Analyzing My Text's Cultural Setting

In the following post, I will further analyze my article by focusing on its cultural setting - when and where - in order to connect the cultural beliefs and values of this setting and how they influence the piece as a whole.

berkemeyer. "Team Corporate Culture" 4/30/15 via pixabay. CC0 Public Domain License. 

When and Where

This article was published in September of 2007 via the online journal known as Elsevier. Elsevier has many locations around the world. The source of this article is listed as being in Ireland. 

The author, however, is from Seattle, Washington in the USA. He is very active in the medical field, and has a lot of experience in this issue. 

The focused time frame for this article is the 21st century. Though use of circumcision has been around for decades, it is recent medical practices that have questioned its safety on multiple levels. 

Questions We Might Ask

What values, ideas, norms, beliefs, even laws of the culture play an important role in the text?

The main cultural belief in question in this article is the idea of circumcision in neonatal males. All other beliefs focus on this: Is it ethical? Do the risks outweigh the advantages, etc.? If circumcision was a medical process actively practiced today, this article would not exist, nor would the beliefs that it is fueled by. 

Does the text address these cultural values, beliefs, etc., directly (by directly mentioning and responding to them) or indirectly (by presenting the scenario or narrative that addresses them)?

The text responds to this cultural norm directly, sometimes sarcastically by accusing the public and even doctors in support of the procedure of being ignorant. The author's disapproval of this "cultural norm" is at the center of his argument. 

What is the relationship of the text to the values, beliefs, etc.? Is it critical of these aspects of the culture? Is it supportive? Does it seek to modify these aspects of the culture in a certain way?

These values and beliefs are directly related to the article. Ultimately, they are the question, and the article is the answer. The author is directly questioning an aspect of society in a critical manner. He points out the flaw in the medicine practice, and society's continuous use of it. Hill's purpose is most certainly to modify the practice of circumcision in society. He blatantly states his disapproval, and his credentials make his argument hard to ignore. 

Cultural Analysis of 'The Case Against Circumcision '

The text I've chosen for Project 2 is The Case Against Circumcision by George Hill. In the following post, I will analyzing the cultural context of this source's argument as per the Writing Public Lives reading.

Bohland, Alyssa. "Screen shot of 'The case against circumcision' article" 9/30/2015 via Doctors Opposing Circumcision 

My chosen cultural keywords: 

unethical, risks, disillusioned 

Basic Thesis / Main Argument:

There is no real evidence to support neonatal circumcision, only outdated misconceptions originated from outdated (and since proven false) medical practices. 

Freewrite

Circumcision in neonate males has been an unquestioned routine in the birthing process for decades. Medical professionals have boasted its benefits in medical terms. Recent studies, however, have suggested that these thoughts are disillusioned and there are more risks than benefits associated with the process. 

In addition to evidence of risks, the author also proposes that the process is unethical, violating the rights of the child who is unable to make the decision by himself. 

How do these keywords help support the argument that the author is making?

The author's argument against neonatal circumcision includes an emphasis on the medical risks, the ethical concerns of the child, and the overall lack of knowledge of both parents and medical professionals in discrediting the practice. These keywords define the major points of his argument, and are thus very good supporters.

Why might an audience be more likely to support this argument if it is connected to these values?

The author appeals to society's sense of propriety. He makes a very strong argument about how everyone had been misled to believe the benefits of circumcision far outweigh not being circumcised. His tone in the article does, at points, verge on being critical of the public's blind approval of the practice, and labels the doctors who still support it as being "wounded" because they themselves are circumcised. However, he supports his sarcasm by clearly and succinctly pointing out the benefits of a neonatal male remaining uncircumcised. 

Evaluation of Rhetorical Situations

In the following post, I will be analyzing the rhetorical situations of three different public speech acts centered around my field (nursing).

Stojanovic, Darko. "Medical Appointment" 1/26/2015 via pixabay. CC0 Public Domain License. 

Article 1

Even In Nursing, Women Are Paid Less Than Men

Author/Speaker

Author, Lisa Rapaport, is an experienced journalist. She writes for many different online sources, including Bloomerberg Business, Reuters, and Muck Rack. Much of her writing focuses on medical and health reports. She is a graduate of the University of California and lists her employment as Public Relations and Communication, but is now living in New York, New York. As a woman, of course, her portrayal in this article can be seen as somewhat biased. She may in fact be a feminist by nature, slightly lessening her credentials. 

Audience 

Rapaport doesn't report the issue with the voice of someone making a call to feminists. The intended audience, rather, is the general concerned public. Her rhetoric doesn't urge female nurses to action, instead stating the facts and possible reasoning behind the male populace's increased pay. A majority of the article consists of quotes and references to other studies, suggesting that the article is intended as a source of information, rather than an opinionated disapproval. 

Context

This article is definitely a result of the recent call to inequality between men and women in all areas of wife. Though it does verbosely define the events described in the article as wrong, it still shed light on yet another example of male preference in another walk of life. Its incorporation of quotes, paraphrasing and references are reminiscent of a news article. It function in much the same way, as well, providing a brief report as to the newly discovered (though always present) difference in male to female pay in the nursing career. 

Article 2

California Bill Would Let Nurses Perform Abortion During First Trimester 

Author/Speaker

Author, Kathleen Miles, is the Senior Editor at The WorldPost. She has also worked in politics as a district representative for congressmen. As a writer heavily invested in the political industry, the author focuses moreso on the political standpoint of the argument rather than the health related one. She expresses her expertise very well in the article while still giving insight on the medical issue itself.

