Background:
For our final project for Save the Bay, we have committed to deliver a communications campaign that is focused on microplastics and their environmental and legislative impact. To make our campaign more effective, we propose that we concentrate on the impact of three specific types of microplastics; (beads, fragments, and fibers that are less than 5 millimeters long). In order to increase the relevance of our message we will highlight the direct impact microplastics have on the waterways of Rhode Island and Narragansett Bay. To inform our campaign, we propose that we conduct expert interviews with individuals who have been directly involved in studying and addressing the impact of microplastics on our oceans. To do this, we will seek to engage those involved with the Rozalia Project and the team at the University of Exeter, UK that is working most closely with them. As we seek to learn more about the legislative landscape, we propose that we will conduct in-depth research related to the two bills that are currently being considered by Rhode Island legislature: one on bag bans and the other on plastics. In addition to local legislative activity, we will seek to learn more about other state and federal efforts in this area. We propose that as part of this campaign, we deliver the following communications assets for use by Save the Bay:
Hi! we are Collin and Tory and we are marine biology students from Roger Williams University! In an effort to help increase awareness, we have written a blog and made a podcast about microplastics in collaboration with Save the Bay. (links) Microplastic is a word that is becoming more and more common in today’s lexicon but, what does it mean? According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) microplastics are “small plastic pieces less than five millimeters long which can be harmful to our ocean and aquatic life.” Microplastics can come from various sources. Some of which may surprise you since they are in items that we use every single day. According to Ceri Lewis, Marine Biology Lecturer and Scientist at the University of Exeter, UK, the five most common sources of microplastics are plastic coffee cups, single-use water bottles, straws, plastic cutlery, and grocery bags. You are probably saying to yourself “But these things are all bigger than five millimeters, how do they get so small?” When these items enter the ocean, the mechanical action of wind and waves combined with photo-oxidation from the sun cause the plastics to degrade into smaller and smaller pieces. And, they are pervasive! The University of Exeter research team has found that there are now 5.25 trillion pieces of plastic in the world’s oceans, with an estimated 10% of the plastics we produce ending up there. According to the study, individual pieces of plastic will outnumber fish in the world’s oceans by 2050 if something doesn’t change. Microplastics have been found in places as far away as the polar ice caps, on the coastlines of every continent, and in the very deepest areas of the ocean. There are two particular characteristics of plastics that cause microplastics to travel these great distances. First, they are long-lived, so it can take hundreds or even thousands of years for them to degrade fully. And, second many plastics float which allows for ocean currents to carry them very long distances. So why does it matter? Because microplastics are so small more animals can consume them. And, the smaller the animal that consumes them, the greater impact they can have on the entire food web since the plastics make their way up to larger and larger animals as they are consumed. Zooplankton, worms, shellfish, fish and even seabirds are all consumers of microplastics that can be mistaken them for viable food. And, once the microplastics are consumed, they can stay in an organism for a very long time…even an entire lifetime. Aside from the obvious risk of death to these organisms, several other risks can be caused as they travel through the food chain. These include feeding limitations, loss of energy and inhibited growth, the introduction of toxins and disease and the risk that these microplastics can make their way into human food. While efforts such as volunteer cleanups or collection have been made to reduce the impact, many agree that this is not enough to solve the problem. Organizations such as Clean Water Action and Save the Bay have been working with other non-profit and government agencies to increase awareness and focus on plastic source reduction strategies. To help with this goal here in Rhode Island there have been increasing efforts to address the microplastics problem in Narragansett Bay. In July of 2017, the Clean Water Action Group in partnership with Save the Bay completed a “trash trawl” in search of microplastics. The teams were focused on how many microplastics were in the Bay and where they were most prevalent. Unfortunately, the impact of microplastics pollution is not widely known. For many people, if they can’t see it happening or they don’t see the impact themselves they don’t care about it. We must care. We must change our habits. And, we must do something about it. So, how can you help? The answer is easier than you might expect! For starters, you can recycle and reuse any of the plastic products that are in your home. You can also ensure that trash is disposed of properly to reduce the risk of it making its way into the ocean. You can choose products that do not include microbeads. And, you can help increase awareness of the problem by talking about it with your friends and family or participating in local beach clean-up efforts. You can get started today! The next time you go to the grocery store to buy bottled water, think about what might happen to that bottle and consider a reusable bottle instead. And, when you go don’t forget to bring your reusable grocery bags! Together we can clean up our oceans and improve the health of our environment.
