Author: vanwickle.m

Looking at the beginning of the semester, I definitely look at writing differently. Trying to break down the basics of a genre has made me look at many things differently, as I try to break down the constituent elements of other things. Working within a schema has affected my process as I think about the schema and use it to inform what I write. Using this structure affects my work habits as I am better able to structure how I work. In addition, I am better able to work in a modular fashion; I don’t have to work on the beginning first or the ending last, I can jump around based on my research, or other factors. Thinking of writings, or any other media, in terms of genre really aids my understanding. I read a lot of screenplays and thinking about them in terms of the genre analysis we did in class gives me a better understanding of the genre as a whole. I love writing and wish I could do more of it, and I do feel much more informed about writing in my field (Computer Engineering).

Developing a schema in class was, I feel a very worthwhile activity. Breaking down a genre, extracting its structures, and making a template helped me to truly understand the genre we were studying (feasibility reports). As an aside, this class featured the only group projects that I actually enjoyed and looked forward to taking part in. The concept of using XML (more generically markup languages) has changed the way that I think about writing. Organizing my thoughts in terms of the structures of the genre is revolutionary to me. In reading court opinions, as it my wont, thinking of the composition in terms of its structures has really helped me understand the genre. One of my plans for the future is to try to start writing more (hopefully screenplays) and I am strongly considering utilizing some sort of markup language to help me do so. Overall I didn’t think that software, i.e., Oxygen, hindered me in any way; it was easy to use and its ability to warn me regarding schema errors was quite helpful.

I think that the third project was my favorite. I liked it the most because I got to write a edutainment blog post, of which I have read several hundred. This is probably not most helpful answer for posterity, as most future classes will not feature this genre and most future students will not share my love for the genre. In a pedagogical sense, the most useful project was the second, as it really broke down what the point of all the genre studies were. My least favorite, by elimination was the first.

In the future, I think that I will consider the genre of what I am reading more. What this means in practical terms is that I will sort of pre-process whatever I am reading as to be informed about its intent before reading it. Another thing that I think I would like to do is to create my own genre models based on things that I have read or am reading. Going back, this pre-process I think will be helpful as it only adds a small amount of time to the actual reading, but could really aid comprehension.

My writing processes for WP2 and WP3 felt very different. In writing project two, I used the schema to respond to my rhetorical situation; I wrote based on the sections outlined in our research. For writing project three, it felt like I trying to conform my writing to the schema. I can attribute this feeling to two different factors. First, I wrote the majority of my science blog post away from a computer, I was at a seminar and my computer makes loud clicky keyboard noises so I used a notebook. This could contribute to the fact that I didn’t have a super firm grasp on the exact structure of the document. Also, I wrote it in pieces throughout the day, leading me to have rather disjointed sections of writing that I had to fit into the schema post hoc. The other reason that I have for this feeling is that I didn’t have a hand in creating the schema. For writing project two, I had intimate knowledge of the schema because I helped create it after studying examples of the genre. Beyond the problems that I, personally, had with the schema, it definitely felt appropriate to my rhetorical situation. This feeling of appropriate-ness, is likely attributable to the fact that I chose my question with this genre in mind. However, the schema did help me write as it added some amount of structure; for example, I was forced to think about the exact scientific principles associated with my question. My use of the schema was definitely most informed by looking at examples of my peer’s work; I used the documentation somewhat, but examples were most helpful. I think that, on a documentation level, the use of the specific topic, technical principle, and important idea tags could be made more explicit. When using those three tags, among others, it was often unclear the ordering they were supposed to go in and whether or not they were required.

During the composition of Writing Project 2, the schema that we designed was integral in informing what I wrote. Obviously a major factor was the idea (distributed weather sensors) that I wrote about, but when it came to me sitting at my computer, the schema told me what to write. To this end, the schema was incredibly useful; if I had no schema (it served as an outline) I would have no real idea how to write the report.

In terms of writing XML, I don’t feel hindered by it even a little bit. I write code for fun and for class, and XML is, from my point of view, just a really lightweight programming language. Sometimes adhering directly to the schema can be taxing, but Oxygen makes it easy to correct any errors.

Seth, for a class, wrote a feasibility report which he provided to us. Throughout the composition of my report, I used Seth’s almost as a template for both structure and content.