Audience

Interestingly enough, the article is actually targeted toward those interested and in support of abortion. He article focuses heavily on the benefits on the bill, despite the title's suggestion. She emphasizes that allowing nurses to person first trimester abortions would decrease the number of second trimester abortions, which are more dangerous and expensive. She also refers to those who believe the bill is a mistake "...[lowering the] standard of care for women..."

Context

The contemporary focus for this article is definitely abortion. Without the controversy of the increased popularity of abortion, this article would be nonexistent. It lays out the truth, that abortion is gaining more popularity and is, arguably, progressively being viewed as less sinful than it was once believed to be. The author, of course, does not outwardly say this. It is the way she states the fact without a tone of disapproval that proves this point. 

Article 3

Wet Nursing Is Back! Sort of.

Author/Speaker

Author Amanda Marcotte is an American blogger with a focus on politics and feminism. She was hired as a presidential compaign blogmaster in 2008. Her blogposts and articles have been the subject of many controversial issues over her career. This article focuses on her rally for feminism. Unlike the first two articles, Marcotte's voice is definitely prevalent in the article.

Audience

Marcotte targets feminist mothers all around the world. Her writing includes the strong voice (her voice) of a supporter of all things feminist. Though she provides support and rebuttal for the selling of breast milk, her views are clear in the sarcastic nature of her writing. The title of the article alone defines the article as one that is not of the scholarly sort. 

Context 

Though it's not said in so many words, this article states the opinion of pregnancy being a beautiful and powerful process. Breast milk is portrayed as the super power giving entity of the world. She refers to wet nursing as an example of the necessity for breast milk in healthy babies across the centuries. This article is not to be taken seriously in scholarly context. It applauds the mothering profession while also empowering the feminist view. 

Reflection 

I believe my analyses of my articles were successful in encompassing the three categories/questions. I went slightly more in depth under audience than some of my peers. I found that, at least in the cases of my articles, the intended audience was somewhat vague. In Kelly's post, she defined all three of her sources' audiences as being runners (as befitted her topic). Following this regulation, my audience would seem to be nurses. However, I found that this was not always the case.

My analyses were very similar to Morgan's, whose post I also read. She was very descriptive within each category, helping to emphasize the rhetorical boundaries of each article within each category individually. In this exercise, I believe it was more important to elaborate on the rhetoric rather than simply answer the questions.

Developing a Research Question

In the following post I will be brainstorming new ideas for Project 2, focusing on specific questions I have in reference to my field's controversy.

OpenClipartVectors. "number 2" 9/25/2014 via pixabay. CC0 Public Domain License. 

The practice of medicine is filled with controversies as to the best care practices for its patients. These patients vary from field to field, as do their conditions and the methods best suited to treat them. Neonatology struggles with several controversial issues as well as with the additional struggle of the boundaries of ethics when treating infants.

These controversial issues have encourage research and discussion. I will present the leading issues in neonatal care are present research questions so as to further investigate myself.

The Use of Steroids In Premature Infants 

Steroids have proven to be very effective in the treatment of newborn infants with bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), a lung disease common in infants born severely premature. Symptoms include inflammation and scarring in the lungs. The initial steroid used for BPD was known as Dexamethasone. However, prolonged use at younger ages and higher doses resulted in neurological impairments and cerebral palsy, prompting the American Academy of Pediatrics to discontinue its use in infants.

Another steroid (hydrocortisone) has since been proposed as the best effective treatment of BPD. It has been tested in very small doses, and as such has not exhibited any results. The controversy then is the possibility of increasing dosage in order to attain the desired results.

The Question
1. Are increased doses of hydrocortisone safe and effective for the prevention/treatment of BPD in premature infants?

           Related Questions:
           - Are higher does of hydrocortisone associated with neurological impairment and/or cerebral palsey?
           - What is the optimal length of treatment and dose of hydrocortisone?

Treatment of Hypoxic Ischemic Encephalopathy 

Hypoxic Ischemic Encephalopathy (HIE) is a condition in neonatal care, commonly associated with increased morbidity. The survival rate is very low and those that do survive are faced with long-term effects such as cerebral palsy, blindness, deafness, autism, epilepsy, and developmental delay. This condition is a result of decreased oxygenation and blood supply. 

Several neuroprotective agents are being researched in the treatment of HIE, including Epogen, Magnesium Sulfate, stem cell therapy, hypothermia, and allopurinol. Though all have proven helpful in some preventative method, neither alone has proven significantly helpful. 

The Question

2. Can a combination of several or all the treatments be considered safe and effective to provide to the mother pre and postnatally for the prevention of HIE?

          Related Question:

          -Can any or all of the individual treatments be used routinely as a prevention method? 

Probiotics in the Prevention of Necrotizing Enterocolitis

Necrotizing Enterocolitis (NEC) is a condition in seen in premature infants where portions of an infant's bowel will undergo necrosis, or tissue death. Probiotics are nonpathogenic bacteria that are deliberately introduced to the body in order to produce positive effects. This method in treating NEC is relatively new to the neonatal health field and is receiving a lot of criticism on its benefits.

As such a new science, doses and long-term effects are considerably vague and unknown. Though many doctors emphatically support its increased use, others claim it is too unknown.

The Question 

3. What are the long-term effects of the use of probiotics to treat NEC?

            Related Questions:

            - Are probiotics safe? And in what dosage? 

            -What strain (what probiotic specifically) is optimal? 

I am interested in these questions as, not only are they scientifically interesting in general, they are also very important research questions in my field right now. Having a former knowledge of these issues could benefit me in my future, high-level education classes and, eventually, in my career. Even performing the basic research of finding these questions has greatly increased my knowledge of exactly what it is I will be trying to accomplish in my field. 

