Flora Chang

Zack De Piero
Writing 2
3 November 2015
Moves In Academic and Non-Academic Sources
The number of ways one can discuss a certain topic is endless, especially with the
assistance of technology and the Internet. Ranging from very informal to strictly professional,
different media sources can examine the same topic with varying degrees of effectiveness. The

Comment [1]: Flora, your title and "hook" are a little

bland... can you find a way to get me more revved up
about reading this super-smart piece?

same types of sources can even branch into different disciplines, and thus creating a different
effect on the audience despite having the same topic. From reading two scholarly articles
regarding marijuana useUse and effects of cannabinoids in military veterans with
posttraumatic stress disorder by Kevin Betthauser and Jeffrey Pilz and Race/Ethnicity
Differences between Alcohol and Marijuana Use Disorders by Lauren Pacek, Robert Malcolm,

Comment [2]: Can you find a way to separate

Betthauser/Pilz from the other piece? The two back-toback "and's" make it look like it's all tied together?

and Silvia Martinsand one non-academic Buzzfeed post about marijuana use, it is evident that
the sources share similarities and differences for multiple purposes. The scholarly article from a
biopsychological standpoint, the scholarly article from a racial and ethnic standpoint, and the
Buzzfeed post from a miscellaneous perspective all discuss marijuana use but with different
levels of formality to satisfy the targeted audience. While the academic sources successfully
reach their goals of being informative and the non-academic source achieves its goal of creating
a humorous response in the audience, it is ultimately the non-academic source that proves to be
the most outstanding due to its conventions and moves.
The rhetorical features that are present across the sources demonstrate the techniques that
authors often use to be persuasive. In their attempt to get the reader to understand their message,

Comment [3]: Awesome! Solid thesis. To make it topnotch, consider specifying which conventions and
moves you'll be using to back up this claim.

Comment [4]: Can you get more specific? So I know

what'll be coming up in this paragraph?

these authors provide a brief introduction and summary regarding the content of the source. In
Betthausers biopsychological article, there is a distinct colored box on the first page that states
the purpose, summary, and conclusion of the experiment. Similarly, in Paceks article, the
beginning of the article contains brief descriptions of the background, methods, and results of the
research. The Buzzfeed posts title is how author Jarry Lee provides the audience with an
introduction to the post. Titled 27 Tweets About Smoking Weed Guaranteed to Make You Laugh,
the article provides the readers with an overview to the context of the post. Providing a brief
introduction is important for the audience, as it gives them just enough insight for them to decide
whether or not they are interested in the articles. The introduction also answers the question
Who cares? [by] identifying a person or group who cares about [the authors] claims (Graff
93). It is imperative that the author signifies who the intended audience is in order to maximize
the readers information retention. A successful background would capture the audiences

Comment [5]: Great stuff here, Flora. Way to smoothly

weave the course readings into this paragraph.

attention without being too lengthy. These backgrounds are effective, as it adds to the scholarly
articles educability and the Buzzfeed posts attractiveness.
Another convention that is common across the sources is the utilization of headings to
distinguish between each subtopic. The scholarly articles share the typical subheadings such as
introduction, conclusions, and references. Scholarly articles often contain a wide range of
content, from introductions to data analysis to references. Without the separation and
organization, audience members would feel overwhelmed by the incredible and diverse amount
of information provided by scholarly articles. The Buzzfeed post numbers its content. Bullets
and numbered lists can be considered to be headings, as it does contribute to the organization of
the article. Additionally, all three sources have its own range of acceptable jargon, diction, and
tone [that needs to be] learned and applied (Boyd 92). For instance, in the biopsychological

Comment [6]: OK, description is good, but what about

evaluation? Can you tie this back to your argument -back to the "so whaT?"
Comment [7]: Does this belong in the "formatting
conventions" paragraph?

article, posttraumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, is defined as chronic activation of the stress
response as a result of experiencing a traumatic event (Betthauser 1279). Acronyms in the
sociological article are also defined, such as when the author describes the National
Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) (Pacek 435) and clarifies
the acronym in parentheses. These similar conventions all add to the success of the
persuasiveness of the articles. However, even within these similarities, it is obvious that the
Buzzfeed post approaches these conventions in the most unique way out of the three sources.
The most obvious differences that exist stem from the contrasting conventions between
academic versus non-academic genres. The tone is one prominent factor that creates the divide

