To start today’s class, I’d like you to think about the differences between the scholarly audience you are writing to for our first assignment and the research memo to The Gathering Place that you’ll eventually be writing. First, given the reading you’ve done thus far for your annotated bibliographies, I’d like you to characterize what about this research appeals to scholarly readers. That is, how do these studies establish their credibility within their academic fields? How are the findings presented so as to meet the expectations of other academics who study this issue?
Second, if you had to translate your research and present it to an audience of DU students who are preparing to volunteer for Project Homeless Connect or the young people who speak in the video from Denver’s Road Home, what information from these articles would be important and appropriate to share with them? How would you explain the findings to them in a way that would make sense given their understanding of the issue?
Ultimately, given your response to these two prompts, how would you describe the difference between writing for scholars and for a group of your peers?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The writing in the articles I have read thus far do not just make an emotional appeal or utilize empty rhetoric, but rather present substantive evidence that demonstrates the many obstacles that both lead to, and continue, the cycle of homelessness. Rather than put forth well-worded but substantively empty stories and appeals, the articles present a synthesis of statistics, trends, and observations that ground their claims. On the other hand, in writing for a group of peers - or anyone less seasoned to the issue of homelessness for that matter - I would not be so interested in statistics as I would firsthand accounts and observations. That is, to tell the story of the women whose car serves as both wardrobe and home, or the man who holds a job but lives in a shelter due to the insufficiency of his income to pay for housing. My objective would not be to meet the expectations of another academic, but instead to refute and confront the pre-conceived notions of a peer, in which case first-hand accounts would carry much greater weight than facts and percentages - though they, too, would have significance. Clearly, writing for scholars requires that one must provide substantial findings and evidence, rather than certain instances that strike down a particular misconception of homelessness. Writing for an academic audience requires facts and figures, while writing for a less circumspect audience requires one to captivate attention through observations and more emotionally-appealing stories.
ReplyDeleteScholarly articles are generally written for others to read and be able to reproduce an experiment in the same manner. Usually researchers establish their credibility by stating who they are and what prior experiments or pieces they have conducted, but establishing credibility can also be done by conducting a study of a certain area of interest. Findings of researchers are presented in the manner of an article usually an empirical journal which lays out the basics of what the researcher did in their study. Most of the time empirical journals are harder to read because way they are written.
ReplyDeleteIf the information is presented to a group of students who are volunteering for Project Homeless Connect the information that would be valuable to them would be the statements made in the introduction, discussion and conclusion of most articles. Usually in the introduction there are facts about the topic that is being researched and to some extent the researcher states why the topic is important to study. Also in the discussion along with the conclusion there are results stated in the simplest format possible explaining what the researcher found and homeless people are affected by certain circumstances. Knowing the facts about homelessness can help volunteers assist those who are homeless, along with educate others about homelessness.
Writing for scholars, is a little more challenging because you have to be able to present yourself in an educated, well mannered fashion, with proper English and good word choice. The format is also formal compared to writing to your peers. When writing to your peers you can use an informal format, along with not having to worry so much about the proper use of English and worrying about the fact that you are being judge scholarly on your ability to present your research.
(Adding to Second Prompt)
ReplyDeleteIn writing to my peers, I would first confront many of the common misconceptions surrounding homelessness - those particularly relevent to my topic (the obstacles to the road out of homelessness), namely the percentage of the homeless that are families and not the common vision of the man with the cardboard sign and shopping cart and those who are seeking employment - and continue to discuss the obstacles to the road out of homelessness, particularly the catch-22 homeless individuals often find themselves in - the recurring difficulty to obtaining employment when one does not have an e-mail address - or any address for that matter - or any personalized phone number to put down on a resume (or, worse, does not have the adequate means to even creating a resume).
