology today called The Science of Sport. It is kept by Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas who both earned Ph.D.'s in exercise physiology from the University of Cape Town. I think this is an example of blogs at their best.
The self-proclaimed blog of "scientific comment and analysis of sporting performance" does a great job of combining science with engaging commentary. The contributors post about current developments in physiology and shed light on common myths and misconceptions. They will often take on common arguments in the field and state the facts of both sides and support their own opinion. Therefore, there is no "main argument" of the blog but arguments of each post. I perused arguments ranging from barefoot running to outlandish advertising claims for performance and wellness products. Each argument addressed possible counter-arguments, and did so conversationally while retaining a level of professionalism.
It was definitely written to be informative and enjoyable for people who are intrigued by the field. These are the people who will likely become followers. However, I can see this site as being a great resource for those who are seeking information on a certain topic, even though it doesn't reach "article" status.
Although rhetoric basically means "the art of argument" across genres, the techniques definitely differ. This blog utilized links, differing styles of text, and headings to separate ideas. I think this would only be effective in this "blog genre." It is extremely effective in this context but if it was put in a more scientific setting, it would immediately lose credibility. However, for the purpose and context of the blog, the techniques and writing were very effective.
I thought this was an interesting collision of rhetoric and science. Making science readable and enjoyable for the general public is a huge step in the right direction. I am hoping to analyze this blog further in my genre analysis paper coming up.
Kaitlyn
As I familiarize myself with blogs, I am finding more and more quality material written with mature reasoning. They definitely don't fit my first perception of mature reasoning, but I think that may be why they are an intriguing media form to analyze.
I came upon a very intriguing blog on exercise physiology today called The Science of Sport. It is kept by Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas who both earned Ph.D.'s in exercise physiology from the University of Cape Town. I think this is an example of blogs at their best.
The self-proclaimed blog of "scientific comment and analysis of sporting performance" does a great job of combining science with engaging commentary. The contributors post about current developments in physiology and shed light on common myths and misconceptions. They will often take on common arguments in the field and state the facts of both sides and support their own opinion. Therefore, there is no "main argument" of the blog but arguments of each post. I perused arguments ranging from barefoot running to outlandish advertising claims for performance and wellness products. Each argument addressed possible counter-arguments, and did so conversationally while retaining a level of professionalism.
It was definitely written to be informative and enjoyable for people who are intrigued by the field. These are the people who will likely become followers. However, I can see this site as being a great resource for those who are seeking information on a certain topic, even though it doesn't reach "article" status.
Although rhetoric basically means "the art of argument" across genres, the techniques definitely differ. This blog utilized links, differing styles of text, and headings to separate ideas. I think this would only be effective in this "blog genre." It is extremely effective in this context but if it was put in a more scientific setting, it would immediately lose credibility. However, for the purpose and context of the blog, the techniques and writing were very effective.
I thought this was an interesting collision of rhetoric and science. Making science readable and enjoyable for the general public is a huge step in the right direction. I am hoping to analyze this blog further in my genre analysis paper coming up.
Kaitlyn
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Newsflash! Mature Reasoning is going extinct!
Citizens of the United States, you should be aware of an ongoing problem that has recently become a dire situation. Mature reasoning as we know it (or don't) is becoming extinct. It is of upmost importance at this desperate time to be on the lookout for mature reasoning and attempt to help it to flourish. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that anyone will find it. And if you do, it is even more unlikely that anyone will recognize it. Complicating our situation, sightings of mature reasoning are squelched by our society's drive for answers, money, politics, and convenience.
The textbook qualifications of mature reasoning attempt to describe it, but do little to really identify it. According to "Aims of Argument" by Crusius and Channell, mature reasoners are "well-informed, open to criticism, argue with their audience in mind, and know their argument's context." Mature reasoning utilizes rhetoric (the art of argumentation) as well as other strategies to inquire, convince, persuade, or mediate. Although these goals may be quite different, the elements of mature reasoning are the same.
Personally, I think this gives a pretty dry synopsis of a deep topic like this.
Personally, I think this gives a pretty dry synopsis of a deep topic like this.
Mature reasoning can take many forms. However, in order to be effective, it must be communicated in some way. It must have elements of curiosity and the reasoner cannot be afraid to question accepted standards and methods. It is not partisan, it is not bipartisan, it is logical and therefore does not need a label. It is not an answer but a series of implied yet eloquent questions. It is not a destination but the path to get there. It is the right facts with the right explanation at the right time in the right place. These elements are even more abstract and possibly vague than the textbook definition. But this is mature reasoning to me.
I hope in my blog, I can utilize organization and facts to channel emotion and passion for what I am arguing. I think this is the most useful and effective theory of argumentation. I hope to avoid being hypocritical and use mature reasoning in my own argumentation and analysis of other's arguments. I will be very excited if I can accomplish this and apply it to scientific writing. Scientific writing originally seems very different from argumentative writing but I hope to draw more parallels so I can apply what I am learning and practicing to more realms of academia.
