Reflection

Final Analytical Reflection

            Reflecting back on assignments from early on in the semester, and comparing them to my most recent work, several areas of improvement stand out. My early work relied too heavily on personal opinion, bias, and assumption. I would too frequently make subjective claims without providing the proper context and information to back up such claims. Other criticism of my early works involved the main issue I wished to address or challenge the reader with not being clearly stated and definitive. Through discussions and analysis of critical texts, I have become more mindful of the content I am creating and the effect it will have on the reader.

            My tendency to include personal opinion and bias in my work was most heavily addressed during the Wikipedia stub expansion assignment. Wikipedia has thorough guidelines of which they expect contributors to follow when making additions or revisions to the website. They refer to these guidelines as their “Ethical Code”. Wikipedia insists contributors set aside personal opinion and bias and “put the mission of the Wikipedia Project foremost in their thoughts” (Wikipedia). Ultimately, this mission is to create an “encyclopedia with articles of a neutral point of view” (Wikipedia). Prior to working with Wikipedia on this assignment, I had little experience with this impersonal form of writing. Most papers I had written required me to take a stance on an issue or subject, and bring new thoughts to the discussion at hand, so working with Wikipedia was a huge shift from my comfort zone. I at times felt like I was being too detached with my writing and not providing all the analysis and contribution I could. Jimmie Killingsworth and Jacqueline S. Palmer’s piece Scientific Fact, Human Interest, and the News helped me immensely in understanding why I felt limited in my writing, and allowed me to work through it. Killingsworth and Palmer point out that my position as an outside source subjects me to using more opinion and objectivity. They explain that those who “write and read denotative discourse based on personal involvement with experimental data are less dependant on uncertified secondhand information than are journalists…; and if a particular source proves to be more willing about sharing information or to have a more interesting slant on a particular story, journalists may consciously or unconsciously privilege that source and thereby betray their own objectivity” (Killingsworth, Palmer 133). Essentially, my position as a journalist throughout most of the work I have done subjected me to certain journalistic predispositions. In this case, my desire to come up with the best, most interesting material and present it in a way that appeals to the reader was getting in the way of creating a strictly factual article void of any opinion, bias, or commentary. The skills I learned with the Wikipedia project carry over into everything I have written since. It is important to avoid biases and personal opinion even if the end goal is to persuade the reader.

            Another important lesson I learned is the significance of successful deliberation and the hurdles in the way of making it possible. Many forms of writing actually require the writer to take a stance on an issue and explain their opinions and information that guided them to take that stance. In these situations, the reader won’t always agree with the writer’s position. Too often, rather than hearing out the other’s reasoning, and considering whether they might actually be right, people immediately reject ideas that don’t align with their own. Linguists George Lakoff and Mark Johnson compare the common approach to arguments to that of war, “We actually win or lose arguments. We see the person we are arguing with as an opponent. We attack his positions and we defend our own. We gain and lose ground. We plan and use strategies. If we find a position indefensible, we can abandon it and take a new line of attack” (Lakoff, Johnson). Letting one’s competitive nature get in the way of a good argument ruins the purpose of arguing at all. A good argument takes the combined brainpower of two or more people and allows them to clash ideas until the bust solution is found. Having the mindset of giving your side to a good argument through your work makes it much more productive.

            Another area of my writing I worked to improve is being more transparent of what the main issue of my piece would be, or what idea I would be challenging with my writing. Having a definitive stasis in place ensures that one properly addresses the prompt at hand and stays to the point throughout the piece. Jeanne Fahnestock defines stasis as “a series of three or sometimes four points at which certain types of questions arise about a subject…They follow a logical, heirarcical order; the first most basic question must be disposed of before more complex ones can be addressed” (Fahnestock 428). By incorporating the system of stasis into my writing, I have begun creating much more focused, organized, and pertinent writing.

            In comparison to the material I was creating at the beginning of the course, I feel my writing has improved in a number of significant ways. I learned to be more mindful of the content I create, leaving out unnecessary subjectivity and opinion. Through critical text analysis I discovered the significance of successful deliberation and the impact it can have when used appropriately in one’s writing. By implementing a new organization system called stases into my writing, I was able to make my work more focused on the topic at hand and consistent throughout the piece. It was my first time addressing many of these areas of my writing, so while some issues may be corrected, others may take more time and practice to master.

Works Cited

Fahnestock, J., and M. Secor. "The Stases in Scientific and Literary Argument." Written

Communication 5.4 (1988): 427-43. Web. 

Killingsworth, Myrth Jimmie, and Jacqueline S. Palmer. Ecospeak Rhetoric and Environmental

Politics in America. Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois U, 2012. Print.

Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. "Metaphors We Live By." (2003): n. pag. Web. 6 Apr. 2017.