In the reading I have done so far in connection to my topic on Homeless Women and the correlation of crime and victimization I have noticed certain writing techniques that distinguish the writing as scholarly in the sense that it has a distinct style and specified content. The authors of these papers distinguish themselves mainly through their own investigations and studies of how homeless women in large cities are affected and/or victimized by crime. They provide statistics, interviews, and data that back their claims and aims towards a larger goal. While all of the sources are specific to homelessness and crime they all have different outlooks and lenses through which they are viewing the problem. One paper focuses on how the entire system of the US forces people into poverty and homelessness and the only response is to act out criminally to survive. Another focuses on how women are victimized differently than men by the system and individuals. Their findings are presented in a way that makes them academic because they are not so much about persuading others to believe in their cause but about putting forth information about a problem and proposed methods of rectifying said problem. I really think the proposed methods of rectification are what make these papers truly academic. The solutions are not directed towards volunteering more or helping the homeless with programs but rather towards rebooting the entire system that is currently in place so that real progress can be made with the situation as a opposed to applying a “band-aid” solution that only masks the real underlying problem but does nothing to change it. Translating this information into content that would be easily understood by the vast majority of community members is where this gets more complicated. While it is important for community members to have a grasp on the effects of victimization and crime on the homeless I don’t feel as though the details that are provided in the scholarly writing would be necessary. The general population is not going to have a vast understanding of the numbers and how they relate to the problem and frankly some them are not going to care about how the victimization has an effect; also the entire re-build of the system that is required to meet this problem head-on may be too much for the general population as well. In order to get this information across to the public in a way that will have a beneficial affect comes down to is reinventing the ethos of the “homeless woman.” Right now the homeless have become so dehumanized into the “old man on the street corner” that it is difficult to see them as the victimized mother or friend. By giving these men and women and children faces and being able to recognize that these are problems that people, not the homeless, are facing would be the first step in an appropriate method of informing.
ReplyDeleteThis is difficult. I feel like scholarly writing is written for an audience that already understands the magnitude of the given problem and are therefore more apt to understanding the information that is gathered and presented in connection; whereas a peer audience may not be as informed on the basic principles of the overall problem so the writing has to be watered down and more shallow and then built up from there so that readers have a base to start on that fights preconceived stereotypes that would otherwise hinder the argument.
Because of the focus on economics, in a lot of the literature I have read so far there has been a great focus on methodologies of measurement of the informal sector. Because the informal sector of the economy is largely hidden, or not reported to internal revenue services of various countries, academics have theories of how to measure and account for the employment in this sector. Also in the works that are location specific, or that deal with a particular facet of the informal/black & gray economies there are case studies in which the author has spent at least 5 years or more in the field collecting data. Besides the amount of time taken to study subjects, focus on the methodologies of their research, the authors are often backed by external organizations, and also cite in their work either people they are researching or other authors in the field. Language of most journal articles is concise, with formal rhetorical distance, and with/or without technical and high vocabulary. Third person and sometimes, passive voice is utilized.
ReplyDeleteThe young people who spoke on the Denver’s Road House video said something about homeless men having shopping carts with cans. Recycling of materials actually from my research is one form of informal employment of homeless men, who can earn up to $2 to 5 an hour recycling cans, bottles etc. Also I would pose this question to them:
Have you ever mowed a neighbor’s lawn for a cheap price? Have you been paid to be a house sitter? Have you had a summer job and did not pay taxes? Have you held two jobs simultaneously and not reported your 2nd place of employment?
Then you have been part of the informal sector of the economy.
It is important to explain to young people that being a part of the informal or ‘hidden economy’ does not only contain illegal sources of employment and revenue such as: drug dealing, prostitution, human trafficking; but also legal employment and revenue that goes unreported to the IRS. The homeless are much more likely to participate in this informal sector because they either cannot find a place of employment in the formal economy, or that they are trying to escape homelessness by not report/or it is hard for them to report their revenue to the IRS. As horrible as can collecting, wash car windows, dealing drugs (on a small scale) seems it is a way of these people to scrap by with a little income to afford to eat with demeaning their pride to panhandling.
Within dialogue in the scholarly world, there is much less need to explain what constitutes the informal sector, or proof that it exists. Scholarly work is focused on measuring it, why does it exist, and how do we include participants of this sector into the formal economy? In speaking with younger/non-scholarly audiences there is need to explain first what the informal sector is, who is involved in it, and there is in general a less focus on the economics of the issue and more on the people.
