Blogs

Blog I

During the past couple of weeks, I’ve started working as an intern for the DU Quark and have contributed towards peer reviewing articles and researching topics for my own writing. My experience has been very enjoyable thus far as I have been able to learn much about current scientific research and differing styles of composition. As an English major, reading and writing work from other fields is one of the best ways to develop greater proficiency in writing. One of the greatest challenges of scientific writing is finding ways to communicate current research findings to different levels of audiences. Some work is best left for scientific circles, and so the language doesn’t need to be simplified as much and should focus on only what is necessary. When writing for the general public, however, it is crucial to write in such a way that the research is communicated correctly, concisely, and efficiently.

This dichotomy between audience levels relates directly to opinions found in the composition field and I’ve learned that it is always important to keep the hypothetical audience in mind while writing. My experience with the Quark is certainly changing the way I view the reader when writing. As opposed to more creative and expressive pursuits, the writer cannot always be prioritized when dealing in scientific expression. The audience’s ability to learn what is being communicated should take precedence in journalism meant for the general public. As I continue my internship, I am very excited to learn more about writing in a different genre and how convention can change with the field.

Blog II

Since the beginning of my internship with the DU Quark, I’ve been focusing mainly on participating in peer-review and revising an article that I wrote for publication. Compared to the standard English writing conventions that I’m used to, scientific writing continues to surprise me in terms of its collaborative nature. The peer-review process alone has multiple rounds of consideration, each with its own set of suggestions, praise, and criticism. By the time of the final round, a scientific article has had multiple changes and has become more of a living document than a dedication of the author’s mind. I’ve noticed that both scientific writing and English journal articles enter into conversation with the field as a whole. Besides helping to establish a contemporary canon of research, both types of writing create an active flow of discourse that help shape and define the current knowledge base. The writer’s responsibility then transitions from that of the author of a document to that of a facilitator or interpreter of the field.

In revising my own scientific article on current graphene research, I’ve become especially aware of the need to accurately portray the research I’m citing. Since research developments happen all the time, figures and statistics don’t remain accurate forever. Though I only wrote the article six months ago, I’m constantly researching and checking definitions and terms to ensure that they’re still current with the field. Luckily, no major graphene innovation has occurred since last April. I’ve also been working on researching material for my article series on scientific literacy that I’ll start drafting in the next month. My tentative goal is to focus on the level of scientific understanding and critical thinking found in non-scientific careers and education.

Blog III

I’m beginning to draft my first article for the semester and have almost finished researching primary articles. Continuing with my last blog, I am still surprised about the level of collaboration in scientific writing. Though I focused on peer reviews last time, I noticed while researching articles that some are written collaboratively. In the humanities, collaborative approaches to writing are usually ill-considered. There are many concerns of plagiarism or unoriginality that develop whenever collaboration in such a capacity is mentioned. Yet, in the sciences, collaboration often lends a greater degree of credibility to the research. Featuring many separate researchers with differing specializations can result in discoveries that might otherwise be unavailable without interdisciplinary methods. I’ve been wondering if such an approach might be beneficial in the humanities. For a field that considers itself a place of intersectionality, there is a surprising level of individualism in the higher degrees of scholarship. When analyzing similar articles in English, there is usually only one author and attempts to encourage more have been met with criticism.

I am also interested in the scientific field’s citation habits. Where the humanities are concerned with citing ideas and representing the original author, the sciences seem to have a lessened reliance on the author. Review articles frequently cite multiple studies per sentence without mentioning or quoting who conducted the experiment. One article I’ve been reading titled Challenges in achieving an economically sustainable aquaponic system: a review features some pages that contain up to twenty-five separate sources. As I continue writing and researching, I’ll be interested to find what other ways these genres of writing differ from one another.

Blog IV

I’ve just finished my first article and submitted it for review at the DU Quark. My attention is now focused on finding a new topic for my second article that I’ll have finished by the end of November. Writing for a broader, potentially non-scientific audience has proven to be challenging, but enjoyable. I am increasingly aware of a need to be simple when translating language from a scientific study to my own article. Many of the concepts that are included in research have additional contexts and subfields that are very important to the research, but not pertinent to my own writing. I find that I frequently need to parse the language, locate the key points, and apply the results to my own topic. Though this is a basic aspect of the research process, I feel that it is sometimes overlooked in its significance. Writing cross-discipline mandates that the author be able to speak and respect the discourse of one field, and then successfully interpret this information for a different readership.

In learning about hydroponics and aquaponics, I’ve also begun to appreciate the subtleties of researching even more. I was surprised to find how many sources differed across search parameters for ‘hydroponics’ and ‘vertical farming.’ They aren’t the same thing, but they are similar enough that I thought they could be interchangeable. Nope. Each individual search results in a different set of articles showing. I’ve learned that vertical farming is a kind of applied hydroponics, and while vertical farming and hydroponic articles reference one another constantly, they are different for scientists. While preparing to write my next article, I will be cognizant of the many ways that a single concept can be represented and tailor my searches accordingly.

Blog V

I’ve just submitted my final article for review at the DU Quark and am working on finalizing my last few peer review assignments. Throughout the semester, I feel that my experience as an intern has improved my abilities as a writer, researcher, and peer reviewer. I’ve had the opportunity to write and submit three articles for publication. Two are still pending review and one has been accepted and published. Additionally, I have completed five rounds of peer review throughout the semester. I’ve learned much about giving constructive feedback, reviewing other’s work, and my own writing has even improved from the process.

Scientific communication is a very different field of composition than I’m used to engaging with in the humanities and I’ve come to understand the value of prioritizing the audience and deemphasizing the writer. When communicating or writing about current science events or even esoteric research articles, it is much easier to write cogently with a specific type of reader in mind. I’ve also been forced to find new databases and learn different search methods when finding resources in journals, books, and other materials through Gumberg library. Researching scientific articles has taught me the value of source mining reference lists, changing search parameters, and using review articles to direct me towards primary sources.

I’ve thoroughly enjoyed my semester interning with the DU Quark and have gained new insights and outlooks into the English field. Though I’m disappointed to see it end, I am thankful for the experiences that I’ve had during the past few months and am looking forward to starting the spring semester.