TORY: Thanks for taking some time to tune in. We are here today to talk to you about microplastics. COLLIN: You aren’t necessarily used to hearing us so let’s take a minute to introduce ourselves. I’m Collin and this is Tory. We are both marine biology students at Roger Williams University right on Mount Hope Bay here in Bristol, Rhode Island. TORY: And, we are both passionate about the ocean! Collin has also had extensive volunteer and intern experience at the New England Aquarium in both Visitor Education and Aquarist roles. And, we both have experience working at the wet lab facility here on campus. COLLIN: We recently were given the opportunity to partner with Save the Bay to take over their social media channel to help educate you about microplastics. As part of this project, we have been very fortunate to come into contact with some very knowledgeable people in this field. And, we are pleased to say that they have agreed to be part of our podcast today. TORY: Yes, Collin, I agree we are lucky to have met them. They have been very important in helping us to understand the problem of microplastics and have given us valuable information from many resources. I’m glad that they were generous enough to come onto our podcast today to help us communicate the importance of this issue. COLLIN: In a lot of our research we have come across doom and gloom stories of pollution and its effects. While it is important to take this issue seriously, we are really going to try to steer away from all of that negativity and focus on what can be done to make a difference. TORY: You can help to solve the problem of microplastics! And, we hope that by the end of this podcast you can go away with some simple actions you can take that will make a real difference. COLLIN: Tory, maybe we should start with what microplastics are. Quite simply microplastics are larger pieces of plastic that have, over time, been broken down by sea and wind into very small pieces (usually of 5 mm or less.) They can be very harmful to our ocean and its inhabitants. TORY: That’s really interesting, Collin, but where do they come from? COLLIN: The answer may surprise you! They come from many of the things we use everyday…our clothes produce microfibers, plastic bags and straws break down into microplastics, and even some of the cosmetics people use include microbeads that are also culprits. TORY: You’re right, Collin, according to one of our panel experts, Dr. Ceri Lewis, Senior Lecturer and Scientist, University of Exeter, UK the five most common sources of microplastics are plastic coffee cups, single-use water bottles, straws, plastic cutlery, and grocery bags. COLLIN: You may be thinking, but these things are all bigger than five millimeters, how do they get so small? You see when these items enter the ocean, the mechanical action of wind and waves combined with the sun’s rays cause the plastics to degrade into smaller and smaller pieces. TORY: Collin, did you know that there are more than 5 trillion pieces of plastic in our world’s? And according to some of the research individual pieces of plastic will outnumber fish in the ocean by within the next thirty years if something doesn’t change. COLLIN: You’re right, Tory, microplastics are pervasive and they can travel very long distances. Did you know that they have been found in places as far away as the polar ice caps, on the coastlines of every continent, and in the very deepest areas of the ocean? TORY: Hey Collin, let’s ask one of our panel experts, Ms. Rachael Miller from the Rozalia Project what she thinks about that! Feature1-2 minute soundbyte Ms. Rachael Miller, Rozalia Project COLLIN: So now that we better understand what microplastics are, let’s dig deeper into the harm that they can do. And, more importantly, what effects microplastics can have on marine ecology. TORY: Before we did this project, I never knew that microplastics could travel so far. We’ve learned that it is because plastics are so long-lived and buoyant that this can happen. Did you know that it can take hundreds or even thousands of years for plastics to degrade fully? COLLIN: Ceri Lewis told us that the smaller the animal that consumes microplastics, the greater impact they can have on the entire food web since the plastics make their way up to larger and larger animals as they are consumed. TORY: Yes, she said that research has shown that zooplankton, worms, shellfish, fish and even seabirds are all consumers of microplastics that can be mistaken