WP1:

Genre Conventions in Academic Writing

Faith Pickett

Writing 2

Allison Bocchino

April 28, 2024

 Pickett 2

As a form of survival, food is universal for all people across different cultures and places.

It is because of this importance that the concept of food in our community has been a part of

research for years. Much like with other topics, the way in which authors write and convey the

research varies depending on the certain disciplines they are a part of. This can be seen in the

following two articles that both discuss food, but for different purposes. The first article focuses

on Microbiology. It aims to research high-pressure processing and the effects that this process

has on society’ food. The second article is in the discipline of politics and addresses food from a

more economic perspective. The author of this article discusses the global food crisis and how

food movements are affecting the world’s regimes. Though both articles originate from the same

concept, the differences in discipline is shown through the author’s display of evidence, jargon,

and stylistic choices. By making writing decisions such as these, the authors distinguish not only

the intended audience, but also the overall purpose of the discipline’s research, which differs

between the two articles.

The research question of an article affects the ways in which an author goes about writing

the topic and the conventions they may use to do so. In the first article, “High-pressure

processing on microbial food safety and food quality”, the author presents the main question of

how a specific way of distributing food affects the food’s safety and quality. The author argues

that high-pressure processing is a useful tool in the food industry because of its ability to

distribute goods faster and of better quality than that of other technologies. The author presents

their research in order to back up this bias. For example statements such as, ““HPP application

can inactivate microorganisms and enzymes and modify structures, with little or no effect on the

nutritional and sensory quality of foods.”1 The article demonstrates that high-pressure processing

1
Kiera M. Considine, Alan L. Kelly, Gerald F. Fitzgerald, Colin Hill & Roy D. Sleator, “High-pressure processing effects on
microbial food safety and food quality”, FEMS Microbiol Lett, Vol. 281, (23 December 2007), pg. 5
 Pickett 3

was useful in prolonging shelf life and killing harmful bacteria while still keeping its healthy

properties intact. This research is influenced by the author’s biased focus which can be seen in

other conventions as well.

The second article, “Food crises, food regimes and food movements: rumblings of reform

or tides of transformation?” has a different approach to its research inquiry. The discipline is

more biased in the sense that it has the properties of ethics to think about. It is not as concrete as

science since it revolves around the community as a whole, and different people may have

different needs. The format consists of having a problem and the reason for the research is to find

a solution to that problem. The author reports their argument that “the current food crisis offers

opportunities for strategic alliances between Progressive and Radical trends within the food

movement.”2 So the purpose of this article is to analyze the different statistical trends in

movements. It discusses the effects that food movements have on capitalist society, which is

based on the overall benefits of people in society. Because of this, it has a much more

open-ended conclusion that leads to what still needs to be done for there to be change. In this

case, the change being an improved food regime. This differs from the goal of the scientific

article which was more persuasive.

With the difference in research goals, the two disciplines, microbiology and politics, also

present their findings differently in order to achieve this goal. As a scientific discipline, the

article “High-pressure processing on microbial food safety and food quality” relies on concrete

facts and data to prove their points. There is some work that is able to come from the researchers

directly such as, “recent evidence from our laboratory has revealed that compatible solutes (such

2
Eric Holt Giménez, Annie Shattuck, “Food crises, food regimes and food movements: rumblings of reform or tides of
transformation?”, The Journal of Peasant Studies, Vol 38, no. 1 (January 2011): 109-144, pg. 109
 Pickett 4

as betaine and carnitine) can also act as baroprotective compounds.”3 However, since HPP has

been out for a while, these authors also use external research articles and connect the data

together. Since they utilize a combination of articles and documents that cover the effects of HPP,

most citations are done in-text when following a claim. The contents of these evidential

documentations are consistent with the contents of the current article in the sense that it is a

combination of numerical data alongside worded descriptions. There are temperatures, statistics,

or other calculations that are explained to the audience, and are a way of proving the biological

breakdown of the microbial factors occurring in this process. For instance stated, “viability

losses of between 0.5 and 8.5 logs among pathogenic bacterial strains”.4 This evidence, taken

from an external source, presents the mathematical and scientific findings to explain how HPP

can minimize bacteria. The authors use evidence such as this to present findings rather than

simply making a claim. This makes the author’s research focus more reliable. There is also the

presence of models which makes the content more digestible for the audience to understand the

process of food treatments. (Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the pressures used in food

processing).5 Easy to follow data is important when it comes to a scientific discipline such as this

one.

The data is also expressed meticulously and in intentional ways. The researchers

structured the paper to have an informative and research-based format. The goal of these findings

are for the purpose of answering the research question: Why HPP is beneficial. This is an

argumentative take, and because of this preknown bias, the author sets up the article in that favor.

3
Kiera M. Considine, Alan L. Kelly, Gerald F. Fitzgerald, Colin Hill & Roy D. Sleator, “High-pressure processing effects on
microbial food safety and food quality”, FEMS Microbiol Lett, Vol. 281, (23 December 2007), pg. 3
4
Kiera M. Considine, Alan L. Kelly, Gerald F. Fitzgerald, Colin Hill & Roy D. Sleator, “High-pressure processing effects on
microbial food safety and food quality”, FEMS Microbiol Lett, Vol. 281, (23 December 2007), pg. 2
5
Kiera M. Considine, Alan L. Kelly, Gerald F. Fitzgerald, Colin Hill & Roy D. Sleator, “High-pressure processing effects on
microbial food safety and food quality”, FEMS Microbiol Lett, Vol. 281, (23 December 2007), pg. 2
 Pickett 5

They use the data to explain why HPP is a beneficial tool as opposed to just listing the data and

letting the audience come to their own conclusions.

