Caldwell 1

Jordan Caldwell
Writing 2
Zack de Piero
11 May 2016
UCSB: You Can Study Buzzed
Being a sophomore at UC Santa Barbara, a college known for its crazy
and frequent parties, I am all too familiar with the concept of underage
drinking. The consumption of alcohol has become such a social act that
many students here will find any excuse to drink; every day of the week now
has a catchy nickname to motivate people to turn up: Margarita Mondays,
Tequila Tuesdays, Wine Wednesdays, Thirsty Thursdays, and of course the
weekend doesnt need a name because it automatically calls for the liquorfilled celebration of getting through five grueling days of school. Drinking
with friends can be fun and can even be done responsibly. But at UCSB, other
universities, and even high schools, the obsession with partying intoxicated
has formed a binge-drinking culture (Coleman & Cater, 2005) in which
young, mostly illegal adults either feel pressured or desire to drink to the
point of blacking out. This phenomenon has inspired researchers of many
disciplinesbiology and sociology in particularto produce studies that
examine adolescent drinking from varying viewpoints using distinct
experimental techniques. The conventions used in The link between
testosterone and amygdalaorbitofrontal cortex connectivity in adolescent
alcohol (The link) and Underage binge drinking: A qualitative study into

Caldwell 2

motivations and outcomes (Under-age binge drinking) to portray this

information differ across these disciplines and even more so from
mainstream media sources. Contrasting these two articles will shine light on
the unique rhetorical conventions and movesthe choices made by the
author and the techniques used to ignite a response from the reader (Bunn,
71) that categorize these essays as biological or sociological. Further
contrast with Underage drinking: Parents who host lose the most (Parents
who host) will exhibit differences between the ways underage drinking is
discussed in a research context and in the media. The different moves and
textual methods used by each author show how information is portrayed in
separate medias and disciplines to educate certain audiences. All of these
disciplines and medias are important because, together, they contribute to a
more informed public.
The biology research article The link, written by Peters et al., explores
the hypothesis that sex hormones like testosterone heighten risky behavior
such as heavy drinkingby influencing the development of limbic brain
areas involved in emotion and motivation, like the amygdala (Peters et al.
2015). Although the significant findings could only be applied to boys, the
general purpose of the study is to show evidence that might encourage the
production of prevention programs to reduce alcohol-related issues and
overall extreme risk-taking in adolescents. It is also backed by a surplus of
evidence from prior research papers written by other established researchers
in the field, as shown by the extensive reference list at the end of the paper

Caldwell 3

and the copious in-text citations. Like many biological scholarly articles, a
common move the authors use is the way they portray the evidence. It is not
provided in quotation form but rather stated like a normal sentence with the
in-text citation at the end: prior studies have shown that self-report
measures of alcohol use are reliable if confidentiality is ensured (Sobell and
Sobell, 1990; Brener et al., 2002) (Peters et al., 2015). This technique
establishes the formal, non-conversational tone in which the authors are
purely attempting to back their findings with evidence rather than their
credentials. A move they make that is typical of many writing forms is the
Calling Authorical Action(They Say, I Say) move, as demonstrated in
Raichle (2010) argues that (Peters et al. 2015). The statement lets the
audience know that the evidence will either support or refute the authors
argument.
This article is a good example of the standard scholarly research paper
in that it contains the IMRAD structure that defines the genrethe abstract,
introduction, methods, etc. is all clearly labelled. The paper even includes
subsections to further organize the content. For example, the Discussion
section (labeled section 4) has four subcomponents (4.1, 4.2, etc.) that
separates the interpretations of each finding and the limitations and further
research topics. Each main section seemingly delves deeper into the topic,
the paper doesnt start out with the core of the study. This makes the paper
easier to read. The abstract is the broadest section, in that it provides a
vague but sufficient qualitative summary of why the authors experimented

