The readings for this week were in three parts: the Praxis text, the Rosenberg article regarding how to read scholarly articles, and the Stedman article regarding the annoyances of writing scholarly articles. I will address the readings in this order as well.
The Praxis text was quite dense this time around and very heavy with examples of different scholarly articles or excerpts from scholarly articles. The reading was more focused on how to write and develop research articles, which at this point, I find I have a lot of experience in. This stems from many years of being forced to write these types of papers and teachers in my more formative years feeling the need to reteach these very same skills to me. The book did not suggest anything that I haven't heard before and I don't feel the need to write in depth about most of it.
The Rosenberg article I found much more entertaining and brought to light a perspective that I have not often heard when instructed on how to read and interpret scholarly articles. I find that often when teachers have assigned scholarly articles it has often been in more of the capacity that I was assigned to find them as examples and less taught how to read them or sift through the plethora of information. Rosenberg states in the article something that I found quite intriguing and that made me realize that it is often how you approach the article that dictates what kind of information you will get from the article. Rosenberg says "Your job-and one for which you'll get plenty of help from your professors and your peers-is to locate the writer and yourself in this larger conversation." A scholarly article is never completely individual as many people contributed their information, opinions, and findings in order to help the author to come to their conclusions. I particularly like reading scholarly articles because I find that they remind me of reading case materials for law, my major and (hopefully) future career. I like to scrutinize and manipulate information to my needs, or as Rosenberg so eloquently put it, "...sucking the marrow from the texts."
The Stedman's article focused on the different semantics of actually and the subtle nuances or "annoyances" of writing research papers. The Stedman article I found was a perfect mix of the first two readings. It uses the more straight forwards techniques of addressing the issues like the Praxis text does but also the anecdotal aspects of the Rosenberg article. There is, however, one point in particular that I particularly relate to that I have seen in my own papers and others: quote bombing. Quotes that "come out of nowhere" can be ineffective or even confusing for the reader and serve an overall disservice to the paper itself. The most effective way that I have found to avoid the dreaded quote bomb is to think of my paper like a story. Did I set the stage/scene for my character? Then I introduce my character. Then, and only then, am I able to explain how my character plays a part in the larger plot.
Overall, I thought the two articles outside of the Praxis text were unique and invited a new perspective into the writing process for research papers but the Praxis reading I found somewhat stale.
Vi-Vi, I like your approach to overcoming quote bombs. To avoid packing your essay with data/ new information, it’s important to set the stage for your argument before proceeding with the quote. I like how you compare it to telling a story. You must know the background of the characters and plot before you can begin to explain the moral of the story. Great comparison!
ReplyDeleteIn addition, I enjoyed your analysis of the Steadman and Rosenberg articles. It truly is the approach to an article that determines your success in extracting the key points—not a focus on specific details. Coming from someone who does not have to read these articles often, I found it interesting to read about how one might approach them. I, personally, find it comical that students will dive in without any former context. That’s college for you! Anyway, it was also refreshing to hear you give the perspective of someone who enjoys reading these pieces. I, however, do not share your love of reading scholarly articles. I still took away valuable information from the readings, though. From the Rosenberg article, I learned that the title, author, and abstract are vital to understanding the context of the piece. These little tips and tricks will be incredibly helpful for you in your major and future career! It seems like you have a firm grasp of the subject, so you should be set!