Those writing academic or scholarly pieces differentiate themselves from the more relaxed writings of other communities of writers through style and content. A scholarly writer uses elevated language, proper grammar, and keeps the elements of their writings cohesive, they also cite outside sources, use fact and data, write for other scholars and write about subjects of which they have a great deal of experience or knowledge. If the information contained in these scholarly articles were to be presented to a group of individuals who lacked the motivation to trudge through the complicated language and outside sources, it would be imperative to summarize and simplify. This type of audience requires only the main points, not the entire back story, and a summary of the analysis of the academic writers findings. For example if one of my sources of my own research, more specifically “Mental Disorders, Subsistence Strategies, and Victimization among Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Homeless and Runaway Adolescents”, were to be presented to a group of my peers not motivated to read and interpret the entire article, it would look nothing like Hoyt, Kimberly, Tyler, Johnson, Whitbeck and Chen’s original work. My presentation of the information would be very simple and very short, all that would be needed is the general gist of the study. It would look more like this; homosexual homeless adolescents are much more susceptible to both physical and sexual abuse, more likely to enact risky survival strategies, more likely to be victimized physically and/or sexually on the street and more likely to fit the symptoms of mental disorder. This means that gay, lesbian, and bisexual homeless individuals come across more hardship than their straight counterparts, also meaning that when working with or encountering a homeless person that identifies as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, there is more than the problem of lack of shelter to be aware of and to work through. Writing for a group of peers is a much more relaxed and informal process than writing for a group of scholars. Scholars expect a writer to show their credibility throughout their writing, whereas a group of peers does not require the constant reference to other work or the constant insertions to keep an aura of credibility around the writing. This is most likely because scholars work off of each other’s work, and therefore, their work has to be credible for any future work to be credibly. A group of one’s peers; however, is generally reading to learn, not to expand or question.
ReplyDeleteThe scholarly audience is probably aware of what the topic of the article is, therefore discovering or seeking help in developing a solution for the issue presented in the writing could be the purpose that they read the research. Through reading such research, one could expect to find statistics, interviews, and different perspectives on the issue, and they could find a way to summarize the found information and possibly utilize it for their own benefit. Most of the time, it is essential that the authors develop some credibility by how well they write, what their biases are, and by who their work is published by. The author of the research most of the time presents their work by giving an abstract of their findings, and stating the purpose. Then they are stating their method of research and present their findings through statistics or summarizations of what occurred while they were on the job.
ReplyDeleteIf I were to summarize the information that I found and present it to students whom were going to volunteer to help this issue, then statistics would be kept to a minimum, because these people without homes would probably have not much interest in percentages, so it should not be too crucial to the students’ success as a volunteer. If anything, concepts and ideas would be given to them from me because that is the information that is most likely to provide understanding and more questions. Also before sending these students information that they should know, I would want experience as a volunteer myself and give them nothing but the real truth of my experiences as a volunteer. To better their understanding, I could present some typical misconceptions that are made about the homeless and proceed with what I’ve found through the research I completed that would either object or confirm these misconceptions.
My descriptions of what I have found through my research would be presented in a more structured way, than if it were presented to a group of my peers. However, some form of structure would need to be abided by if I want my research to be appropriately understood.
Writing for a scholarly audience includes citations that allow the reader to look up the sources a given author used for their research. Scholarly writing incorporates academic jargon that is more suited for a more educated audience. This type of writing is often written in response to a study conducted by the writer in order to answer a thesis question. In order to establish credibility, the author will often include their research methods in answering their thesis question.
ReplyDeleteIf I had to translate my research on homelessness to an audience of DU students who were preparing to volunteer for Project Homeless Connect, or the young people that spoke in the video, I would talk to them about certain stereotypes that homeless people have; I would then tell them that most of these stereo types are false. Important information to relay to these young people would be the difficulty of finding work that will pay for a mortgage bill every month. I would tell them of the harsh family lives homeless people have had to endure. To establish my credibility, I would talk about the research that I have done on this topic. I would also cite a vivid anecdote of a homeless person in order to gain sympathy from this audience.
