Final Reflection

Section I: Writing Across Genres

During my internship with the DU Quark, I was able to have invaluable experience writing in genres and formats with which I rarely engage.

The first article that I submitted was one that I had written for a previous class. It covered recent developments in graphene research and production. I didn’t so much write the article for this internship as I did revise it and fix minor structural issues. Compared to what is usually written in the humanities, and English in particular, writing a secondary research review was a unique experience. First, the type of research that needs to be conducted is vastly different from English. Instead of finding established philosophical or literary theorists whose ideas I could use to support or refute claims in my own writing, scientific reviews require the latest materials research from recently published journals. Interestingly, I noticed a few trends with the research articles’ authors: many of them were established through non-American and non-Western universities and institutions. English as a field is dominated by Western notions, authors, and ideas, so it was interesting to have experience reading scholarly research that was not from a 20^th century European theorist. Additionally, many articles were co-authored and written collaboratively across scientific disciplines. In a field where collaboration is easily equated, at least in literary circles, with plagiarism and other negatively connotative descriptors, it was interesting to see how actively collaborative writing functions. Of course, in some articles, it was easy to find where one author’s work ended and another’s began, but for the most part, the result was a very coherent document that was backed by more than credential and authored by more than one voice.

The second difference was formatting. Scientific reviews are not formatted in the same way that I have come to expect from English papers. Learning how to correctly cite in ACS (America Chemical Society) was a challenge at first. I needed to search ACS guidelines and learn how to properly meet the format. Eventually, I used EndNote to facilitate and organize my citations. Though I prefer hand-citing sources, EndNote proved to be a very valuable resource that I otherwise would not have tried if not for writing the article. Additionally, I surprised to find a predominant use of non-integral citations in scientific writing. Usually, a citation in English is formatted in MLA and is introduced by a signal phrase that mentions the author and their work, and then ends with a parenthetical notation such as (Author, Page Number). In the sciences, most citations neglect the author’s name, forgo signal phrases, and end in a superscript^. The result is a method of citation that focuses directly on the author’s contribution to the field and the merit of their research.

As for the writing itself, I found that short, concise writing was best for communicating what I had learned from my research. I learned that there is little room for embellishment or “fluffy” writing in scientific writing because it is rooted directly in empirical evidence and not theory or ideas. Every sentence had to be deliberate and grounded in scientifically backed evidence. Of course, this meant that I needed more sources to meet this requirement, but the end result was a coherent piece of writing.

The next two articles that I wrote were science writing and not scientific writing. The main difference being that the former is for a general audience and the latter is for a specialized audience. As compared to the scientific article of graphene, these needed to be simplified so that any interested reader could understand the science. I chose to write the first article on hydroponic farming systems – a vertical type of agriculture that can be more efficient and environmentally friendly than traditional. To do this, I took scientific research and publications, and streamlined their topics. I frequently found that, in order to present an accurate and coherent representation of the research, I needed to parse the large scientific language and focus on the results and their significance. Only then was I able to write an effective article that covered the research adequately. The second article was written on lab-grown meat. Since the FDA recently cleared the synthetic meat for human consumption, this article was geared more towards being a current event, and thus had a more journalistic nature. I attempted to cover the event itself and give background as to what the food is, and why it is significant.

Section II: Peer Review

During the semester, a major part of my internship was performing peer review on others’ works. I learned much about how to give constructive feedback that pays attention to the whole document’s importance and isn’t nitpicky. The Quark’s peer review rubrics helped with this and provided a guideline that covered all of the major aspects of a scientific research submission such as the title, abstract, introduction, etc. I found it was important to not just consider how these individual parts of a paper were written and if they were successful, but to also think about how they relate back to the rest of the paper as a whole. Peer reviewing allows for an outside perspective on writing which can be very valuable in evaluating the effectiveness of a piece of work overall. When my own work was reviewed, I was thankful to have input as to whether my work succeeded in conveying the information in a cogent format. Occasionally, structural, grammatical, and other parts of writing can be overlooked, and peer review can help to improve a paper’s overall efficiency.

I also learned about the value of revision in scientific works and found that there was a great amount of collaboration that can occur throughout peer review. Multiple rounds of review allow for different editorial perspectives to be considered before a work is ready for publication. The result is definitely the author’s own work but has been critiqued and evaluated in such a way that the final product is better and more refined than if no feedback would have been given. My internship experience has also changed my perspective on revision. I’ve historically thought about revision as a punishment for bad writing, but I’ve come to realize that good writing can become even better with revisions. And peer review is an effective way to recommend and facilitate revision in my own and others’ work.

Section III: How Writing Across Genres Prepares for Possible Careers, Jobs, Etc.

As of now, I am considering careers in professional or technical writing. I like writing in a formal and professional capacity but am unsure of if I want to pursue writing in a scientific capacity.

Genres allow the writer to categorize and identify a set of common themes that are present in a given field. Learning to work across genres has begun to prepare me for speaking the “language” of different disciplines by providing me with experience as both a recipient and contributor towards the science and humanities. I feel that in a liberal arts setting, my work with organizations like the DU Quark will aid me in writing objective, concise, fact-based, and research-supported prose. This is not to say that the humanities do not allow for such an exposure, but the sciences prize an attention to quantifiable metrics and materials interaction that the humanities do not always offer. Of course, the humanities values an attention to qualitative reasoning and critical analysis that are essential to understanding works of literature, rhetoric, and other humanistic writings that the sciences are conspicuously missing.

As I begin my career search and search for graduate programs that will further enhance my understanding of my field, I would like to keep the cross-discipline approach in mind. The DU Quark provided me with an opportunity to become immersed in the scientific genre during the semester, and that has given me valuable insight in writing with other fields. If, at some point in my career, I am faced with a genre I am unsure of, I will approach it by learning and reading as much of the genre as possible so that my work can thoughtfully contribute towards that specific discipline. And so, I think that writing cross-discipline has helped me the most by allowing me to experience a novel genre and forcing me to learn its workings. I’m not an expert at scientific writing, but I’ve certainly learned how communicative techniques differ across fields.

Section IV: How I’ve Changed as a Writer Over the Semester

Before this semester, I had never written for a publication or been in a position where I’ve been made to think critically about my audience. I had never experimented heavily with different citation styles or ways of communication other than standard English paper format. I had also never engaged in peer review and revision regularly; before the internship, these were always required parts of class work and I’ve come to understand the value of having more than one reader look over a draft.

Now that I have had more experience in writing across genres, I would like to incorporate them into my current writing methods and process. I’ve learned the value of writing within genre and understanding how to communicate efficiently with members of another type of discourse. My writing has also benefited from being exposed to other peer reviewers’ suggestions and peer reviewing other writers’ works. Occasionally, after marking something that is unclear, incorrect, or otherwise in need of revision, it is easier to spot the same mistake in my own writing. The scientific fields have taught me to write more concisely and not use more words than necessary when drafting a paper or work.

As for the writing formats in general, I have appreciated writing works with smaller word counts than the typical 2000-word, four-page paper. Though the scientific paper on graphene was much longer, the other two articles that I’ve written were significantly shorter. I learned to communicate as much as possible with as little as possible and I’ve learned that, structurally, my writing could continue to use improvement. I feel that overall, I’ve become a better writer as a result of my internship with the DU Quark and I am excited to see what other insights will come about moving forward.