them for viable food. And all of these organisms are at risk of death, feeding limitations, loss of energy and inhibited growth, the introduction of toxins and disease. And these microplastics can even make their way into human food! Feature 2 minute soundbyte from Ceri Lewis, Senior Lecturer and Scientist, University of Exeter COLLIN: Wow! It’s shocking how far microplastics can travel and how far-reaching the impact really is. What about here in Rhode Island? Is there any research that shows it is a problem here too? TORY: Yes, Collin! A group of researchers from several New England Based schools including Boston University, Roger Williams University, the University of Massachusetts Boston, and Southern Connecticut State University, are using the only hard coral found in coastal New England, northern star coral, to determine the extent and impact of microplastics in an urban marine environment. Early results have shown hundreds of microplastic particles including microbeads from toothpaste and facial scrubs. According the lead researcher, Rotjan, “People are shedding microplastics constantly and we are trying to better understand whether there is a greater prevalence of microfibers in urban areas and determine the impact of sewage treatment on coral’s microplastic ingestion.” COLLIN: I guess I’m not surprised, Tory. The more you stop to think about it, the more you realize that he is right. Microplastics are everywhere! And the research is consistent, the majority of plastic that goes into the ocean comes from items we only use one time! Many of these items enter rivers and streams and wash up on shorelines and beaches. As they break down into smaller pieces they act as chemical “sponges” by absorbing and concentrating pollutants in the water. Then as animals eat them, these concentrated pollutants are absorbed into fatty tissue and enter the food chain. I was glad to learn about the number of efforts underway to make local change. Here in Rhode Island, Clean Water Action is actively working to reduce plastic at its source through a combination of outreach, education, and public policy. TORY: We also learned that along with nonprofit and government partners, Clean Water is in the process of developing a comprehensive, innovative waste and litter ordinance for the City of Providence and is also developing a resident-sourced community greening plan for the neighborhood around the city’s high school in Central Falls. COLLIN: I recently had the chance to interview, Mark Jarbeau, the Baymaster of Narragansett Bay and he told me about some of the local work he and his team at Save the Bay are doing to determine how many microplastics are in the Bay and where they show up most. He said that last summer they spent an entire week in July out on Narragansett Bay trawling for trash to find out just how prevalent microplastic pollution is in our own state. During their expedition they took samples from different corners of the bay to identify the type and quantity of plastic pollution and marine debris in our coastal waters. Here he is to tell us a little more about it: Feature 2 minute soundbyte Mr. Jarbeau, Baymaster re: Save the Bay Trawling Project) TORY: For many people, if they can't see it happening or they don't see the impact themselves they don't care about it. I think it’s really important for us to help people to know that if we change our habits, we can make a difference. COLLIN: It is true, Tory. We must do something about it and it is easier to help than people might expect. Let’s start by sharing some of the ideas we’ve come up with like…the next time you go to the grocery store to buy bottled water, think about what might happen to that bottle and consider using a reusable bottle instead. And, remember to use your reusable grocery bags! TORY: When choosing cleansing products, choose products that do not include microbeads. And, when doing the laundry, consider using a filter that catches the microfibers. COLLIN: And remember, you can recycle and reuse any of the plastic products that are in your home. You can also ensure that trash is disposed of properly to reduce the risk of it making its way into the ocean. TORY: Finally, you can help us spread the word about the problem by talking about it with your friends and family or participating in local beach clean-up efforts. Together we can clean up our oceans and improve the health of our environment! COLLIN: Thanks for tuning in! We hope you’ve found this information useful.