The difference between writing for a scholarly audience and writing for a student or young audience lies in the way the author relates to each audience. In relating to a scholarly audience, the writing would require familiarities such as formal vocabulary and clearly articulated sources. Writing for a more youthful audience would require the writer to relate to the audience by way of stories that contained a more persuasive edge.
In the scholarly sources, researchers are careful to include all evidence that establishes the validity of the study. This includes locations, times, and details on observations. Many authors clearly provide their theory, method, and results. Just like in the scientific realm, researches are careful to note flaws, errors, or possible misinterpretations. They also point out weaknesses in order to make the study more viable. The information is well cited, and statistics are backed up. Other scholars note this as credible because they are able to check the researcher’s sources. The more detailed something is, the more credible it seems. A scholar would be more likely to look at this reading to gather information and proof for their own study.
ReplyDeleteIf this information was presented to a group of DU students, it would need to be handled on a more social level. In other words, the results and studies cannot be presented as merely data. Instead, connections should be made to what the students already know. It also has to be comprehensible; the language itself should be simpler and more qualitative. For example, if you were to just hand a student a table containing all of the data, including means, ranges, and standard deviations, then the student would not be able to digest it. Instead, if you give the results using more diction rather than numbers, it will have a greater impact. For my topic specifically, I would focus on the stereotypes students already have, and work to “reframe” them, instead of immediately presenting the data.
Essentially, scholars require more background and evidence to the study. Usually, they are looking for solid proof for their theories. The students, on the other hand, are going to actually use what they discover in interactions with the homeless. Therefore, they are seeking more of an understanding. A student audience would be impacted greater by stories and first hand experiences, while a scholar would appreciate data and verification.
Writing for a scholarly audience as opposed to an audience of peers, or DU students, is very different. When writing for a scholarly audience, it is important to use precise and professional language. Scholarly audiences find a well organized article on the research that is being done appealing. When reading, they need to be able to connect the different parts of research, such as the data and what is concluded from said data, in order to fully grasp the purpose of this research. Therefore, the researcher must have a clear claim, concise data, and a well developed and scholarly conclusion from that data. This allows the study to establish ethos. The studies establish ethos also by referencing relevant sources. It is important that they have shown a familiarity with the topic and that they have researched it in depth. As an example, I will analyze Susan Barrow and Nicole Laborde’s “Invisible Mothers: Parenting by Homeless Women Separated from Their Children.” In this study, they have a clear introduction. They then go on to discuss what they decided to focus their study on and why, then continue on with logistics (the setting and the sample), observations from their in-depth interviews with homeless mothers, a discussion and conclusion, and their references. This setup appeals to a scholarly audience because it clearly states what the purpose of their study was, specific details on how it was conducted, what information they gathered, and the conclusion they derived from that information. The references almost act as a backbone for the study, giving it academic credibility. They also include their biographies that establish each author’s ethos.
ReplyDeleteWhen writing for an audience of DU students who are preparing to volunteer for Project Homeless Connect or even the young people from the Denver’s Road Home video, certain bits of information are important to share. First, I will include much of the background information that was researched before the study began. In reference to Barrow and Laborde’s study, this is the introduction. In this and many studies, the introduction has a good amount of background information that is relevant for the students to know. There are many facts in here that will give the student a better understanding of the lives of these homeless women. I can also explain the purpose of the study and the logistics of how it was conducted, then mention important data and the conclusions from this data. In order to reach this type of audience, it is important that I focus on familiarizing them with the topic. Some of the students may not have any idea about the lives of homeless women, so background information is key. It is also important to connect the data to what is concluded in a way that is not as much scientific as it is relevant and engaging.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. I will use Ronald Paul Hill's research to characterize appeals to scholarly readers; I have read his work closely.
ReplyDeleteHill discusses his methodology extensively before providing claims or conclusions; he explains his choices for delivery and arrangement, and even provides possible criticism of those choices. Hill also situates his research (and its methods) within the greater field of consumer research. He attempts to convince his audience of the reliability, relevance, significance, and direction of his research before presenting his findings.