Both aspects, group and individual, helped with my understanding in different ways. In the group work, my teammates provided insights on the creation of the schema that I may, individually, not have seen, or at least taken longer to seen. This distribution of brain power helped expedite the process of schema creation and, in my opinion, made a schema more representative of the actual genre. On the other hand, individual work aided my comprehension as, in creating the work, I gained my own insights on the genre.

Ruminating on the assignment, I feel that something that went well for me was my group-mates. I felt that we worked well together. I also think that I, not to toot my own horn, came up with a fairly substantial idea that I could flesh out in my individual composition.

The genre model that jumps out to me as interesting is the science blog genre. I find it interesting because I have read many compositions in this genre; it would also be a way to expand my writing repertoire as I have never written anything like it before. Of the genres presented by my classmates, I would reckon that the least likely genre that I would write is the science blog post. In my uninformed opinion I have an equally likely chance of writing any of the other three, through I would put a slight bias towards writing a cover letter. The possible situations for writing one of these exist in both my professional and academic life, also feasibility reports (my group’s genre) and project proposals are very similar, increasing my chances of writing one. Audiences for any of the three are current or potential employers, with cover letters generally being reserved for the potential variety.

Writing this entry with the opinion that I will be writing a science blog post for my writing project 3, I shall observe its template file. From the template file I gain an understanding of the structure and intended contents of the blog post. In the beginning, the question is presented, the scientific principles are laid out, and it is good. Following the beginning, the answer is elaborated on, more scientific principles are shown. This, it turns out is the end of the piece. Throughout the composition, various elements, e.g., visual elements, analogies, are given. Having read upwards of 150 of these posts, I really have no questions about them, and the schema is quite clear. Based on the examples given by my peers, these “blog posts” are meant to bring levity to an otherwise serious or bland topic. In order to manifest an example of this genre, I will have to research a question that I want to answer, which I will then have to create a response to (in the form of a blog post).

In writing my individual entry for writing project two, I wrote most of the text in a normal word processor. After writing all of the sections outlined by the schema, I transferred the text to Oxygen. I kept the schema in mind throughout the writing process, but it only became concretely part of the process at the end. The schema that we designed for feasibility reports felt appropriate to that genre. As noted above, the schema was kept in mind, which definitely helped to guide my writing. No actual examples come to mind, but just having the various sections outlining what I needed to cover in my report was very helpful. Looking at my partner’s report, the only thought that I had was how poorly I had used the schema and how desperately in need of revision mine was.

In regards to changing the schema, there are several ideas that come to mind. The first is the table of contents page, which I found rather confusing (although mainly due to the documentation). Generally, I would like to change the documentation to make it more specific as I found it vague throughout the writing of my report.

Using a schema designed by a group of five people versus a class of 20 odd people was noticeable. First, in creating the schema, there wasn’t a whole lot of discussion, something was proposed and we accepted it. Not to say that the process was bad, it was just something that I saw. Also, the schema was much less complex than the one created for the annotated bibliography. Having a room of people working on one problem simply leads to something more complex.

My group’s chosen genre for project two was feasibility reports (or studies). These reports outline implementation details of an concept. Included in these details are specific timelines, costs, and other recommendations for the final product or system that will be produced.

Feasibility reports uptake such genres as ideas or research papers. A feasibility report uptaking an idea is essentially the fleshing out of said idea. The idea or concept for the solution to a problem doesn’t have any practical value until someone decides to take action and figure out implementation. Creating a feasibility report from a research paper is similar, as the research paper lays out what is essentially an abstract concept with little to no real-world details.

The previous genres are reflected in a feasibility study as the preceding idea is essentially the backbone of the report. If there was no preceding genre (an idea or paper) there would be no study and the entirety of the report is based on the idea.

Following the chosen genre are actual implementations and the attending genres of an implementation. The implementation, generally, is the actual materials needed to make the device (or however the idea manifests) and the person-power needed to construct and/or distribute the implementation. The attending genres can include business plans defining fiscal details or, for public concerns, legislation of any form concerning the implementation. The “desired” uptake is the actual implementation although that sometimes cannot exist without the attending genres. This “desire” is reflected in the ability of the report to act as an outline or plan to the final implementation.