Reflection on Project 1

In the following post, I will reflect on the process of making my own Quick Reference Guide, focusing on the strategies I found most effective, and similarities/differences to my other writing experiences.

Ramdlon. "Writer" 1/24/2015 via pixabay. CC0 Public Domain License. 

What challenges did you face during the Quick Reference Guide project and how did you deal with them?
My biggest challenge revolved around the broadness of my topic. I chose the topic because it interested me, but soon learned that it was maybe not the best for the project's purposes. However, I found that I was still able to successfully portray information simply by providing a variety of specific examples.


What successes did you experience on the project and how did they happen?
I believe I was successfully able to provide a full, intellectual portrayal and analysis of my chosen controversy. In the process, I also successfully learned a lot about my degree. This was all the result of detailed and prolonged research. I spent a lot of time searching through different sources for different views and stories on my topic.


What kinds of arguments, rhetorical strategies, design choices and writing practices did you find the most effective for your project? Why?
For this project, I found that strategies that I have not previously used in writing classes to be helpful. Rather than state my opinion and provide support for that opinion, I simply stated the facts in an intelligent, to-the-point manner.

My design choices were meant to be aesthetically appealing. I always separated large parts of writing with pictures or changes in the layout to keep the paper visually interesting.


What kinds of arguments, rhetorical strategies, design choices and writing practices did you find were not effective for your project? Why?
I refrained from giving any sort of opinions, or at least any very strong opinions. The opinions that are beneficial to a QRG are the opinions of the public. I wasn't exactly sure what the exclude as far as design choices went. My main restriction was to not put too much, but just enough.


How was the writing process for this project similar to other school writing experiences you've had in the past?
Research! That's all I have to say. Many of the experiences I've had in writing involved a heavy load of research. This project was very similar in that respect.


How was the writing process for this project different from other school writing experiences you've had in the past?
It was different in more ways than it was similar. The process itself was much more extensive than any of my other writing projects. My previous writing classes in large part consisted of in-class writing analyses, rather than prolonged writing projects.


Would any of the skills you practiced for this project be useful in your other coursework? Why or why not? 
Yes; I definitely believe the skills utilized in this project can be viable in other coursework. Research is important in practically every field and, though it may not be applicable in specific classes, will be very important in the "grand scheme."

I'm also a firm believer in the benefits of being a good writer. Being an apt writer is beneficial in every class.


Reflection
I read Savannah and Isabel's posts on their own experiences writing a Quick Reference Guide. I was reassured by their own reflections, as we all seemed to have similar views on what was effective and ineffective as far as the construction of our QRGs went.

I also read something particularly interesting and relate-able in Savannah's post. We both had difficulties with the technological aspect of this project, researching deep within the web, posting blogs, using google docs, etc. I found this the most challenging part of this project, even considering I had never had any experience writing a QRG. It is nice knowing I am not the only one behind the times of my generation!

Quick Reference Guide

The following post includes the link to my official Quick Reference Guide on the ethical controversy in Neonatal Nursing.

Hurley, Andrew. "The Start and Finish Line" 9/25/2011 via flickr. Attribution Share-Alike 2.0 Generic License.

My Quick Reference Guide:

Link: The Neonatal Profession: How Far Is Too Far?

**Note: I tried to publish my QRG directly using Google Docs. However, when I did this, it ruined my formatting. As formatting is a very important convention of this genre, I decided instead to link directly to the unpublished document. 

Clarity, Part 2

In the following post, I will analyze four more topics to help me improve my writing process and style, focusing on how these topics can help me edit my Quick Reference Guide.

Cartagena, Debora. "Magnifying Glass" 4/23/2015 via Public Domain Image. Public Domain CC0 License.

Sections I Read

Untangle Mixed Constructions 

Choose Appropriate Language

Repair Misplaced and Dangling Modifiers

Emphasize Key Ideas

With the topics I selected this time, I intend to target areas of my writing that I don't necessarily consider to be in dire need of improvement. At this point in the drafting process, I believe it is best to focus on fine-tuning my QRG. 

Reading the Rules for Writers' excerpts on these topics, I learned many specific rules and suggestions for good writing habits. In the Untangle Mixed Constructions section, the book stated that this can either be present grammatically or logically. For my writing style and issues specifically, I believe it applies to me more logically. 

The other categories taught me more simplistic grammatical skills. Generally, they were aimed to improve the flow of a piece of writing. I definitely think this is important in a QRG, so I will make sure to very carefully look for this skills.

After Drafting

After editing my draft several times, I confirmed what I had mentioned above. I am prone to 'mixed constructions,' on the logical level. The most drastic edits I made to my paper included rearranging sentences (and sometimes whole paragraphs) to more accurately portray information (untangling so to speak). 

The following example is of a flaw in Emphasizing Key Ideas. I was informed during peer-editing that this was somewhat vague and unclear.  

They are unique in the fact that they cannot respond to stimuli in the traditional sense.

The following example is of a flaw in Choosing Appropriate Language. Also during peer-editing, I was informed that this sentence was somewhat contradictory and needed to worded differently.

Research and interrogation of statistics and morality propose a very controversial question to the neonatal profession.

Identifying Basic Grammar Patterns

In this post, I will analyze grammatical elements of my writing style by focusing on a specific paragraph (the longest paragraph) from my QRG.

Eyal, Alex. "Sentience Structure." 1/4/2010 via flickr. Attribution Non-Commercial Share-Alike 2.0 Generic License.

Link to Longest Paragraph Exercise

The only grammatical aspect that I found I had trouble identifying in my paragraph was the "Sentence Purposes" category. I found the absence of exclamatory and imperative sentences indicative of a QRG. My purpose is not to enforce my opinion with exclamatory and imperative sentences. My paragraph consisted of entirely declarative sentences. I believe this was fitting for the genre; however, I might have to consider incorporating the other sentence purposes. 

