My Interviewees as Professional Writers

Lynne Oland

Research Professor

1. Dr. Oland frequently conducts reviews of ongoing studies within the Neuroscience discipline, composes chapters in scientific textbooks, and even publishes her original ideas in the form of a research report.

2. In Dr. Oland's research reports, she utilizes a form similar to that of APA-style. She includes an abstract detailing what will be forthcoming and discussed in the report of her work. Bearing resemblance to a QRG, this specific report, "Activation of Glial FGFRs Is Essential in Glial Migration, Proliferation, and Survival and in Glia-Neuron Signaling during Olfactory System Development," effectively manipulates white space, subheadings, and media (figures/diagrams/images) to present her ideas and work clearly, succinctly, and appealingly. The conventions of this genre include a more technical language and a notably descriptive acknowledgments/references page. Dr. Oland also publishes her data sets and results separately for more specific audiences, such as Figure S6. Unlike her research report, her publication of data is less concerned with words and more with material. She formats her tables and color-codes the presented data for easy comprehension for the scientific community and the concerned audience. There is no reference or acknowledgments page because this is purely her work she is sharing with her peers and audience. The most notable contrast I found between her data presentations and research reports was the consideration of presentation, or lack thereof; one is verbose, articulate and the other is straightforward.

3. The context surrounding each piece bears similarity in audience and author, but the purpose differs in that each composition can be used differently by the audience. The technical nature of both pieces allow us to assume Dr. Lynne Oland, Ph.D. intended her work for educated audiences particularly in the field of neuroscience. The report is created in the context that it is based upon months of research and experimentation, peer review, and more explanatory and the audience is meant to observe rather than utilize. On the other hand, the data presentation does not represent any of Oland's own linguistic work but her laboratory work and it is presented to the audience so that the data can be manipulated and used for say a professor's own scientific endeavors or presentation.

4. The message of the research report is to elaborately explain each step of the strenuous, developmental, and revealing process Oland and her team underwent to discover the glia's vitality to the olfactory system. Oland's data table is to simply convey the numerical data she received following her experimentation.

5. The purpose of each piece, as previously discussed in the context question of this post, differs in the audience's intended usage of the data. Purpose of the research report is for the audience to observe and articulate while the data table is presented for the audience to use.

Alan Nighorn

Department Head

1. Nighorn's vast expertise in the neuroscience discipline allows for him to be an advanced peer-reviewer as well as publisher of selected peer-reviewed publications.

2. Here is one of Nighorn's reviews and one of his many publications reviewed by committees of experts. Nighorn's reports follow identical conventions as that of Oland's research reports. I have reason to believe there is a standard and format (APA) set out for all compositions that are a scientific report in nature. His reviews on the other hand are of a much more critical and personalized nature, where the diction of his report is detached and cold. Being an expert on the field allows himself to be more constructive and respected as a reviewer. I would say the largest difference in the genres is the tone created.

3. The context differs in that Nighorn is following up on his own work in a report and in his review he is responding to another party's work.

4. The message Nighorn varies from the review to the report. The report is sending a message regarding the knowledge the experimentation has given to the scientific community and the review is sending a message specifically to the respective author,

5. The purpose of the review is to assist the author and the scientific community as a whole in order for more knowledge to be published and the report is similar in its purpose to add to the scientific knowledge database.