Hill's findings are presented in sections. He carefully constructs his conclusions, making claims alongside evidence. He is careful not to miss a step in his line of logic. Credibility is made of thorough support and explanation.
2. Hill's research would provide excellent direct quotes if repackaged for younger audience: he delivers observations in an accessible, narrative style that brings real context to the research. His conclusions would be easily repackaged because they are often categorized into themes, making them easily remembered and understood.
3. The difference might be in the need for defense.
When appealing to a scholarly audience these sources must focus a lot on the methodology behind their studies in order to give their argument credibility. They must explain how they gathered their information and came to their conclusions, because the readers will be analyzing and cross referencing what they learn with all that they already know about the subject, so credibility is key. For example, before presenting any of the research findings from the study “Health Characteristics and Medical Service Use Patterns of Sheltered Homeless and Low-Income Housed Mothers” it would be important to explain how the study was carried out (as a survey of 220 homeless mothers and 216 low income housed mothers), because these are the issues that would be most heavily scrutinized by a group of scholarly readers. The results won’t be anything to a scholarly reader unless the methods are sound.
ReplyDeleteIn presenting research to a non-scholarly audience such as DU students, then what would be most important to represent are the facts, statistics and conclusions. The idea in this sort of presentation would be to educate the students, so it would be most important to present the raw information. It is safer to assume that students will not have as advanced knowledge on the subject of the metal and physical wellbeing of homeless mothers as educated scholars will, so they will not have as many questions about the methodology of the studies or how the research was carried out. So, to present the best way to present the research to students would be in numbers and facts that are easy to understand and cut straight to the point. Things such as only 46.4% of homeless mothers have graduated high school, or that a case study in Massachusetts found that 68.5% of sheltered mothers have never been married. These points would inspire thought in the students and inform them of the issues.
The primary difference between the ways the target audiences are presented two lies in what should be focused on. When talking to scholars, what is important is the means and integrity of research, because scholars will be more critical. Students will be more focused on the results, because they are likely to be less informed on the subject, and thus more curious about it. They will probably not have enough of their own information to want to discredit what you tell them, where as scholarly readers will be looking for any flaw in your argument, so it is most important to prove its credibility.
The research article that I have read is based off of a scientific study conducted in New York City's homeless shelters. This research is scholarly in that it follows the scientific model for a study by explaining logistically the researcher's background information, hypothesis, methods, discussion, conclusion, etc. Readers are likely to believe the findings from this article because they are presented in a formal scientific context. The language is formal and the article is not necessary trying to convince the reader of anything, but to simply show the results of a particular study. It is presented in an unbiased way. The researcher's show their credibility by conducting the study and going into detail about each caution they took to make it reliable and valid. At the end, the researcher's even acknowledge the possible faults (limitations) of the study and ways to improve further research in the future.
ReplyDeleteIf I had to translate my research and present it to an audience of DU students preparing to volunteer for Project Homeless Connect I believe that the most important information would be the ultimate findings from the article. It can be important to give a bit of background information about the study but an informal audience such as this doesn't necessarily need to know every little detail about the methods used, but instead what we can learn from the findings and how we can apply them to the task at hand (Project Homeless Connect). I would explain the findings of my particular article by describing the many difficulties homeless mothers face while trying to stay connected with their children. I would also explain how the system often works against them with its many restrictions and conflicting interests and how we can work to make the system better. It is important to use a less formal tone during this kind of writing and strive to find a way to connect the audience (emotionally not statistically) to the issue.
I would describe the difference between writing for scholars and for a group of your peers as a difference of both word choice, amount of information presented, and biased verses unbiased views. While writing for a scholarly source it is important to describe in detail the process and facts which the researcher has used to come to their conclusions in order to make it credible. In contrast, while writing for a group of your peers it is still important to show your credibility as a writer/researcher but instead of going into grave details about how the study was conducted, I find that it is more important to draw the readers in and make them care about the issue by presenting the findings from the study. This way, you can appeal to them necessarily on a scholarly level, but an emotionally stimulating level.