Paragraph Analysis

In this post I will analyze the paragraphs of my Quick Reference Guide, utilizing the points and guidelines in the Rules for Writers textbook.

Bellucci, Marco. "Question Mark" 8/4/2005 via flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

Link to Copy for Paragraph Analysis QRG

Reflection

Though I am unfamiliar with this genre and have been learning a lot about my strengths and weaknesses in different modes of writing, I am fairly confident with my writing on a paragraph-to-paragraph basis. As such, I didn't find many aspects that I felt needed much improvement. That being said, I did find some of what the book mentioned helpful.

In reference to my QRG, I need to consider reviewing the main points in each of my paragraphs. In my eyes, a lot of what the book said on this point was vague and irrelevant to this genre. As a QRG consists of many smaller paragraphs, repeating a main point that links to the thesis at the beginning of every paragraph would be pointless, and definitely defeat the QRG's purpose of being concise and easy to follow.

Reflection on Project 1 Draft

In the post below I will be analyze the comments of my peers on the first draft of my Quick Reference Guide, focusing particularly on the categories "Audience" and "Context."

innoxiuss. "The Thinker Musee Rodin" 11/24/2006 via WikipediaCommons. Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License. 

I read Morgan and Ayra's first draft QRGs and provided feedback on areas that I considered in need of slight improvement.

Audience
Who specifically, is going to be reading this essay? Who am I trying to reach with my arguments?
Having a classmate read my QRG has really helped me with this problem. Kelly, who read and commented on my QRG was very helpful in "putting my back in place" so to speak.

What are their values and expectations? Am I adequately meeting those expectations?
From Kelly's comments, I do believe I did fairly well in this category. I don't think it's one I will need to be focusing on further on in the drafting process.

How much information do I need to give my audience? How much background information or context should I provide for them without insulting their experience?
Kelly mentioned that I have maybe too many long quotes. I see this as me most likely providing more information than necessary (as I'm prone to do in any form of writing). I will definitely be working on this.

What tone should I use with my audience? Do I use this tone consistently throughout the draft?
I also received a few comments on words and phrasing that made the QRG harder to read because they were a little too formal. Formal is definitely my preferred style of writing, so I will have to focus on this one specifically.


Context
What are the formatting requirements of the assignment? Do I meet them?
I tried very hard in my draft to make my QRG aesthetically pleasing. I'm not familiar with Google Docs, so I would still like to explore more with the system. So far, so good though.

What are the content requirements for the assignment? Do I meet them?
I will definitely be looking over the requirements repeatedly in the last steps of this module. For the step in the process that we are currently in, I believe I have provided all requirements adequately.

Does my draft reflect knowledge or skills gained in class in addition to my own ideas and voice?
The comments I received were all mainly focused on being too wordy and confusing in a few sentence structure. I do believe I laid all the information based on my knowledge out there, I just need to work on how I conveyed that information.

Have I addressed any grammatical issues that my teacher highlighted in class or in my previously-graded assignments?
The only grammatical critique I received was on words and phrases that made the sentences too confusing. I will be working to fix these flaws.


Overall, this entire process has been extremely helpful. Kelly did a great job providing me with constructive feedback. I found myself nodding my head in agreement with everything she suggested. I'm very happy she had the chance to look over my paper!

Clarity, Part 1

In the following post, I will relate my experiences and writing history, focusing on topics which will help me to improve my writing process and style.

Johnson, Nigel. "floating lightbulb" 4/3/2010 via flickr. All Rights Reserved.

Sections I Read:

Active Verbs

Eliminate Distracting Shifts

Tighten Wordy Sentences

Find The Exact Words

Reading these sections, I experienced many "lightbulb" moments. Some of the issues addressed registered with me immediately. I realized that, though the book was listing very specific/grammatical examples, most of what I consider my writing flaws are in a bigger more general category.

For example, the Eliminate Distracting Shifts section described me to a tee. I don't know any technical terms for it, but I am a 'lengthy' writer. Essays are my forte and I actually enjoy writing them (gasp!). Though I know where I'm going in my mind, I'm sure readers hardly do when I segue on one of these distracting shifts (which happens more often than I would like). It is a writing technique I am definitely hoping to improve in the future.

The other sections are ones that apply to the more technical side of my writing style. Though I definitely struggle with all three during my writing process, it's nothing that can't be fixed with a little bit of peer-editing and a lot of staring

Reflection
One thing I learned from reading and editing my peer's QRGs is that I may have done exactly what I described above in my QRG. My QRG is a bit longer than the two that I read, which leads me to think maybe I need to "eliminate distracting shifts" somewhere along the way. I also saw that writers (like me) often need a helping hand when it comes to finding the write way/word to say something. I attempted to help both Ayra and Morgan with this category: Finding the Exact Words. 

In Ayra's QRG, though her QRG was very well-written, there were a few instances in which I felt she hadn't found the word she was looking for. One such sentence was: "The reason for so much outrage can be due to many reasons, but looking at some contextual information can help explain see why there is so much outrage about this specific topic." I commented that she should consider another word in place of one or both of the "reasons."

In Morgan's QRG, I similarly saw a few instances in which a few words could be proposed. For example, "On the flip side, it’s an opinion that rape survivors need to be protected from the subject of rape." In this sentence, I suggested the phase "flip side" was maybe somewhat informal, and could be replaced with "contrarily" or "conversely."