· Will your straw outlive you? Used for just 20 minutes, once discarded a straw can last in the environment for hundreds of years. Find out why that matters (link to BLOG) A University of Exeter research team recently found that there are now 5.25 trillion pieces of plastic in the world’s oceans and they estimate that individual pieces of plastic will outnumber fish in the world’s oceans by 2050 if something doesn’t change. (link to PODCAST) A typical polyethylene bottle takes ~450 years to degrade others can take over 1,000 years. Learn more about how you can find easy ways to reduce your plastic footprint on our ocean (link to BLOG). · According to the Environmental Protection Agency, plastic food packaging makes up about 30% of solid waste per year and complete degradation takes hundreds of years. Approximately 10% of all plastic litter will make its way to our marine environment through shipping, fishing, tourism, rivers, sewage, spillages, dumping, tsunamis. Learn more about what you can do to help (link to BLOG) · How much do you contribute to microplastics? Learn more about how you can find easy ways to reduce your plastic footprint on our ocean (link to BLOG). According to the Center for Marine Conservation plastic bags are one of the most common items of debris found in coastal cleanups. On average we only recycle one plastic bag in every 200 we use. Find out what to do about where your plastic goes (link to PODCAST) Used for just 20 minutes, once discarded a straw can last in the environment for hundreds of years. Take the straw free challenge today and learn more about how to live with less plastic (link to BLOG) Zuleyka Zevallos' The March for Science Can't Figure Out How to Handle Diversity highlights conflicting opinions on diversity within the scientific community particularly in the context of the March for Science movement. When considering how this speaks to issues relevant to our Writing for Sciences course, I was struck by the multiple references to non-scientists and reminded of how so many of our readings have reiterated the importance of considering non-scientific audiences in our writing. The other point that I felt was in line with much of the guidance that we have received from the many sources referenced in this course was the integrity of the scientific peer review process. I was concerned to read that according to this article some of the decisions of the current administration have put this, scientific funding, and information about critical global issues such as climate change at risk. According to the writer, “This political issue harms science because it hampers the people and networks of collaboration without whom science is not possible.” If this is, in fact, true then many of rhetorical course concepts that we have studied this semester would also be at risk.
In the second article Nature's How the March for Science Splits Researchers, University College Cork Ireland lecturer states her reason for participating in the march, “I am going so I can stand up for evidence-based policies and the scientific method. The current wave of ‘anti-science’ rhetoric goes against everything that I am trying to do as a scientist and an educator. I keep telling my students that I’m going because science is worth protecting: for them, and for all of us.” I believe that this thinking can inform how we approach our semester major projects because it underscores the importance of not using bias in our work and the vital role that each of us plays in protecting science and the scientific process. It is a good reminder to ensure that we should rely on multiple sources and not take a single opinion as the only truth. Our projects are meant to be opportunities for each of us to communicate effectively to the public about key scientific concepts. Part of doing that effectively will be to be both unbiased and truthful while protecting the scientific basis of the concepts we are exploring. I believe that we have a chance with these projects to affect a better understanding of the concepts we are focused on as well as science itself. Writer Graham Smart, uses his article "Discourse Coalitions, Science Blogs, and the Global Debate Over Climate Change" to highlight the many conflicting positions involved in the ongoing debate on climate change. To most effectively accomplish his goal, he focuses on the genre of argumentative texts and specifically chooses texts that "communicate a clear claim regarding the nature, causes, and implications of climate change-produced by social actors actively engaged in the climate-change controversy." In line with many of the recommendations we have seen in resources throughout the semester, Smart is particularly focused on "research that relates to the public understanding of science and scholarship on collective argumentation in public spaces, with a focus on the notion of the discourse coalition.'" He references his earlier research in contrasting the different positions of two discourse communities: advocates and skeptics, and then uses his current research to introduce a third coalition: eco-optimists. He also highlights the use of scientific blogs as a platform for each of the alliances in arguing their varying opinions.