Caldwell 4

and what they found. As the essay progresses, the reader transitions further
into more quantitative sections like the results that gives numeric meaning
to their findings and allows for statistical analysis, in this case comparative
analysis of average connectivities and hormone levels across experimental
groups. The discussion towards the end explains what those numbers mean
for science. Back at the beginning, the essay provides key termssuch as
testosterone, amygdala, and orbitofrontal cortexto encourage the reader to
familiarize himself with in order to comprehend the content. Besides that,
the paper contains mostly operational definitions, in which terms are
indirectly defined by how they are measured. For example, the authors
compare mean values of participants left and right amy-OFC connectivities
rather than give an explicit definition of what that is. Thats because it is
assumed that the audience is already familiar with the concept. The likely
audience of this piece consists of fellow biologists either wanting to update
themselves on current research or looking for areas of the field in which to
experiment further. Intense usage of scientific jargon shows that the primary
audience most likely already has background knowledge in the subject
and/or is an expert in that field.
Under-age binge drinking, the sociological piece, examines factors
that encourage adolescents to partake in binge drinking by conducting indepth interviews. The objective of this study is to use these factors to
incorporate stronger alcohol education in schools and essentially change the
binge-drinking culture (Coleman & Cater, 2005). Similar to the The Link,

Caldwell 5

evidence is incorporated directly into the text in the form of references to

past studies and often is stated as the authors own information:
acknowledging a harm-minimization approachis the first step to reducing
the harmful outcomes (DfES, 2004) (Coleman & Cater, 2005). This form of
evidence again establishes formality and passivity. Coleman and Cater use
several moves to establish rhetoric, or the combination of persuasive devices
authors use to write appropriately for a given situation (Boyd, 100). They
segment the different motivations they found for underage drinking into
sections titled by the type of motivation itself and then conceptually defined
each one before giving quoted evidence from the interviews. They also
incorporate interviewees uses of slang words (ie. buzz (Coleman & Cater,
2005)) in the discussion of participants quotes. This establishes reliability by
showing that the researchers did not skew words. Another significant move is
their use of parallelism at the beginning of the discussion: Studies by
Honess et al. (2000), Hughes et al. (1997), Kloep et al. (2001), Newcombe,
Measham & Parker (1995), and Pavis et al. (1997) include the comparable
themes of social facilitation, individual reasons and social influences
(Coleman & Cater, 2005). Parallelism organizes the content into words that
mesh well together and make more sense visually to the reader.
Like The link, this one is also a scientific scholarly article as discernable
by its predictable IMRAD structure and formal tone. However, the sociological
approach requires a more qualitative approach, shown by the interview
method as a measure for drinking factors. Terms are mostly defined

Caldwell 6

conceptually since there are no quantitative measures taken. In the results

section the authors define and discuss common motivations for binge
drinking such as social facilitation, individual benefits, etc. (Coleman & Cater,
2005). Analysis of the results was based on generating common themes by
comparing peoples answers to similar questions rather than summarizing
and comparing quantitative data, although they make minor use of
percentage figures. The primary audience for this article is researchers in the
field of sociology as indicated by the sampling strategies and qualitative
analysis. But this article is one that could easily be comprehensive and
significant to the general public, such as parents and even students.
Despite them both being academic articles, there are major differences
between the two. For instance, the sociology paper contains no scientific
jargon. It carries a similar formal tone, but the vocabulary consists of
terminology that the general public can easily grasp. This difference in
diction is merely due to the different approaches each paper took: the
sociology paper recorded interviews, whereas the biology paper observed
physiological features of which not everybody may be familiar with.
Underage binge drinking also has less in-text citations overall compared to
The Link. This is because the information requires less backingColeman
and Cater use more of their own experimental findings from the interviews
as opposed to the biology paper, which uses considerable past research to
support their current results. A more significant contrast is evident in their
analyzing techniques. Underage binge drinking implements a qualitative

