Teix Mcdonald

Writing 2

Bocchino

WP1 Submission Draft

Understanding disciplinary conventions is important for effectively engaging with and

interpreting academic articles. In the two articles, "Who Am I? The Politics of Lying, Not

Knowing and Truth-Telling in the West German History of Child Adoption" by Bettina Hitzer

and "Adoption and Trauma: Risks, Recovery, and the Lived Experience of Adoption" authored

by David Brodzinsky, Megan Gunnar, and Jesus Palacios, offer an insightful study within the

disciplinary frameworks of history and psychology respectively. Hitzer's work explores the

historical discipline surrounding child adoption in post-World War II West Germany, employing

a historical lens to unravel debates on truth-telling and secrecy. On the contrary, Brodzinsky et al.

navigates the psychological discipline, exploring the intricate links between early adversity,

trauma, and adoption. By dissecting the disciplinary characteristics, research questions, and

organizational structures of these texts, we can gain an understanding of the scholarly

conventions shaping their narratives and how they write their articles. These two articles, while

being about the same topic, adoption, are written differently and use different disciplines such as

history and psychology to get their points across.

Firstly, the article "Who Am I? The Politics of Lying, Not Knowing and Truth-Telling in

the West German History of Child Adoption" by Bettina Hitzer is a part of the history discipline.

It goes on to talk about the West German debate about whether, how, and why adoptive parents

should or should not tell their children the truth about their origins. Unlike in post-1945

Germany, there was not a high rate of adoption during the Weimar period, but as time went on,
“as in many other Western countries, the number of adoptions skyrocketed post-1945: while

roughly 3,000 children were adopted during the entire Weimar period, this figure rose to 4,279

children in West Germany in 1950 alone.” (2). We are able to tell that the discipline is history

because of key words, such as “the post-1945” and “Weimar period,” which was the German

government between the end of the Imperial period (1918) and the beginning of Nazi Germany

(1933). Sayings such as “Weimar period” and “post-1945” are terms that are connected to

historical context and would mainly be known by somebody of the historical field. Not only are

we able to tell that the discipline is history because of keywords in their discourse community,

but also because it has statistical evidence showcasing the change in adoption rates from one

time period to the other in West Germany. Another example of this article being from the history

discipline is when there came a new age for adoption, as, “The Second World War marked a new

legal starting point in the history of adoption. At this time, a large number of children had been

orphaned or separated from their parents in every European country.” (3). We can see from this

quote that it also has a keyword, “Second World War.” It is the same here that the term Second

World War is a keyword in historical learning. The organization of the text, as shown in the

quotes, follows a structured approach to effectively present the historical information on the

West German history of child adoption.

In addition, Hitzer's article differs from the psychological discipline article in many ways,

like the tone of the article and the diction the authors use—for example: “the Weimar period.”

The primary audience for historical discipline articles is likely scholars, researchers, and students

interested in the history of adoption, social policy, and the cultural and political dynamics of

West Germany. While the language may be academic, it's explained or contextualized within the

text to ensure accessibility for readers outside of the specific field. Similarly to the Brodzinsky et
al.'s article, the tone is scholarly, objective, and analytical. Hitzer presents her arguments and

evidence in a measured and rigorous manner, avoiding overly emotive language or personal

anecdotes. However, given the sensitive nature of the topic, there may be moments of empathy

and recognition of the human experiences involved in adoption practices.

Secondly, the article "Adoption and Trauma: Risks, Recovery, and the Lived Experience

of Adoption" by David Brodzinsky, Megan Gunnar, and Jesus Palacios, while being about

adoption, is from a different discipline: psychology. The article follows a structured approach to

effectively present its examinations and the links between early adversity, trauma, and adoption

as, “we begin by defining trauma and then describe the way in which pre-placement adversity

can undermine neurobehavioral and interpersonal functioning, increasing the risk for long-term

psychological difficulties” (1). We can see that it's part of the psychology discipline because it

has key words like “neurobehavioral” and “interpersonal,” which are words that a training

psychologist or a person in that field would understand. Another example of this discipline is

shown in how the experience of being adopted has many outcomes and considerably changes

from person to person but the, “two important factors influencing adjustment are the way

adopted individuals comprehend the meaning of being adopted and the appraisals they attribute

to their relinquishment and current family status, which are a function of cognitive and

social-cognitive development” (8). Just like the last quote, there are keywords that would be

understood by someone in the field of psychology, such as “cognitive” and “social-cognitive

development.” This is known because psychologists use these words in order to state different

aspects of how an individual thinks and these words have been used in my PSY 1 Intro to Psych

class for UCSB.

 Additionally, the primary audience for Brodzinsky et al.'s article, unlike Hitzer’s history

discipline article, would likely include professionals in the fields of psychology, counseling, and

adoption studies. It may also appeal to researchers, academics, students, and policymakers

interested in understanding the intersection of adoption and trauma. The tone of the writing is

similar to Hitzer’s article. This article is scholarly and objective, but instead of focusing on

historical analysis it focuses on presenting research findings, theoretical frameworks, and clinical

insights related to adoption and trauma. While the authors may acknowledge the emotional

complexities involved in adoption and trauma, they would maintain a professional and analytical

tone throughout the text. Words like “cognitive function” and “neurological” are all words that

are specialized terminology that would be recognized by psychologists or someone in the field of

psychological research.

In conclusion, the comparative analysis of "Who Am I? The Politics of Lying, Not

Knowing and Truth-Telling in the West German History of Child Adoption" by Bettina Hitzer

and "Adoption and Trauma: Risks, Recovery, and the Lived Experience of Adoption" by David

Brodzinsky, Megan Gunnar, and Jesus Palacios shows the significance of adoption as a topic, but

explains the topic in two different disciplinary frameworks. While both articles explore the same

theme, they diverge in their disciplines, with Hitzer's work grounded in historical analysis and

Brodzinsky et al.'s article rooted in psychological research. Through examining evidence such as

the language, key terms, and organizational structures of the text, we can discern how each

article explores their respective disciplinary audience, offering their insights that are tailored to

historical and psychological disciplines. Despite both these disciplinary differences, both articles

contribute a valuable perspective to the broader understanding of adoption.

Bibliography:

● Hitzer, Bettina. “Who Am I? The Politics of Lying, Not Knowing and Truth-Telling in the
West German History of Child Adoption.” Journal of family history 47.3 (2022):
278–298.
- https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/03631990221079782

● Brodzinsky, David, Megan Gunnar, and Jesus Palacios. “Adoption and Trauma: Risks,
Recovery, and the Lived Experience of Adoption.” Child abuse & neglect 130.Pt 2
(2022): 105309–105309.
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213421003781?via%3Dih
ub