Original Paragraph:
One of Gee’s seven building tasks is identities. He defines identity as “. . . speaking or writing in such a way to attribute a certain identity to others. . .” (Gee 33). Within one Discourse, there can be several different identities. For example, in the college Discourse, the common identities are a student identity and a teacher identity. Both identities can are within the same Discourse, but they have different roles within the Discourse. This closely relates to Nair and Nair’s idea in “Organization of a Research Paper: The IMRAD Format” about how to correctly word the title of a research paper depending on the identity of the audience you are expecting your paper to reach. Nair and Nair give the example, “. . . 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 is demanding to a reader today . . . if the title suggests innovative investigation such as ‘Does nearness to markets affect species composition of homegardens?: A case study from region A of country B’ . . . has a much better chance to attract the attention of the discerning, busy reader” (Nair and Nair 15). They are trying to explain that researchers 20 years ago have a much different identity within the Discourse than researchers today, and would therefore need a differently worded title to fit their desires. Gee’s identity building block can help to reinforce Nair and Nair’s ideas of how to organize a title within the IMRaD format.
Revised Paragraph(s):
One of the seven building tasks Gee presents is identity, which he defines as “speaking or writing in such a way to attribute a certain identity to others. . .” (33). There are several different embedded identities within a Discourse. For example, the common identities within the college Discourse are the student and teacher identities. Both reside within the same Discourse, but they offer different contributing roles. These identities are often adapting to fit a certain Discourse one hopes to be a part of. This can be seen with Haas’ example of Eliza: a student learning the ways of the science Discourse. As Eliza starts college, her main goal is to memorize and absorb as much information as she possibly can while reading a science text by “linear reading, skimming, skipping, outlining, highlighting, and note making” (Haas 57). According to Haas, this is not necessarily the most effective way to approach a scientific content (45-46). In her senior year, however, she had made some noticeable changes in the way she approached academic or scientific text.
Eliza: There’s a lot of handwaving in the discussion.
CH: What’s that?
Eliza? Handwaving? They’re not sure of their theory. They sort of have data which suggest it. But they can’t come out and say that . . . You don’t know what’s happening first. Is it binding here first? Is it binding to an active enzyme? You’re not sure.
CH: Do you think they’re not sure?
Eliza: Yes. I’m sure they’re not sure. (Haas 66)
This shows that Eliza is doing more than just memorizing facts from the text. She has adapted her reading style to better fit that of someone within the science Discourse. By doing this, she is understanding more about the subject at a greater depth, and has then gained access into that specific Discourse. These types of identity adaptations can be seen throughout the science Discourse.
This idea of a change in identity is also represented by Nair and Nair in their “Organization of a Research Paper: The IMRAD Format”. They explain how to correctly word the title of a research paper depending on the identity of the audience you are expecting your paper to reach. Their explanation starts by arguing that
“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 is demanding to a reader today . . . if the title suggests innovative investigation such as ‘Does nearness to markets affect species composition of homegardens?: A case study from region A of country B’ . . . has a much better chance to attract the attention of the discerning, busy reader” (Nair and Nair 15).
The identity of a reader within the science Discourse 20 years ago has changed drastically to produce the identity of a reader today. This is evident within the change of the titles. The first title, written for the reader 20 years ago, can be seen as extremely vague; suggesting that the reader 20 years ago may have had more time to actually read the article to determine whether it is useful to them or not. The second title, written for the reader today, is much more narrow. It is clear on what the article is going to be about. This can hint that the reader today may be more busy, or occupied, and reading an entire article may not work for them. Gee’s idea of the identity building block is an extremely valuable portion of the science Discourse that is always adapting to fit the ever changing ways of people within the science Discourse.