Thoughts on Drafting

In the post below I will reflect on my QRG drafting process, emphasizing the differences in the drafting suggestions as mentioned in the Student's Guide reading.

Gerry, Elbridge. "Backspace." 6/4/2010 via Wikipedia Commons. Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 2.5 Generic.

What parts of this book's advice on the drafting process are helpful for writing in this genre?

Drafting a Thesis Statement

I found the book's advice on developing a strong thesis very helpful and applicable in the Quick Reference Guide genre. They emphasized that, ultimately, the thesis is a "promise" we as writers are making to the reader about the contents of the paper. This correlates very well with the QRG genre, as a QRG is, simply put, a "promise" of information. A strong thesis is necessary for a successful Quick Reference Guide. 

Writing Introductions

The book made a point of emphasizing that an introduction will be unique to the style of writing. The Quick Reference Guide genre is like any ordinary essay in the fact that it does require a well-developed, attention-grabbing introduction. I believe the book's advice was very helpful in this aspect. 

Organizing Information

Much like the Writing Introductions category, the book described a pieces' organization as not being a single, one-size-fits-all scenario. Their emphasis was on organizing your writing in a purposeful way, considering the logos of your argument. I think this is very wise advice in this genre, as the most purposeful organization for a QRG is very guided and easy to follow. 

What parts of this book's advice on the drafting process are not helpful for writing in this genre?

Writing paragraphs in PIE format

Quick Reference Guides (like blogging) are not reminiscent of the typical essay-informative style, with long paragraphs, focusing on detailed explanations. One of the most important conventions of a QRG is a concise, simplistic form of writing. Elaborate explanations, as dictated by the PIE format, are not ideal in this genre.  

Writing Conclusions 

I had a harder time deciding where to place this category. Ultimately, I decided to define it as less helpful than the others. The book's description of a conclusion involved a lot 'reinforcing' the opinion/idea you were claiming in the writing. This is not the purpose of a QRG. A good QRG is meant to abstain from giving any opinions, and simply state the facts. As such, the conclusion should be formatted somewhat differently than the book's suggestions.


Reflection
In Kelly and Morgan's posts, I learned that it is very easy to have differences of opinion when it comes to writing. As our explanations and classifications differed both drastically and slightly, I saw that much of the conventions of any genre are greatly created and affected by the author.

When it comes to my QRG, I believe the following need attention:
1. I generally just need to sit down and read the whole thing again. I'm sure it was probably making perfect sense to me the day I wrote it, because it was all I had been doing that day. After a few days away from it, I think this would be very beneficial to me.
2. I finished writing my QRG feeling as if I hadn't incorporated enough information. My controversy is very broad, so I was having a hard time doing so. With more time though, I sure I could fine some common ground between too little and too much.
3. On a less "overall" point of view, I would also like to improve the formatting and general appearance of my QRG. I feel my creative was kind of lost in my focus on the facts and writing. Now that the heavy-lifting is out of the way, I would like to focus on the artsy side of the genre. 

Draft of Quick Reference Guide

This post is explaining my requests for my classmates to focus on when peer reviewing my Quick Reference Guide. 

AJC. "Peer Review" 5/23/2008 via flickr. Attribution Share-Alike 2.0 Generic. 

I was finding that my hardest task in writing the QRG was staying focused on my ultimate purpose. The main thing I would like to know is if, overall, my QRG makes sense and is easy to follow. I would also like feedback on the layout I chose. I followed the convention of subtitles, but I worry that the subtitles I chose were kind of hap-hazard and confusing. I am open to critique! This is a very unfamiliar genre of writing for me, so ANY suggestions are welcome. Please and thank you! =)

Link to my QRG 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/186IX-8ROQMxO8NTvIuS4WNssbagKF8RilIX11nuUaQ0/edit?usp=sharing

Practicing Quoting

In the following post, I practice examining two quotes which directly relate to my controversy, focusing on signal phrases, correct in-text citations, and accurate portrayal of information.

Bohland, Alyssa. "Screenshot of Google Docs." 9/11/2015 via Google Docs.

Highlighting Key
The purple represents signal phrases.
The yellow represents the establishment of the quoted authority.
The red represents the use of ellipsis and/or brackets.
The blue represents the source's effective content.

QRGs: the Genre

Quick Reference Guides are good sources of information and can be found on almost any topic. Part of their appeal is that they are presented in a clear and concise format. In the the post below, I will be analyzing the multiple conventions of a QRG.

Nicosmos. "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." (7/13/2009) via WikipediaCommons. Public Domain License.

What do the conventions of this genre - Quick Reference Guide - seem to be?

The first noticeable convention is the use of Subcategories/Titles to break up the text. Several of the texts had these in the form of questions. For example, the QRG on Greece's Debt Crisis, utilized the questions 'What's the latest?' and 'What if Greece left the eurozone?' to guide readers.

Images are another convention. Depending on the article, these are meant to evoke emotional or intellectual thinking. For example, the Greece article includes an image of a child covering her ears with her father at a demonstration in Athens. The E-Cigarettes and Health QRG utilizes images to provide statistical information.

All QRGs incorporate short paragraphs with informative writing. Both are meant to keep the reading simple and guiding. Within these paragraphs, a number of quotes were provided as additional supporting evidence.


How are those conventions defined by the author's formatting and design choices?

Certain conventions are made more obvious by the author's formatting. The E-Cigarette QRG draws attention to quotes and statistics by including them in a colored box in the margins of the body. The Sochi Opening Olympics QRG emphasizes their use of images by including them underneath nearly every subtitle. Overall, the authors used layout as another form of conveying information. It is both pleasing to the eye and informative at the same time.


What does the purpose of these QRGs seem to be?