Smart's findings show that the conflicting perspectives of these three coalitions serve to "create opportunities for communicating knowledge about climate science to their respective publics, albeit in ways that reflect entrenched adversarial positions and a limited view of audience rather than potentially contributing to a fuller public understanding of climate science and greater public engagement within the climate-change debate." Smart argues that the entrenchment of these three coalitions in their own perspective actually results in an unfavorable environment for the public to better understand the issues "the consequence being that individuals are denied the possibility of developing, through dialogue, greater scientific understanding." I believe there is an essential lesson in his findings for us as we approach our final semester projects and consider the important role we each play in increasing the public's understanding of science. While our own research and perspective may differ from others, we each bear a responsibility to think about the topics we are covering more broadly and share a balanced and well-informed view so that the public can use that information to better understand the overall challenges being faced. In Chapter 19 of his Chicago Guide to Communicating Science, author Scott L. Montgomery broaches the subject of how the public has an interest in learning more about science and how scientific writers can cater to that interest. The chapter, "Science Writing and Science Talks: Communicating with and for the Public," highlights several techniques for writers to consider in accomplishing this goal. Some ideas that Montgomery recommends be considered are is the text easy to read? Does the text include helpful transitions? Is the writing fact-based but approachable? Does the lead statement effectively deliver a key message and even even more importantly does this statement generate interest in the reader to continue reading? Has the writer included writing devices such as metaphors and alliterations? In analyzing an article written for the public about a scientific topic, I chose “Ocean Life Eats Tons of Plastic—Here’s Why That Matters,” written by Laura Parker and published in National Geographic in August 16, 2017. Like the article I reviewed last week, this one is focused on microplastics and their impact on the environment. This article particularly focuses on microplastics in the food chain and its importance to humans. Parker leverages many of the techniques that Montgomery highlights in writing her article. An example of this is in her creative and engaging lead line “Anchovies are known more as a pickled pizza topping than for their crucial place in the marine food chain.” The author’s use of imagery and metaphors immediately gets the attention of the reader as well as creating intrigue for them to learn more. Parker immediately transitions to the main focus of the article in her statements that follow. “Now scientists have confirmed a disturbing new behavior by these tiny forage fish that could have larger implications for human health: anchovies are eating tiny pieces of ocean plastic, and because they, in turn, are eaten by larger fish, the toxins in those microplastics could be transferred to fish consumed by humans.” Another important device that Parker uses to create believability and logos while making her writing consumable by the public and fact-based is to quote reputable sources such as Matthew Savoca, a post-doctoral researcher at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Southwest Fisheries Science Center. “The scientific interest in this problem has absolutely exploded in the last five years,” Savoca says. “In the public eye, there is this idea that all the plastic out there is large pieces that we can identify. Toothbrushes, cigarette lighters, plastic bags. But the vast majority of ocean plastics are these small fragments. More than 90 percent are less than 10 millimeters long. It’s really small stuff.” It is this device of leveraging expert content and quotes that I intend to incorporate into my own writing for the final project. Doing so will help ensure that our communications plan for Save The Bay accomplishes its goals of educating the public about the criticality of the Microplastics problem while helping to make the concept more concrete for them so they know what their own behavioral change can do to help. Author Scott L. Montgomery's uses Chapter Five, "Writing Very Well: Opportunities for Creativity and Elegance," in his Chicago Guide to Communicating Science to highlight various stylistic devices that can be used effectively in scientific writing or in writing about science for popular audiences. Some of the devices that he features are modulating sentence length and rhythm, posing questions, applying parallel structure at the sentence level, coining new terminology, and smooth transitions. Montgomery is careful to remind his readers that he believes “scientific writers must exhibit expressive restraint and must be relatively subtle in their creative act.” He does emphasize though that there is an opportunity for writers to add memorable or inventive phrasing, excellent organization and polish in their writing and focus on subtle transitions.