Caldwell 7

analysis by conducting interviews, providing evidence through participants

quotes, and interpreting those quotes. The link uses a strict quantitative
analysis. It gives numerical evidence in the form of measurements and
figures (graphs, tables, images) and uses statistical analyses such as
standard deviations and z scores to make comparison. All these differences
stem from the fact that each field asks a completely different question about
underage drinking. Both of these approaches are equally valid, but simply
target different kinds of researchers.
The two articles may have considerable distinguishing characteristics
from one another, but these differences are subtle when comparing them to
a media source discussing the same topic. Underage drinking: Parents who
host lose the most is a recently written online news article published in the
New Jersey Herald that encourages parents to discourage their children from
drinking. Its structure is much different than the scholarly pieces. The tone is
much more informal, as illustrated in the authors statement when it comes
to parents hosting parties with alcohol, Becky Carlson had some strong
advice. Also, the authors credibility relies on quoted evidence solely by
Becky Carlsonexecutive director of the Center for Prevention and
Counselingas opposed to mainly in-text citations from multiple sources in
the other articles. The informal tone appeals to the general public in its easyto-read manner while still building ethos through the use of quotes about
underage drinkers at parties, obtained from a knowledgeable source. The
source should appeal to the public since it is found on a common website. A

Caldwell 8

more subtle but significant difference is that the online article is not
constrained by personal bias. A constraint limits the way the author can
convey information (Carroll, 49). Whereas scholarly articles must avoid giving
biased information to retain credibility (personal bias can skew data), the
New Jersey Herald author is free to take whatever side he wants. This
freedom may, however, cause some readers to question the reliability of the
information. That is what his outside sources are for.
The authors moves are also unique to his piece. He uses a Setting the
Scene move when he starts out with It has become a dangerous world
for. This creates an anticipative mood in which the audience wants to see
whats coming next. This kind of move is not necessary in an academic
article because people reading it are doing so for information. The author
also stylizes his paragraphs into just one or two sentences each, which
makes the content easier to read. All of these simpler components
demonstrate for the articles use in a public setting.
The disparities in rhetorical conventions among these different sources
do not make one more important than the other. Popular media is arguably
one of the biggest sources of information today. Without a public source like
the New Jersey Herald post, the general public would most likely remain
uninformed about topics like underage drinking. However, academic journals
are just as significant because they contribute to advances in both social and

Caldwell 9

hard sciences. It is necessary for different disciplines to take different

approaches, for it leaves less questions unanswered.

Works Cited
Boyd, Janet. Murder! (Rhetorically Speaking). Writing Spaces: Readings on
Writing. Ed. Charles Lowe and Pavel Zemliansky. Library of Congress
Cataloging-in-Publication Data, 2011. 87101. Print.

Bunn, Mike. How to Read Like a Writer. Writing Spaces: Readings on

Writing. Ed. Charles Lowe and Pavel Zemliansky. Library of Congress
Cataloging-in-Publication Data, 2011. 7186. Print.

Carroll, Laura B. Backpacks vc. Briefcases: Steps toward Rhetorical

Analysis. Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing. Ed. Charles Lowe and Pavel
Zemliansky. Library of Congress-in-Publication Data, 2010. 4558. Print.

Caldwell 10

Cater, Suzanne, Coleman, Lester. Underage binge drinking: A qualitative

study into motivations and outcomes. Drugs: education, prevention and
policy 12.2 (2005): 125136. Web. 11 May 2016.

Crone, Eveline A., Jolles, Deitsje J., Peper, Jiska S., Peters, Sabine, Van
Duijvenvoorde, Anna C.K. The link between testosterone and amygdala
orbitofrontal cortex connectivity in adolescent alcohol use.
Psychoneuroendocrinology 53. (2015): 117-126. Web. 11 May 2016.

Scruton, Bruce A. Underage drinking: Parents who host lose the most. New
Jersey Herald. The New Jersey Herald, 8 May 2016. Web. 11 May 2016.

Did Not
Meet
Expectatio
ns
Thesis Statement
Use of Textual Evidence
from Genres
Use of Course Readings
Analysis
Organization/Structure
Attention to
Genre/Conventions and

Met
Expectati
ons

Exceeded
Expectati
ons

Caldwell 11

Rhetorical Factors
Attention to Moves
Exploration of
Disciplinarity
Sentence-level Clarity,
Mechanics, Flow
Comments and Grade