QRGs are a story-telling medium. The author isn't meant to have any opinion on the issue being discussed; rather, they are responsible for presenting all the information utilizing the conventions as they see fit. The Gamergate ORG is the best example of this. The author thoroughly presents both sides of the controversy with no added opinion.


Who is the intended audience for these different QRGs? Are they all intended for similar audiences? Or different? How & Why? 

The audience is unique to the topic. For example, the Greece Crisis (as a more serious issue) is intended for a more politically interested audience than the article on the artistic specifics of the Sochi Olympic opening ceremony.

The intended audience can differ in more ways that politically, they can differ intellectually. For example, a QRG on a medical topic might assume readers have a certain level of knowledge while those reading a QRG on the effects of social media on society won't necessarily need any former knowledge.

The how and why both have to do with the topic. As QRGs are meant to be short yet informative, a medical article will leave out details that are strenuous to explain and should already be common knowledge for someone in the medical field.


How do the QRGs use imagery or visuals? Why do you think they use them in this way?

Images are a way of providing concrete detail/contextualizing the information. They can also be used as a form of pathos, as in the photo of the girl on her father's shoulders in the Greece dept QRG. In either case, the author's intent is to add credence to the facts. It provides readers with another medium of information, as sometimes reading the entirety of a lengthy QRG is unfavorable.


Reflection
Mehruba, Trey, Morgan and I all shared similar opinions on the purposes and conventions of a Quick Reference Guide. Though we reached our conclusions in different ways, each of our blog's confirmed that the ultimate goal of a QRG is to relate information in an easily understood, organized and concise format. We all seem to understand the conventions of a QRG very well (partly owing to the fact that we discussed it thoroughly in class, I'm sure). Hopefully this parallels success in our own QRGs.

Cluster of My Controversy

In this post I will be using an invention method known as clustering to organize my controversy. I used the website XMind to create my cluster.

M, W. "Thinking." (8/30/2008) via flickr. Attribution Share-Alike Generic 2.0 License. 

In my cluster, I simplified the information of my controversy into the five designated topics. I started with the INFORMATION category, clearly stating both schools of thought, expanding on the types of figures in each of those groups in the MAJOR SPEAKERS/GROUPS category. I very briefly alluded to where and what their arguments are, emphasizing the category PURPOSE/VALUES as Life is the ultimate goal.

Reflection
I looked through a lot of our classmates' clusters, and was interested to see that many people used Coggle as their sources. Kelly and Brandon both used this method, and I was very impressed with both of their clusters. They were very detailed and very thorough in illustrating their topics. I find that I had a different method. Outlines are most useful to me when they are concise, giving me a starting point and not much else. I also think this may be partly due to the fact that my topic is less specific, and as such, has less specific speakers, etc. I am looking forward to the differences that may or may not be present in our QRG's as a result of this. 

Annotated Bibliography in APA Style

The annotated bibliography below is the result of the sources mentioned in my previous posts on general, scholarly and social media sources focusing on the controversy of neonatal nursing ethics. It is in APA (American Psychological Association) Style.

Ponder, E. "annotatedbib_tagxedo" 5/29/2012 via flickr. Attribution Non-Commercial Share-Alike 2.0 Generic License. 

**Example of APA Annotated Bibliography at the Rules for Writers Website.

Four Additional Sources

Reflection
The first thing I noticed was that I was not alone in struggling with the formatting on blog post, which reassured me immensely. I also noticed that I might be providing too much information in my annotations. In Morgan's post (also in APA style), I saw shorter annotations. Our references/headlines were very similar, but our descriptors were very different. I cannot say who exactly is more accurate, but my assumption would be that somewhere in the middle would be the best solution.

In Jayni's post (ACS style), I saw the true differences between two different styles. Her references were very short and concise, whereas my field's style required more detail and lengthier pieces of information. This was interesting to me. Jayni's style guide was related to chemistry. As chemistry is a very complex field, I would have assumed its references would have been much more detailed.

Ideology in My Controversy

Behind every controversy is more than just opinion, there are more questions than just right or wrong, yes or no. After evaluating multiple sources on the controversy of the ethics of neonatal nursing, I am going to analyze the controversy as a whole, taking into account both sides and the power of their argument.

Gilbert, Joseph. "ethics" 5/12/2009 via flickr. Attribution Non-Commercial Share-Alike 2.0 Generic License. 

Who is involved in the controversy?

There are two very simple sides to this controversy: Those who believe the neonatal profession is justified in making whatever decisions they, as educated professionals, should see fit; and those who believe no human being has the right to decide the fate of a being who cannot yet express any reaction to medical stimuli. 

Who are some of the major speakers/writers within these groups?

The strongest force behind those against the profession, believing it to be unethical, is the general populace. There are no major figures speaking against neonatology; rather, it is a school of thought, argued by many.

Alternatively, doctors are the strongest speakers in favor of the neonatal unit. As there are thousands of doctors around the world who specialize in neonatology, it is impossible to identify any single person. However, there are journals explicitly targeting this issue. For example, the source I mentioned in my previous post on the evaluation of scholarly sources came from the Journal of Medical Ethics. 

What kind of social/cultural/economic/political power does each group hold?

The public holds social, cultural and economic power over doctors. They, arguably, have more power over the controversy than even the doctors do. They are at the very center of the argument as they provide the neonatal profession with their patients. 

The doctors undeniably hold political power. When it comes to the opinion of the doctor verses the distressed parent, the doctor is the more favorable source. 

What resources are available to different positions?

Research is available and can be equally abused by both parties. There are examples both for and against the effects of neonatology. For example, though birth weights have become more regular with the emergence of the profession, pre-term births have become even more dire. At the core of the controversy, it is the word of the doctor against the word of the patients. Both have the same resources available to them, though both will choose to use them differently.

