Who knew that research
paper’s about Feminism and Emerging Sexualities would have so much in common
with research paper’s about Development of Expert Systems?
My SCIgen research paper and the paper I chose about Feminism and Friends with Benefits Relationships covered more of the same conventions than you’d think. The SCIgen paper starts off with an abstract and introduction, and follows through with a basic structure¾related work, design of the experiment, implementation, results and analysis, a conclusion, and references. The Feminism research paper followed a structure almost identical to the one from SCIgen. The Feminism paper uses more modern and sophisticated language and tone, while the SCIgen paper takes on a more advanced and technical voice. In the Feminism paper the writers seem to aim for more of a young adult type of audience, where the SCIgen writer aim’s towards an audience of inventor’s or “super nerds.” Both paper’s conduct some type of experiment based on research, and write about their results, but the way the information is presented comes across differently. These papers’ both have graphs/charts and plenty of analysis based on their experiments and results. Overall both papers depict all the conventions you’d expect to get out of a research based paper, yet they differ in the way that they emanate these conventions to their reader. However, the Feminism paper comes across more realistic and indulges in information about current real life situations and relationships. The Feminism paper differs from the SCIgen one in the fact that it reads and relates like it was written by real people. It’s clear in the tone and topic that the Feminism paper was not generated by a computer system about a random topic. It has depth and meaning behind the experiment and information it provides, where the SCIgen paper is about whatever the generator conjured up.
In reading this paper on Feminism and Sexuality, I came across a few things
I deemed important. The writers of this piece dedicated a specific part of the
paper to discussing “Sexuality in Third Wave Feminism.” The writers talk about
how women are unable to seek sexual agency because they are repressed, and how
casual relationships or ‘friends with benefits’ are becoming more and more
common among young women. It touches on how these relationships “aren’t
problematic,” but they may be “evidence of young women’s sexual autonomy and
independence.” This shed’s light into the writer’s views on the subject they’re
covering and how they feel about the issue. It also provides insight on their
experiment and what kind of research they will be conducting.My SCIgen research paper and the paper I chose about Feminism and Friends with Benefits Relationships covered more of the same conventions than you’d think. The SCIgen paper starts off with an abstract and introduction, and follows through with a basic structure¾related work, design of the experiment, implementation, results and analysis, a conclusion, and references. The Feminism research paper followed a structure almost identical to the one from SCIgen. The Feminism paper uses more modern and sophisticated language and tone, while the SCIgen paper takes on a more advanced and technical voice. In the Feminism paper the writers seem to aim for more of a young adult type of audience, where the SCIgen writer aim’s towards an audience of inventor’s or “super nerds.” Both paper’s conduct some type of experiment based on research, and write about their results, but the way the information is presented comes across differently. These papers’ both have graphs/charts and plenty of analysis based on their experiments and results. Overall both papers depict all the conventions you’d expect to get out of a research based paper, yet they differ in the way that they emanate these conventions to their reader. However, the Feminism paper comes across more realistic and indulges in information about current real life situations and relationships. The Feminism paper differs from the SCIgen one in the fact that it reads and relates like it was written by real people. It’s clear in the tone and topic that the Feminism paper was not generated by a computer system about a random topic. It has depth and meaning behind the experiment and information it provides, where the SCIgen paper is about whatever the generator conjured up.
In addition to this, I think it’s important that the writers are covering a topic that can be relative to it’s readers. It’s incredibly common for people of our age and even older to enter into ‘casual relationships’ with one another. Reader’s will convey interest in reading a paper if they are hooked, and this subject is one of great interest among college students. Like I said previously, it also shows the writers are invested in their research.
The last thing I noticed that was that they conducted the experiment with college students from age 18-25. This is a pretty typical age for the ‘hookup culture’ and ‘friends with benefits’ relationships to occur. The people the writer’s used in their experiment are important because it demonstrates accuracy. They used the age group and type of young adults that would typically engage in one of these relationships to measure their thesis. This is vital in any kind of research, because an experiment is pointless if not conducted with the most precise components.
I think you chose a very interesting article to write about. This article is, in fact, very relatable to people in our age demographic, as you have also noted in your post. I didn’t see a lot of reference to rhetorical elements in your post, though. Great job providing the comparison for the conventions in the SCIgen and your scholarly article, though. I think rhetorical elements should be emphasized more so that the reader can understand what the author did and how the author proved her or his point. Also, I think the important aspects of the article should be elaborated more on the rhetorical sense as well. Despite that, you did a great job explaining the article's content and it even made me want to read it! Very convincing in that aspect.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThis is a super interesting topic so I think it was good that you went into a bit of detail about the content of the article. My biggest criticism is that you didn’t address the part of the prompt about comparing and contrasting the rhetorical features. I kinda feel you on that though because it was really hard for me to think of the rhetoric used in the SCIgen papers. I also think you could have extended your intro a bit. I initially thought your intro was the second paragraph but the content seems more like a body paragraph to me! Overall good job in my opinion! You kept me interested (which is hard to do).
I really enjoyed reading your PB not only because you picked an interesting article, but because the structure of your PB was clean and well done. I liked how it flowed and how all of your points connected to each other. I thought that you did a good job following the prompt by showing what you thought was important in the your article and also by explaining why you thought it was important. Overall I think that your PB was both informative and insightful, you completed the assignment effectively and made it easy to read, nice work.
ReplyDelete