- Both had titles following this sequence: "Title: A Research Paper."
- Both had abstracts, an introduction, results and a conclusion.
- Both had charts and graphs with data.
- Both had citations and a bibliography at the very end of the paper.
However, the difference between the two--obviously--is the content. The computer generator contains fake facts and random discussions, whereas the psychology paper legitimately contains information on experiments and research. Although, after comparing the two, it is understood that anything can appear to fall under the research paper genre just by following the same structure and tone of the content.
There are many important aspects of this paper on mental health, including the abstract. It explains from the get-go that these researches "experimentally tested the relationship between
unconditional self-acceptance (USA) and self-esteem, both explicit (ESE)
and implicit (ISE)." This is a very important factor to the paper because from the very beginning, the reader can understand the focus of their argument/purpose. Following the introduction of those terms were the definitions of those terms, using the DSM-IV as a source. It is also important to note the introduction contains the most citations from outside sources because it is a way to clear up any confusion as a reader goes further into the paper prior to inputting their own argument into action. They also supported their argument by saying no other major research has gone towards the correlation between unconditional self-acceptance and self-esteem. Finally, after clearing the air, these researchers go into the actual experiment.
While going over this paper, I realized that one important feature is its precision. From the method--including each instrument and step--to its results and analysis of those results, these writers did not exclude any information towards this experiment. This is one aspect that cannot be seen physically because it is based on its strong content. Additionally, the paper, of course, did not stop after the results. These writers continued to explain the meaning of their results through their general conclusion. They inputted graphs and diagrams with each explanation below them, which accounts to how thorough they were with this experiment.
Additionally, the scholarly writers understood that their intended audience were professionals--not teenagers scrolling mindlessly on Tumblr or Twitter. As they wrote with this in their head, the words in their paper included psychological terms and academic terms--or jargon. Since it falls under the genre of research paper, the jargon they used for this included transition words like "however", "in conclusion", "following", etc. While looking at psychological jargon, they used those terms mentioned in the abstract constantly while also applying statistic jargon (correlation, change, deviation) since both subjects coincide with one another.
Ultimately, these writers created an experiment and analysis as scholarly and professionally as they could. They knew what they were talking about because of these important parts of the structure and content that they knew they needed. In a reader's perspective, we are convinced that they knew what they were talking about and performing. They used an appeal to ethos by inputting multiple, reliable sources and also supporting their own argument by claiming its rareness.
From analyzing this paper and picking out its most important parts, it is evident that each piece of work under the same genre has similar conventions and structure, but of course, have its own flare. To understand how to write something like a research paper, one must be able to pick apart a research paper and understand its content.
- http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=a24a2a3d-91cd-494d-aaa5-2e317385b3e4%40sessionmgr115&vid=4&hid=116
- http://scigen.csail.mit.edu/scicache/278/scimakelatex.4295.Pamela+Santos.html
Santos, I really enjoyed reading your PB2A and liked your topic on psychology. What I liked most about your PB2a is how clear the similar conventions of each article was first presented with the use of bulletin points. I did however think that you could include a little more on how the article you chose relates to the SciGen generated article. However, it is clear that you did understand that they had some similarities because in your last paragraph you stated "It is evident that each piece of work under the same genre has similar conventions and structure, but of course, have its own flare" but maybe could have analyzed it more in the body paragraphs. I also did notice that you (even though we learned this after our PB2a was due) could have used the italics rule we learned in class (for future assignments) to analyze diction and how diction is important when appealing to a specific audience like "professionals" in your sixth paragraph.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I enjoyed reading your PB2a and you definitely did a great job of analyzing the psychology article.