As a way to better understand some of Montgomery’s ideas, I reviewed “From sea to plate: how plastic got into our fish,” written by author Susan Smillie and published on Feb 14, 2017 in The Guardian, an online source for American and international news. This article is one that I found as part of my research for my final project. It is an example of science writing that has been written for popular audiences and focuses on the development, impact and prevalence of microplastics in the environment and in our food. Smillie uses many of the techniques that Montgomery references in writing her article. The best example of this is in her rather inventive opening phrase “It’s enough to make you cry over your moules frites” when referring to the rather serious topic of the volume of plastic fragments consumed by humans on an annual basis: “Scientists at Ghent University in Belgium recently calculated that shellfish lovers are eating up to 11,000 plastic fragments in their seafood each year.” Another of Montgomery’s devices that Smillie uses effectively is to pose questions. In fact, she leverages the opportunity not only to ask questions, but to challenge her readers to think about whether they are considering the right questions. “The question is no longer: are we eating plastic in our seafood? What scientists are urgently trying to establish is just how bad for us that is. Another question we might ask: how did we get here?” Some of the techniques that Montgomery highlights that I would incorporate into my scientific writing and my final project to ensure that it is both informative and engaging for my readers are to vary sentence length and rhythm, to challenge my readers to consider the impact of microplastics by posing direct and relevant questions, providing smooth transitions between concepts and using memorable examples. Minor Assignment 6: Sam Kean's "Caesar's Last Breath: Decoding the Secrets of the Air Around Us"3/18/2018 The first part of Caesar’s Last Breath introduces the concept of air along with its historical use and value. The author, Sam Kean, uses the introductory section of the book to help his audience better understand the atmosphere of the earth and how it changed and developed. The author uses descriptive language and metaphorical examples to make his writing very approachable, more appealing and more readily understood by scientists and non-scientists alike. What I find most fascinating about the writer’s style is how he weaves the idea of air and the history of our atmosphere into world history and evolutionary progress.
While the topic seems, at first, to be more relevant to scientific audiences, I believe that Kean’s audience is likely to be more broad-based and include both those individuals that have in-depth scientific knowledge of the topic as well as those that have little to no scientific background at all. Kean’s decision to use a conversational, story-telling approach helps him to be more effective in getting this point across and keeping his readers engaged, despite their previous knowledge of the concepts he presents. The tone of the book is conversational and even humorous at times, but the underlying message that is presented right from the introduction is that the air we breathe should not be taken for granted. I believe that his purpose in writing the book was to help his audiences better understand the importance of his topic and to make his readers stop and think about the history and processes of the earth. Kean’s ability to very clearly explain complex concepts in a way that is approachable and memorable underscores the effort he put into ensuring that his writing would have a strong and positive impact on his audience. Kean leverages his skill at storytelling and his use of explicit and concrete examples to weave concepts together to help make his topic more relevant to his readers. One of the most intriguing facets of his writing me is how uses these writing techniques to addresses the issue of the “curse of knowledge.” My personal writing style also tends to lean more towards conversational and explanatory examples. I think that by leveraging Kean’s approach and my own style in my final project, I will be able to use details and events to help make his more complex ideas consumable. If I have a chance to ask Sam Kean questions about his writing of this book, I would like to ask him about his writing process. I would start by asking questions such as: What caused you to write the book? Was there a moment when you thought, this is a really great idea and I’m going to write about it using these examples? Or, did you start with a rough idea and figure it out as you went along? Our (Collin and Tory) Project is based around communications within the aquarist (professionals who care for aquatic life) discourse community, and communications from within this community to broad audiences. Our main line of investigation focuses on the rhetorical methods aquarists use in their writing to facilitate the transfer and delivery of their ideas in this scientific discourse. The main interest for this topic, stems from my (Collin) close relationship with the aquarium that has grown from a birthday party there when I was 8 all the way to two internships. We are both marine biology majors and have a deep and lifelong interest in this field of study. I (Tory) have a relatively less developed relationship to the aquarist community. I work in the wet lab here on campus, so my interaction with this discourse community is somewhat more isolated. We have thus far chosen three sources; a blog post written by an aquarist, a paper written by an aquarist, and an interview with an aquarist. The Member of our chosen discourse community that we are interviewing, is an aquarist at The New England Aquarium Quincy Quarantine Facility named Hannah Cutting. The questions that we have settled on are as follows:
What kinds of reading do you do in support of your work as an aquarist? What professional groups do you most often communicate with? What skills do you find to be most important in your day-to-day communications and work? What criteria do you use to determine what is relevant to read and what is not? What specific texts would be valuable for me to review and examine as part of my analysis? Are there analytical tools that you can recommend helping me better understand the variability and similarities of the genre style of scientific journals? Questions we have for you (Classmates) from your point of view: Are our questions clear and coherent? What other sources should we investigate/consider? Do you believe that there are any questions that we are missing that could be insightful? Minor Assignment 1 (repost): The Chicago Guide to Communicating Science by Scott L. Montgomery2/15/2018 According to the Oxford Dictionary, rhetoric is defined as “The art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the exploitation of figures of speech and other compositional techniques.” Similarly, in the Second Edition of “The Chicago Guide to Communicating Science,” Scott L. Montgomery uses the opening chapters to define scientific writing as “storytelling” that is “also engaged in rhetoric by aiming not just to tell but to persuade.” Montgomery goes on to make the important point that scientific writing “not only has meaning but is meaningful.”
