Analyzing Academic Writing

…yes, this is another response to a classroom forum:

For this task I compared two papers—both being critiques/assessments offering opinion and suggestion—of a specific element within their respective fields; for the paper related to my field of study—Emergency Management—I chose a paper submitted to the APUS collection entitled “Community Vulnerability Assessment”; for the paper unrelated to my field, I chose a paper from the MICUSP collection entitled “A Brief Critique of the DSM-IV”.

Structurally, both papers were similar following a format in which a brief introduction of the purpose is defined, bodies of the work were separated into specific sections and given an appropriate heading relating to the subtopics, ending with final conclusion; this format is to be expected of most writings regardless of study. Unsurprisingly, other similarities arose falling under Ms. Thonney’s standards.

Within the introductions of the papers both students covered the first two of Ms. Thonney’s outlined standards: response to others as well as stating the value and purpose of the writing. Lest the idea or focus of the paper is completely original—meaning that no thought has been given by any other member of the community—each writing will be in response to what another has stated in regard to the topic; this concept should be a given. The introductions will invariably mention the author’s purpose and declaration of value, also; otherwise there isn’t much point in laying the thoughts out onto paper—or committing them to the electronic ether, as it is done more commonly today. With the purpose and value established, each author also begins to attempt to speak with an authoritative voice; again, what would be the point in writing an analysis/assessment, criticism, or essay of any kind without having a strong viewpoint?

Once adopting the disciplines of authority in order to strike the point across, the author of any such work will make use of field/community-specific terminology; doing so keeps the projected audience’s attention, as well as supports the air of authority in the author’s research and opinion. Attention and authority are the—of course—further supported when further evidence is given; in the case of these papers this is achieved in relying upon the works and studies of other authorities in the fields instead of using graphic representation—cycling back to Ms. Thonney’s point on responding to the works of others.

In my opinion, both documents are representative of excellent critiques; I do, however offer criticism to the “Community Vulnerability Assessment”, which seems to rely more upon opinion and conjecture than factual evidence. Aside from the introductory paragraph being a little weak in regard to possessing an authoritative voice, the paragraph contains a statement which lacks support:

“Approximately half of the apartment units are occupied at any given point in time with a high resident turnover.” (Timirgalieva, 2011)
This statement may be accurate, however supplying further evidence to support this point—either in the introduction or elsewhere in the body of the writing—through the use of tabular data would strengthen the claim. Additionally, this statement seems disconnected, as the focus seems to be community vulnerabilities based on demographics. Assumption can be made that the author was attempting to make the connection between the high-turnover and minority demographic; forcing an assumption, however, is not that wise, as it can lead to confusion, misdirection, and misinterpretation. The same mistake is made in the second paragraph, where one minority group is identified as being African-American—the author does not offer evidence to support this claim; furthermore, the author uses “significant portion” rather than supplying any ratio or percentage value (Timirgalieva, 2011).
Following paragraphs on the racial/cultural differences residing in the area, the author moves onto discussion of income inequalities; here the author once again relies upon the reader to make an assumption that the minority groups involved in the area are less-privileged in the monetary sense. Though the assumption may be “safe” that minority equals poverty, this is not always the case; as such, the assumption should be avoided.

In contrast, “A Brief Critique of the DSM-IV” withheld from making such blunders in assumption; in fact the critique used assumptions as one of the major arguing points against the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The author of this critique used example of the assumption that persons exhibiting symptoms of schizophrenia being mentally incompetent (MICUSP, 2010); as such, patients are given a diagnosis without being given opportunity of voicing their own opinion. Through this the author suggests that patients may be incorrectly diagnosed and incapacitated further, whereas if the patient was given better opportunity, a different method of treatment could be applied, giving the patient equilibrium instead of a medicinally induced imprisonment.

In review of these two papers, the more critical faults I found revolved around the lack of support and reliance upon assumption. I hope that I may stray from making the same mistakes once I have completed my paper for this class; though I believe that it will be a difficult task, as I will most likely be lazy, or otherwise driven to a mental state where I proclaim, “Geez, it’s this late, I’m tired, hungry, and I don’t care! I’m clicking ‘submit’, anyway!”

…I hope it won’t come to that…

…but it is foreseeable! 😉

Works Cited

Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers. (2010). A Brief Critique of the DSM-IV. Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan. Retrieved June 29, 2012 from:

Timirgalieva, Olga. (2011). Community Vulnerability Assessment. Retrieved June 29, 2012 from: http://www.apus.edu/Online-Library/tutorials/student-publications/great-papers/Timirgalieva-2012.pdf

This post received the following comments:

Michael Johnson:

Jeremiah,

After reading your forum I don’t believe anyone was so precise in their details of articles they critiqued. I went to the site and after I read the entry on Community Vulnerability Assessment I can see what you were talking about, being a bit confused. From my point of view the demographics really did not support that stanza as you so mentioned yourself. I to believe that Community Vulnerability Assessment seemed to be more opinionated than factual. If there is not an authoritative voice you can loose the audience you are trying to keep entertained and they will lose interest and skip to the end and give it a cold hard ed response.

Colemon Myron:

Jeremiah:

I liked the fact that within your initial post you used examples from the text of the essays to prove your points.
However, I wanted to see more than I saw.

Dr. Myron

Charles Niba:

Hello Jeremiah Good job in your post. I did read the paper on community vulnerability also as non-related paper to my field and malaria in the twenty first century from micusp.elicorpora.info/simple/ as a related subject. however comparing both papers, the former ( community vulnerability) was well present both in style and language even facts, he clearly examines vulnerability in that community which can be used in other communities as well, but for the later paper ( Malaria) the writer did not meet my expectations I was hoping to read what does malaria means in the twenty first century, is it still a global threat? and how many are still at risk of the disease globally.
However I like your presentation and comparison of both papers.