The microbiology article’s way of presenting evidence gives hints as to who the intended

audience may be. Oftentimes, science consists of a variety of quantitative measurements,

concepts, and vocabulary that would need to be known for the passage to be understood. Such

vocabulary is necessary to explain the biological concepts present in this research. An example

of this is, “HPP does not disrupt covalent bonds, changes in weak inter- and intramolecular

interactions that affect the stability of the cross-b structure of amyloids thereby increasing

digestion efficiencies with proteinase K.” 6 The terminology used in this passage requires prior

knowledge about covalent bonds, intramolecular interactions, cross-b structure, and other terms.

This would imply that the intended audience is either people that have that prior knowledge or

are a part of that scientific field. Besides that factor though, the information written is digestible.

There is even some background information given such as in the beginning section where they

explain, “High-pressure processing (HPP), also known as high hydrostatic pressure (HHP), is a

nonthermal food processing method that subjects foods (liquid or solid) to pressures between 50

and 1000 MP.” 7 Suggesting that the article may be targeted toward people who are a part of this

respected scientific field, but not necessarily as knowledgeable in this specific topic. It could also

be to further ensure clarity in the text.

The “Food crises, food regimes and food movements: rumblings of reform or tides of

transformation?” article is politically motivated. Therefore, the format for providing evidence

differentiates from the scientific article. With this discipline, it is less concrete. Instead of having

6
Kiera M. Considine, Alan L. Kelly, Gerald F. Fitzgerald, Colin Hill & Roy D. Sleator, “High-pressure processing effects on
microbial food safety and food quality”, FEMS Microbiol Lett, Vol. 281, (23 December 2007), pg. 2
7
Kiera M. Considine, Alan L. Kelly, Gerald F. Fitzgerald, Colin Hill & Roy D. Sleator, “High-pressure processing effects on
microbial food safety and food quality”, FEMS Microbiol Lett, Vol. 281, (23 December 2007), pg. 1, fig. 1
 Pickett 6

a cause-and-effect view point, the research works by connecting different events together and

evaluating why these changes may be important. The foundation for this discussion is the use of

politician Karl Polanyi’s work “The Great Transformation.” They relate his thesis back to many

of the points made throughout the discussion and much of the evidence as a result. Besides that,

the authors do rely on some numerical evidence through collected data. They analyze different

statistics and trends that occur in food regimes such as fluctuations of hunger and food

production levels at certain time periods. They then relate these numbers and documents to the

movements or crises that occurred and determine the correlation between the two. For example

when explaining that “by 1999, farms greater than 500 acres controlled 79 percent of all US

farmland.” 8 These combinations of dates, economic costs, and numbers are listed throughout the

passages but also shown in different trends. Each trend (neoliberal, reformist, progressive,

eclectic, radical) is discussed thoroughly in its own section. The model, key organizations,

approach to the food crisis, and related documents are presented for all. 9 This political article is

similar to the scientific article in the sense that it combines numerical data with surrounding

definitions. However the numerical data is backed up by commentary on the sociological effects

and liberalism and the other is focused more on biological reasonings. This reflects that because

the goal of the two articles are different, the ways in which the evidence is given is also different.

The second article is also structured differently than the first in terms of

understandability. It is much longer and more dense. Unlike the scientific article which had

difficult to understand terminology, but easier to understand wording, this article is written more

dense in both aspects. The change in sentence structure can be seen in an example like this, “The

8
Eric Holt Giménez, Annie Shattuck, “Food crises, food regimes and food movements: rumblings of reform or tides of
transformation?”, The Journal of Peasant Studies, Vol 38, no. 1 (January 2011): 109-144, pg. 111
9
Eric Holt Giménez, Annie Shattuck, “Food crises, food regimes and food movements: rumblings of reform or tides of
transformation?”, The Journal of Peasant Studies, Vol 38, no. 1 (January 2011): 109-144, pg. 116 - 132
 Pickett 7

double movement within the corporate food regime – in which reform is largely subjugated and

instrumentalized by liberalization – results in more of a fine-tuning of the neoliberal project

rather than a substantive change of direction.” 10 The terminology presented gives the sense that

the main audience is of people in that field or of higher education. Since this article is about a

problem at hand, the audience may, more specifically, be the people who would be able to make

a difference in this field.

The two articles “High-pressure processing on microbial food safety and food quality”

and “Food crises, food regimes and food movements: rumblings of reform or tides of

transformation?” are great examples of how a common topic such as “food” can differ amongst

disciplines. The author’s varied uses of evidence, jargon, and stylistic structure ultimately helped

convey the main purpose of their argument in a way that was fitting for each discourse

community. While the political article focuses on ideology and interpretation, the

microbiological article is more methodological and direct about their findings. Comparing the

two allows us to see how the author’s choices in writing influence the conclusions of the topics,

and show the distinction of the two in an interdisciplinary context.

10
Eric Holt Giménez, Annie Shattuck, “Food crises, food regimes and food movements: rumblings of reform or tides of
transformation?”, The Journal of Peasant Studies, Vol 38, no. 1 (January 2011): 109-144, pg. 124
 Pickett 8

References

Eric Holt Giménez & Annie Shattuck, “Food crises, food regimes and food movements:
rumblings of reform or tides of transformation?”, The Journal of Peasant Studies, Vol 38, no. 1
(January 2011): 109-144

Kiera M. Considine, Alan L. Kelly, Gerald F. Fitzgerald, Colin Hill & Roy D. Sleator,
“High-pressure processing-effects on microbial food safety and food quality”, FEMS Microbiol
Lett, Vol. 281, (23 December 2007)