Gee’s Building Tasks for Discourse Analysis
Building Evidence for an Analysis of Science Discourse
Significance
Practices (activities)
“Each of these readers moved beyond an ‘autonomous’ text and tried to account for a number of situational or rhetorical elements-author, authorial intent, reader identity, and historical, cultural, and situational context-to ‘frame’ or support the discourse” (Haas 49).
By following this practice of Haas’ rhetorical frame, a reader can benefit more from the reading than just the given facts. The reader will also understand why the author wrote the text and in what context they wrote it.
- Description of the study location
- Design of the experiment with number of replications and sampling procedures used
- Plants or animals involved, with exact descriptions
- Materials used, with exact technical specifications and quantities and their source or method of preparation. Generic or chemical names are better than trade names, which may not be universally recognized. Some journals as well as companies require that the company’s name is included in parentheses after the material is mentioned
- Assumptions made and their rationale
- Statistical and mathematical procedures used to analyze and summarize the data
“Methods followed should be described, usually in chronological order, with as much precision and detail as necessary” (Nair and Nair 19)
This is basically a to-do list of everything you may need when you reach the materials and methods part of your research paper. Nair and Nair are saying that if you follow this procedure, you should do well in explaining your materials and methods.
Identities
“Each journal has its own style; but they all have their own Instructions to Authors . . . Once you select a journal to which you wish to submit your manuscript, please FOLLOW THE JOURNAL’S INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS, which can usually be found in each volume of the journal . . .” (Nair and Nair 13)
Each journal is going to have its own identity. If you wish to publish within a journal, you need to make sure you follow the same format to keep the overall journal’s identity.
“. . . a title such as ‘Plant species found in homegardens in region A of country B’ was probably appropriate for an article some 20 years ago, but it is uninspiring to a demanding reader today . . . But, if the title suggests an innovative investigation such as ‘Does nearness to markets affect species composition of homegardents?: A case study from region A of country B’. . . it has a much better chance to attract the attention of the discerning, busy reader” (Nair and Nair 15).
The identity of the readers 20 years ago is most likely much different than the identity of readers today. In order to create a catching title, one needs to understand the identity of the audience.
Relationships
“Acknowledging or attempting to understand these elements of discourse-constructing a rhetorical frame which includes authors, readers, motives, relationships, and contexts-is what I call the process of rhetorical reading” (Haas 48).
Haas is trying to explain that someone should not read a text without first evaluating the relationship between the author and the text. Things such as the authors background, or motive can often help to determine the background of the text to help to gain a better knowledge of the subject.
Politics
“In addition, other studies of scientific discourse have suggested that scientists adjust the strength of their claims depending on the audience: Texts meant for scientific insiders hedge and qualify claims, while texts for lay persons and other outsiders strip out such qualifiers, making claims seem more certain and less open to question” (Haas 45).
Haas is not making a claim here, she is restating the claim of other scientific studies that scientists will often change the way they say things depending on the intended audience. They will be more apt to question themselves when talking to other scientists because the others may have the tools or knowledge to argue against their theory or findings. An audience of “lay persons” may completely discredit a scientists ideas if that scientist starts to question themselves, or doesn’t sound fully confident, because they themselves to not have all the tools or knowledge to understand fully. This reveals a perspective on the social goods in science Discourse.
Connections
Sign Systems & Knowledge