Comment [8]: Not specific enough. I'm wondering:

what's coming up in this para?

between the scholarly articles and the Buzzfeed post. The Buzzfeed post has an informal,
sarcastic, and humorous tone. The topic at hand is meant to evoke laughter and is not meant to be
a serious subject. Meanwhile, the scholarly articles are formal write-ups of experiments that are
meant to be informative. The humorous tone in the Buzzfeed post is a result of the casual diction,
as exemplified by, I wish my grades would smoke weed so they could get higher (Lee). Weed,
or other substitutes for the word marijuana, immediately decreases the level of formality and
thus creates more leeway for the post to be amusing. The scholarly articles also have built-in
credibility, meaning that their tone and use of pathetic appeals are very powerful when used in
conjunction with the other two appeals (Carroll 53)logos and ethos.
Another difference is that the scholarly articles list out the authors with their degree,
while the Buzzfeed article includes the authors name, a picture, and a hyperlink to other posts
shes written. The Race/Ethnicity Differences articles authors are listed as, Lauren R. Pacek,
BS,1 Robert J. Malcolm, MD,2 Silvia S. Martins, MD, PhD1 (Pacek 435), with the superscripts
labeled as the schools that the authors graduated from. The significance of these labels is to

Comment [9]: OK, but why/how?

appeal to ethos, or credibility, of the authors. The legitimacy of the scholarly article is
emphasized, and it demonstrates that not every laymen can execute this type of research paper.
Therefore, this paper successfully achieves its goal of establishing academic legitimacy and
being informative. On the other hand, the Buzzfeed posts authors hyperlink is included because
the websites goal is to create more traffic and publicity. Links can often allow audience

Comment [10]: Great transitional "move" here -- it

shows me that there's a contrast between the two ideas
that you're presenting.

members to easily find other posts they are interested in, and thus generating more publicity.
Between the two scholarly posts, however, there are also differences. The article from the
racial perspective is written more as an explanation or write-up of the experiment performed.
This article therefore provides concrete evidence and statistical analysis to back up the results.
Meanwhile, the article from a psychological perspective focuses more on the results of the
experiment. There are less numbers on this scholarly article because the psychological
perspective is more abstract. Sometimes when a work does not use too many statistics or overly
technical language, [it] contributes to the ethos of the ad (Caroll 54). The concrete evidence is
not as important when wanting to examine the larger conceptual picture. While all of these

Comment [11]: Agreed, but what *is* the larger

conceptual picture?

similarities and differences are conventions of specific genres, they are also types of moves that
the authors intentionally utilized to help reach their purpose.
Besides conventions, moves can also be the authors stylistic, structural, or technical
choices that are indicative of his or her style of writing and level of persuasiveness. Each author
utilizes different moves in order to portray different messages and evoke various types of effect
from the audience. In terms of visual structure, the authors of the academic articles utilize
columns to prevent the readers from feeling overwhelmed at first glance. Having a significant
amount of words on a page, single-spaced and in small font, can often subconsciously bore the
readers. The use of columns makes the page seem less overwhelming and packed with

Comment [12]: Well said. :)

information, as does the use of paragraphs. The Buzzfeed post, in a way, shares this move, with
its format of a numbered list. The numbered list help visually create a flow and pattern.
However, the effect of this form of organization is not as powerful as it is for the scholarly
articles. It is not imperative that the Buzzfeed post have the numbers, but it is more ideal for the
scholarly articles to provide as many organizational and structural techniques to prevent from
overwhelming the audience with its significant amount of information. A move that Lee makes
that is unique to only the Buzzfeed article is that the post is entirely evidence based. The post
provides examples of funny tweets without much description because the context is unnecessary.
The simplicity and straightforwardness of the post engages the audiences attention for that much
longer, prompting a stronger response from them. Lee can infer that if the audience is more
quickly satisfied with the content of the post, they are more likely to laugh and share the post
with their friendscreating more popularity.
The reason behind each authors different moves stems from the different types of
audience the piece is targeted towards. The scholarly articles are intended for people interested in
the research regarding the topic at hand. The article about the use and effects of marijuana on
veterans with PTSD is targeted towards people looking for information from a more
biopsychological point of view. Examining the reasons for marijuana use for these veterans
likely attracts readers who are interested in a biopsychological discipline. Jargon such as
physical manifestations of PTSD are linked to increased levels of norepinephrine but also
activity at 2-adrenergic receptors (Betthauser 1280) are indicative of who the intended
audience is. Meanwhile, the scholarly article regarding racial differences attracts readers who are
more interested in a cultural and sociological discipline. The reiteration and comparison of ethnic
groups, such as when the authors discuss how, marijuana use disorders were most common