Here is a little information to consider. Maybe this is why mature reasoning seems to be dwindling...http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FSL/is_1_80/ai_n6113182/
Kaitlyn
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
An initiation, a beginning, a first step...
My name is Kaitlyn Patterson and I am currently a sophomore at the University of Michigan. I am majoring in Movement Science in the School of Kinesiology and hope to attend medical school or some type of graduate school to study physiology. I am originally from Cadillac, a small town in Northern Michigan. Cadillac was not named after the car, but Antoine de la Mothe Cadillac, the explorer that founded Detroit. It is also hosts the North American Snowmobile Festival on frozen Lake Cadillac in February. There, now Cadillac is on the map.
Now for what I do when I am not in class, doing homework, sleeping, or eating. I am likely running. I am a member of the Michigan Varsity Cross Country and Track teams and I run distance. For those of you that are not familiar with running sports, women's college cross country entails racing a random distance (6k) on golf courses, random fields in Indiana, etc. The distance events in track include the 1500, 3000, 5000, and 10000 meter. Therefore, we run in circles, up hills, in loops, and even sometimes in squares during practice. I also firmly believe that you can get some places in Ann Arbor faster by running than by car. And yes, I have been the recipient of calls of "Run Forrest, Run!"
Although school and running constitute a huge portion of my life at the time, I used to be a bit more well rounded. I like to think that my "well-roundedness" is temporarily hibernating. I am an avid, competitive cross country skier but this is unfortunately replaced with indoor track for the time being. And by cross country skiing I do not mean plodding through the snow in too much clothing. Flying through the woods in spandex is much more like it.
I also play the viola. This has unfortunately taken a backseat to running since college, but I miss it a lot. I played in multiple orchestras in high school and attended Interlochen for the All-State program three summers. My viola more than anything makes me wish that time were not a limiting factor in life.
I have several hopes for this blog. I hope it can help prevent me from becoming a robot from all the science classes I am taking. I hope it can help me to synthesize the immense amounts of information that I am trying to process in short periods of time. I hope it can help me to organize and present some of the research that I am doing regarding elite female athletes and iron regulation. I hope it can help me share my unique perspectives on the university and life in general. And finally, I hope that if anybody decides to read my blog, they find it at least moderately informative and engaging.
Now for identifying a potential audience. It is difficult to come up with reasons for people to read my blog right now because it is still somewhat of a foreign concept to me and I'm not sure what this will evolve into. A few reasons are an interest in endurance sports, physiology, or the intriguing relationship between athletics and academia in the college environment. An appreciation for subtle sarcasm is also appreciated.
Well, here's to the initiation of a newbie blogger, the beginning of we"b log", and the first step of an intriguing journey.
Kaitlyn
Now for what I do when I am not in class, doing homework, sleeping, or eating. I am likely running. I am a member of the Michigan Varsity Cross Country and Track teams and I run distance. For those of you that are not familiar with running sports, women's college cross country entails racing a random distance (6k) on golf courses, random fields in Indiana, etc. The distance events in track include the 1500, 3000, 5000, and 10000 meter. Therefore, we run in circles, up hills, in loops, and even sometimes in squares during practice. I also firmly believe that you can get some places in Ann Arbor faster by running than by car. And yes, I have been the recipient of calls of "Run Forrest, Run!"
Although school and running constitute a huge portion of my life at the time, I used to be a bit more well rounded. I like to think that my "well-roundedness" is temporarily hibernating. I am an avid, competitive cross country skier but this is unfortunately replaced with indoor track for the time being. And by cross country skiing I do not mean plodding through the snow in too much clothing. Flying through the woods in spandex is much more like it.
I also play the viola. This has unfortunately taken a backseat to running since college, but I miss it a lot. I played in multiple orchestras in high school and attended Interlochen for the All-State program three summers. My viola more than anything makes me wish that time were not a limiting factor in life.
I have several hopes for this blog. I hope it can help prevent me from becoming a robot from all the science classes I am taking. I hope it can help me to synthesize the immense amounts of information that I am trying to process in short periods of time. I hope it can help me to organize and present some of the research that I am doing regarding elite female athletes and iron regulation. I hope it can help me share my unique perspectives on the university and life in general. And finally, I hope that if anybody decides to read my blog, they find it at least moderately informative and engaging.
Now for identifying a potential audience. It is difficult to come up with reasons for people to read my blog right now because it is still somewhat of a foreign concept to me and I'm not sure what this will evolve into. A few reasons are an interest in endurance sports, physiology, or the intriguing relationship between athletics and academia in the college environment. An appreciation for subtle sarcasm is also appreciated.
Well, here's to the initiation of a newbie blogger, the beginning of we"b log", and the first step of an intriguing journey.
Kaitlyn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)