PB2A
Comparing Genres
The
scholarly source I will be comparing and contrasting is an academic journal
entitles, “Diagnostics in animal health: How UC helps exclude and minimize
impact of livestock pathogens.” It has different conventions from the SCIgen paper
generator, yet shares some of the same features. For starters, the UC journal
is formatted in a way that looks like it came out of a text book. The pages are
filled with charts and several photographs of livestock in color. This source
has been peer reviewed and includes publication details. Each page is numbered,
unlike research papers which typically aren’t. The audience is probably a
younger crowd interested in learning about the living conditions of the lives
of California’s domesticated animals. The tone is informative, yet not too
serious. The source includes a few illustrated pictures of cattle and chickens
that lighten the reading. The SCIgen source is probably not as easy to read for
those who are not experts in the scientific field. Whereas the agricultural
journal is a common field and uses simpler terms. The tone of the scientific
paper is very serious. The UC journal contains factual material whereas the SCIgen
paper does not. The scientific source is formatted correctly but it does not
provide useful information. The purpose of this is to let you see the structure
when writing your own paper. The agricultural journal has credibility because it
is not just a bunch of gibberish. It contains evidence from other researchers making it a reliable source for info. Additionally, the UC journal is organized into columns, like you would find in a magazine. The research paper does not look like this because that's not one of its conventions,
These
two sources share many similarities. They both include a title with language
relative to the topic at hand. Several data charts / graphs / models are
included in both to demonstrate evidence or explain data. They have abstract paragraphs,
however they are not located in the same place. The abstract of the UC journal
is located in the cover page and the abstract of the scientific journal is the
very first paragraph of the paper. Both sources are broken down paragraph by
paragraph with each containing a title beforehand. Additionally, the paragraphs
in the SCIgen generator are numbered unlike the ones in the journal. The
structure of these two sources make it easier to divide different aspects so
that the paper flows coherently. They
both use outside sources as evidence for back up that is included in the
reference section at the end. The authors are mentioned directly underneath the
title in these sources. The two sources are research based, even if one of them
does not contain actual information that is true.
What
strikes me as most important of the UC journal is its use of diagrams. One
specifically explains what happens when cattle get sick and the consequences
that are possible. This is important for us to know as omnivores because we don’t
really think about the life of the cow before taking a bite of a burger. I
liked the diagram because it made it more intriguing to learn this way, rather
than reading a lengthy paragraph. Other images throughout the journal were also
very helpful. They help you see things exactly as they are so that when you’re
reading you can get a better idea of what is happening. Background info is also
important when reading any scholarly source. Not everyone is going to be an
expert in the field of the topic of a paper, so a brief background allows the
reader to understand what he or she is about to read.
When
one is reading either of these sources, it’s pretty easy to tell that they are
meant for academic purposes. Both can be read by students or those who are
merely interested on the subject. They are specific to one aspect in that
particular field that way the content isn’t too broad. They are both useful in
their own way. They are classified under individual genres that differentiate a
journal from a research paper. However, they do share a lot of the same
characteristics in common.
I liked how you used an agricultural article to compare with the SCIgen generator! It allows for a lot more room to find contrasts between the two articles. One thing I would have to disagree with you on is that research papers do not use columns because in many that I have used for previous papers do! Its interesting that you pointed out how the abstracts are in two different spots in each article. I really like how the most significant part of the UC journal was the diagrams and pictures that accompanied the articles. The diagrams often times do make things easier to understand because you are able to see exactly what the author is talking about. I agree that it was easy to tell what both of this genres entailed. They are both meant for a specific field; the research allows scientists to explore new realms and share new ideas with others in the same field.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed and appreciated how you described the UC journal in such great detail. It really helped me visualize the journal and allowed me to compare it to my memory of the SCIgen generator. I thought it was really interesting that you chose to begin the paper with how the agricultural journal differs from the SCIgen generator, rather than how they are alike. It was a very unique approach that I feel really hooks the reader. I agree that the use of diagrams is incredibly important in scholarly articles. They’re excellent tools for learning and understanding difficult information, as many people learn better by visualizing things as opposed to reading lengthy paragraphs about them. I thought it was really cool that you concluded that the two pieces were members of different genres. It’s an important distinction to make that two written works can share common traits and not belong to the same genre.
ReplyDelete