What does each group value?
Interestingly enough, each group values the same thing: Life. Doctors seek to save the lives of their patients through calculated risks and research. The public seeks to save the lives of their children through ethical reassurance.

What counts as evidence for the different positions?
Both groups have the evidence of research at their disposal. As with all medical specialties, doctors' efforts have both succeeded and failed. There are many causes of infant deaths which can be abused by those questioning the ethics of the field. There are also many that can be utilized by doctors as support of the ethical decisions made in the field.

Is there a power differential between the groups?
Though each side may claim differently, the parent/public arguably holds more power. Beneath all the medical decisions and facts, the doctors' viewings are mere suggestions to the parent. The parent holds all the power in the fate of their child (which may possibly be equally as unethical).

Is there any acknowledged common ground between groups?

The acknowledged common ground is that the ultimate goal is to save the child. Neither group upholds their views to be "right." They do so to ensure that they have the means to most successfully save infants in the NICU.

Do the various groups listen to each other? Do they respond directly to the claims made by each other? Or do they only talk to people who already hold the same position?
To a certain extent, both groups MUST listen to each other. It is only possible for the parent to have come to their conclusion if they have an example as to why they would find what a doctor (trained to save lives) is doing that is "unethical." Similarly, doctors are required to listen to the parents, as any and all decisions are ultimately their choice. The two groups have face to face interactions daily. 

Evaluation of Social Media Sources

This post is in continuance with my two previous posts on the "Evaluation of General Sources" and the "Evaluation of Scholarly Sources." I will now be analyzing two social media sources regarding the same controversy.

Source 1

Bohland, Alyssa. "Screenshot of kirstyross85 instagram post'" 9/5/2015 via instagram.

Credibility

Kirsty Ross is reliable as an outside source. Though the word controversy is often associated with negativity, I believe it is important to remember that there are those that will be in support of a controversy. Kirsty Ross supports the ethic decisions of the nurses who cared for her own children during their stay in the NICU. She is a credible source as a mother.

Location

Though not currently in the NICU, she alludes to her past residency. She is a direct reference to the center of the controversy, the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. 

Network

Kirsty is a mother in every aspect. Her network is one of family-friends, etc. However, Kirsty is also credited as being the author of several books, including an event planner and a poetry assistance book. Though she is not directly connected to a national organization, I still believe she is a viable source to this controversy. 

Content

Her claims could be verified by the hospital that she mentioned in her post, the Doncaster Women's Hospital, and, more personally, by her friends and family. 

Contextual Updates

As this was a unique occurrence in her life, she does not post often on the topic. However, this is actually in support of the source. She has no reason to recount her experience in the NICU, yet she does on a day meant to thank the institution.

Age

Kirsty's instagram account is several weeks old, though the memory she recounts is years old. 

Reliability

She is reliable as a source. She has personal experience with the controversy in question. As a first hand witness, she is very important to the "scene of the crime."

Source 2

Bohland, Alyssa. "Screenshot of 'Palliative Care and Ethical Issues in the NICU' Video" 9/5/2015 via YouTube.

Credibility

This source of social media can be corroborated. The YouTube page is directly linked to hospital known as Children's Mercy Kansas City, an award-winning hospital.

Location

Those who are featured in the video are present in the credited location (Children's Mercy Kansas City hospital).

Network

It can only be assumed that those who are subscribed to the Children's Mercy Kansas City YouTube page are interested in the medical profession. This though cannot be one-hundred percent verified. The doctors featured in the video, however, are undeniably credible.

Content

The information debated in the video can be corroborated from many different sources. The video is not on an opinion, it is on the facts of the controversy itself. 

Contextual Updates

This YouTube page regularly uploads videos on the medical field. They have hundreds of videos, posted several times a month.

Age

This YouTube channel dates back to March 28th, 2008. It is a very experienced source.

Reliability

This source is reliable. It includes the knowledge of hundreds of doctors on research corroborated by thousands. 

Evaluation of Scholarly Sources

This post is in continuance with my previous post on the "Evaluation of General Sources." I will now be analyzing two scholarly sources involving the same controversy.

Fruity Monkey. "A Baby's Hand" 1/8/2011 via flickr Attribution 2.0 Generic License.


Source 1

Bohland, Alyssa. "Screenshot of 'End of life decision-making in neonatal care' Article." 9/5/2015 via JSTOR.

What is its purpose?

This source explores the controversy more fully. It is explicitly intended to review the facts of ethics in neonatal care. It's source and citations add credence to its credibility. The authors do not represent a side of the argument. They are simply scholarly informers.

How and where is it published?
This article was published in the academic Journal of Medical Ethics by BMJ (British Medical Journal), a publishing company that reviews and edits the article for publication.

What kinds of sources does it cite?
One reference is contained within the article, to the website Nuffield Council on Bioethics. This website is designed to specifically explore ethical issues in biology and medicine.

Who is the author?
Carolyn April and Michael Parker are the two credited authors.

Carolyn April is a Senior Director and Industry Analysis at CompTIA. Michael Parker is the Professor of Bioethics and Director of the Ethox Center at the University of Oxford. He is a very prestigious figure in the bioethics field.

Who is its intended audience?
This article is intended for those already knowledgeable in the field. It mentions key aspects of the ethics controversy, assuming readers are well-versed with the debate as a whole. It alludes to a few other scholarly journals, which are similarly heavily centered around medicine.

How did I find it?
I located this article through the academic database JSTOR with the search description "Neonatal nurse ethics controversy," narrowing the dates from 2014 through 2015.