Comment [13]: Nice.

among African Americans, as compared to Whites or Hispanics (Pacek 442), appeal to readers
who are specifically concerned with the differences of marijuana use between ethnicities. The
Buzzfeed post attracts a non-academic audience, for it is a post simply to create laughter amongst
the audience. The informal keywords such as idiot or wtf (Lee) set the casual tone. Since not
everyone is comfortable with this low level syntax, it is evident that the intended audience is for
people looking for a non-academic setting. Jargon and diction choices help the authors achieve
their goals more effectively by weeding out the readers who would be less interestedthus,
appealing and satisfying the targeted audience who are engaged in the topic.
While the difference between non-academic and scholarly articles does yield varying
responses, the effectiveness of each is equal for the intended audience. It is difficult to compare
the efficacy between the academic and nonacademic sources because the audience is so different.
However, if disregarding the targeted audience, the Buzzfeed post likely attracts the most
attention because it is more common for people to scroll through Buzzfeed than it is for them to
scroll through academic journals. While some specific moves can be more effective than others,
the overall efficacy of the three sources is even in the sense that each source successfully reaches
its goal and intentions. For example, the use of columns for structural appeal is effective in the
scholarly articles but unnecessary for the Buzzfeed post. However, the Buzzfeed post is still able
to achieve its purpose of entertainment through its own form of organization.
Because the same topic can be discussed in many different ways and on different levels
of formality, the conventions, rhetorical features, and moves of each authors work varies from
piece to piece. Scholarly articles demonstrate moves that contrast greatly with non-academic
articles and posts from Buzzfeed. While each source does successfully achieve its purpose for its

Comment [14]: So how/why, exactly, does this stuff

make for a more 'outstanding" (you said that in your
thesis) piece? Is it just because more readers will
access it? Or is there anything else deeper on the
line?

targeted audience, the nature of each sources level of formality impacts how the author executes
his or her thoughts.

Works Cited

Betthauser, K., J. Pilz, and L. E. Vollmer. "Use and Effects of Cannabinoids in Military Veterans
with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder." American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy
72.15 (2015): 1279-284. Web.
Carroll, Laura Bolin. "Backpacks vs. Briefcases: Steps toward Rhetorical Analysis." Writing
Spaces: Readings on Writing. By Charles Lowe. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor, 2010. 45-58.
Print.
Lee, Jarry. "27 Tweets About Smoking Weed Guaranteed To Make You Laugh." BuzzFeed.
N.p., 22 Oct. 2015. Web. 03 Nov. 2015.
Pacek, Lauren R., Robert J. Malcolm, and Silvia S. Martins. "Race/Ethnicity Differences
between Alcohol, Marijuana, and Co-occurring Alcohol and Marijuana Use Disorders
and Their Association with Public Health and Social Problems Using a National Sample."
The American Journal on Addictions 21.5 (2012): 435-44. Web.

Table of Textual Features

Did Not Meet

Met Expectations

Expectations

Exceeded
Expectations

Thesis Statement

X+

Use of Textual Evidence

X+

from Genres
Use of Course Readings

X+

Analysis

X+

Organization/Structure

Attention to

Genre/Conventions and
Rhetorical Factors
Sentence-level Clarity,

Mechanics, Flow
Flora,

Other Comments
Great work here. To take this to the next level, here are some ideas:

-Include a lot more analysis of the kinds of data/evidence these different

sources are using and what kinds of RQs theyre asking

-Move past describing and get to evaluating -- try to pinpoint the so

what? of this assignment as much as possible.

-This is a tough one, but try inserting more of your own voice into this.
Youve got a great one from what Ive read in your blog and heard in
class -- if you can find a way to make this more of a Flora piece about
how different disciplines/sources analyze marijuana rather than just a
how different disciplines/sources analyze marijuana I think itd make it
even better.

All told, way to go, sister.

Z
9/10

Note: I took off - .5 for not inserting this table.