To make this more concrete for his readers, the author shares and analyzes examples of scientific text over the course of history that evidence the importance of persuasiveness in effective scientific writing. It becomes clear right from the first chapter that considering science in the context of rhetoric can make it more enlightening for readers and writers alike. This is particularly true when the composition of the text has been written by a writer that considers not only the fact-based content that they are sharing but also the importance of the use of rhetorical techniques in sharing that information. As essential examples, Montgomery highlights the use of transitions and sentence rhythm and length to show how rhetorical methods can be used to add more meaning to scientific writing. I believe that one of the most important reasons for talking about rhetoric in a science writing course is to help us understand the critical need to leverage rhetorical techniques to strengthen our arguments, add clarity to our writing and to ultimately be more effective communicators. I think that in science especially, rhetoric is critical because it deals with things that readers may not understand. Because of the complexity of many scientific topics, and the heavy use of jargon and scientific terms, it becomes critically important for a scientific writer to leverage the devices necessary to make their point clearer. Doing so allows us, as writers, to convince our readers of the validity of our statements. It also prevents us from having to fully explain all principles involved to prove it to them. In Charles Bazerman's book The Languages of Edison's Light, he dedicates a chapter to “Patents as Speech Acts and Legal Objects.” He uses this part of his book to provide some historical context around the importance of protecting ideas and “transforming them into intellectual property.” To do this, Bazerman goes into great detail to explain patent genre, the history of how early patent law was developed and more specifically he uses the early patents of Thomas Edison as case studies in his analysis.
To more closely analyze the patent genre, Bazerman suggests that it is necessary to “understand in greater depth the relationship between the concrete description and the abstract claim” of a patent. He further emphasizes the importance of approaching this analysis from the perspective of the patent being considered a speech act. He then outlines some concerns about speech-act theory in the context of analyzing a patent application. He describes the first issue as being related to “the importance of local circumstances in the identification, interpretation and realization of speech acts” and gives examples of how language can mean different things to different people, depending on their perspective, background and personal experience. Another issue Bazerman raises is the difficulty is impact of the multiplicity of meaning behind a word. He explains that depending on intention and intonation words can have a different interpretation. The final point that I found to be relevant from this chapter was Bazerman’s idea that it can be very difficult to apply speech-act theory “to long, complex written documents.” In considering Bazerman’s work and its applicability to my Preliminary Analysis, I do think that there are elements that can be applied. In particular, I believe it could be very valuable for me to “look to behaviors in highly regularized or institutional settings that help enforce recognizable and socially agreed upon characters to particular moments.” Just as “the patent process consists of a highly developed set of typified practices”, I know that the same is true among the marine scientists. I know from working alongside the aquarists that I intend to interview that there is a language and unique form of communication that they use among them. Conducting my analysis from this perspective will help me to more accurately interpret word meaning and context in their responses. I think that as I conduct my analysis I will need to think about the challenges that Bazerman raised about applying such an analysis to complex written language. This will be especially important as I refine my references and consider scientific journals as a means of input. In my last post, I included a number of questions that I intended to ask in my interviews that I believe are still relevant. I have included again here for easy reference:
|
AuthorHi! I am Collin Barker and I am a Marine Biology Major at Roger Williams University, an avid reader and fish keeper. To learn more about me check out my About page. Archives
May 2018
Categories |