Source 2

Bohland, Alyssa. "Screenshot of 'Ethics in Neonatal Neurology: When is Enough, Enough?' Article" 9/5/2015 via ScienceDirect.

What is its purpose?

This source is meant to work to distinguish the line that defines right and wrong in neonatal medicine. All opinions are refrained. Facts are stated in simple, medical diction: intelligently and to the point. 

How and where is it published?

This article comes from a journal known as Pediatric Neurology by the company Elsevier, a "world-leading provider of information and solutions that help you make better decisions, deliver better care, and... make groundbreaking discoveries in science, health and technology." They have offices internationally, including twenty-six in the United States alone. 

What kinds of sources does it cite?

Multiple sources are cited, all of which connect to additional medical informants. There are seventy different references, all leading back to similarly dependable academic professors and doctors.

Who is the author?

Eric Racine and Michael I. Shevell are the two authors credited. Both authors are associated with the Montreal Children's Hospital. 

Eric Racine guest lectures in medical and bioethics curriculum. He is also the head of the Canadian Neuroethics Interest Group and the Montreal Neuroethics Network. He has assisted in writing many articles centering around his field, and regularly performs clinical trials to improve bioethics internationally.

Michael I. Shevell is a part of the Division of Pediatric Neurology at the McGill University Health Centre. He was most recently the recipient of the 2014 Hower Award, an award for prestigious scholars and teachers recognized nationally and internationally. 

Who is its intended audience?

Neurologists are heavily in focus in this article. Many of the references and diction are medical terms, in particular, the mental structure of newborns. 

How did I find it?

I found this article through the Science Direct database.

Evaluation of General Sources

All medical professionals have limits to the measures they can take when treating a patient. Neonatal nursing, doctoring the most fragile, tiny humans is no exception to this. And as the patients cannot verbally express their reactions to pain, the controversial question is asked: Is neonatal nursing ethical? In this blog, I will analyze two internet sources which discuss this controversy.

Kowalczyk, Matt. "Emma in NICU" 11/20/2007 via flickr Attribution Non-Commercial 2.0 Generic License.

Source 1

Bohland, Alyssa. "Screenshot of 'Neonatal ICU Issues' Article." 9/4/2015 via UW Departments Web Server.

URL
The first article can be found at http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/topics/nicu.html. The ending .edu implies that this article is the work of an educational institution. This source in particular is connected to the University of Washington School of Medicine. This is a good indication that the source is credible. A university as an educational institution is a very reliable source for information.

Author
Two authors are credited: Andrew C. Beckstrom (MD) and David E. Woodrum (MD). The authors associate themselves with the University of Washington. Further investigation reveals that Andrew C. Beckstrom is a Neonatal Medicine Specialist and doctor at Highline Medical Center.

David E. Woodrum is also a doctor and Neonatal Medicine Specialist and has worked at the Seattle's Children Hospital for forty-four years.

Last Updated
The article was last modified March 14, 2014.

Purpose
This article brusquely defines the two schools of thought on the controversy. They provide graphs and two exemplary cases. The article is formatted in a question and answer layout. The authors present a question related to the controversy, and proceed to answer in defense of neonatal nursing.

The purpose of this article (written by two Neonatal Medicine Specialists) is to defend the profession. Though they are defending their own profession, they avoid any strong bias by intelligently answering the most dire questions against the ethics of Neonatology.

Graphics
Two charts are provided outlining what is defined as the "primary justification" of the continued existence of Neonatal care units. It emphasizes the benefits that the neonatal profession has had on such circumstances, underlining the reduced death rates. This is definitely meant to flatter the profession.

Additionally, they provide two case examples and links to other sources in order to further justify their viewings.

Bohland, Alyssa. "Screenshot of Neonatal Statistics Chart." 9/4/2015 via UW Departments Web Server. 

Position on Subject
The article is in support of the neonatal occupation, recognizing the ethical questions, though discrediting them. As both authors are specialists in Neonatal Medicine, they very intelligently express their support of the field. This could suggest a bias; however, the authors do not avoid any questions that are considered most unflattering and in favor of discrediting the neonatal field.

Links
Many links are provided. In reference to the question of who makes the decisions when an at risk infant is born, readers are referred to a Parental Decision Making Guide. They also have very broad links to Additional Reading, Related Websites, and a core clerkship material guide for Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Source 2

Bohland, Alyssa. "Screenshot of 'Ethical Issues in Neonatal Care' Article." 9/4/2015 via Medscape.

URL
The first article can be found at http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/978997-overview#a6. This .com url cannot be considered as reliable as the first source, though (as we will see) the author is similarly credible. The .com url is much less trustworthy, as almost any type of content can be labeled under it.


Author
Brian S. Carter (MD) is the credited author. He is a Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine. Brian S. Carter is also a doctor at the Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas, which has been awarded as the "Best Children's Hospital" in ten different specialties (including neonatology) for 2015.

Last Updated
The article was last updated January 16th, 2015.

Purpose
This article clarifies the different points of the controversy. The author informs readers about why there is an ethical debate in the profession. It is neither promoting nor demoting the field, simply stating the facts in a clear and concise manner, leaving readers to their own assumptions and conclusions.

Graphics
There are no graphics included in this article. The author is not trying to stir the controversy, simply state the facts.

Position on the Subject
This article remains an unbiased source of the controversy. It is thorough, complete and organized. The author and his affiliates confirm that this is a credible source. Medscape, the source of the article, is a reliable informant for anything medical related.

Links
There are links throughout the article which lead you to informant articles also on Medscape. They most commonly appear on medical terms, which are fully defined on the pages they are linked to.