While creating our genre model, I don’t think we were explicitly thinking about uptake. However, feasibility reports are inherently quite good at being “uptaken”. As part of the genre model, a person looking to uptake a report (formed using our genre model) can look at specific structures and extract them in order to uptake the report. For instance, there is a summary that one can easily see the intent of the report or there is a financial section that one can look at to see how much this could cost. In a general sense, the genre model makes uptaking of the report easier as the desired components are more easily extractable.

I worked for an engineering firm, Qinetiq, based in Waltham. As a company our main sources of income, from my perspective (I only worked there six months as a low level software engineer), were government (Department of Defense) contracts.
While QinetiQ was known for its DoD contracts, it was made known that the company was attempting increase its commercial interests. While in Waltham, I mainly worked on a commercial product, namely PowerLine Systems.

A listing of products can serve to illuminate the “problems” we dealt with. We had several products that dealt with the protection of military forces, e.g., a system that provided soldiers with the vector of incoming fire, armor systems for planes and other vehicles (I saw pictures of Humvees), and robots used to defuse, or otherwise render non-dangerous, bombs. Our commercial products included the aforementioned PowerLine Systems, which took measurements of power lines (voltage, current, power factor, etc.), a system for measuring the structural integrity of train tracks, and a system that measured weather data.

My coworkers were mainly other engineers, mostly software (I am a computer engineer which is basically the same). I did interact with some mechanical and electrical but only on a casual basis. A few specific coworkers come to mind with regards to integration between disciplines, the people who wrote testing procedures. These people were not engineers but had to write extremely detailed testing procedures which are, of course, important. Interaction with these people was interesting as we had to explain how to ensure our products were of the highest standards to people that did not have our intricate technical training.

I do not, at this juncture of my life, have much of an interest in work like what I did at QinetiQ. It’s not that I didn’t enjoy what I did, I did immensely and I learned a great deal, but that I want to pursue another activity more, becoming a lawyer.

In the problem statement of Chris Murphy’s first writing project, he deals with his discipline directly. Contrariwise, I discussed an issue that exists on the periphery of my discipline. From my point of view, this is indicative of my lack of desire to work directly within my industry (computer engineering). I want, at this point, to work as some form of litigator, or at least to work within the judicial system, while Chris, being most likely a more rational person, identifies a problem within the industry with which he has actual training.

Looking at Chris’ markup, it is much cleaner than mine. The indentation is more uniform and the spacing between each citation makes the whole document easier to read, directly in contrast to my bibliography which is generally describable as haphazard. In the domain of similarities, we made ample use of the “general” and “application” attributes for the summary and relevance tags, respectively.

Looking at Chris’ bibliography and others from this class does make me think about what I would do differently given a second chance. Probably the main change is that I would have a more focused problem statement. Chris’ statement is focused and to the point, mine is rambling and frankly doesn’t even come to a point by the end. This can be generalized to the whole document in saying that I wish that I could have put more time into it. This final point is something that I wish about my entire life.

Over the course of completing the first project, there were a few things that I noticed using XML to write a paper (which I had not done before). First, I was not used to writing XML with such strict standards. Through the course of the co-op that I just finished, I wrote and read a fairly decent amount of XML, as we used it for configuration files. XML of this ilk is not particularly rigid, especially as it was only used, to a degree, internally. In that setting we could pretty much add or subtract any elements we wanted without noticeable repercussions. So getting used to writing within the bounds of a specific schema was rather interesting. Not to say interesting, i.e., bad, quite the opposite in fact; the ability to know, essentially, exactly what was going to be within each element was quite pleasant.

Using XML to create my annotated bibliography was novel and rather refreshing. I would say that the key enjoyable element was how explicit the structures were. Normally when one is reading, the various structures (the citation, the elements of the citation, the elements of the annotation, etc.) are implicit, our minds just understand them. In this format, one has to think very precisely about what to write. Having this relatively rigid structure helps to organize thoughts which makes for a more efficient, and often times more satisfying writing experience.

As we move on to projects 2 and 3, I don’t really think that the schema needs a lot of revisions. For my purposes, as simple as they may have been (I’ve no idea what anyone else did), the schema worked just fine, although I wasn’t really able to find a real, solid use for the value statement attribute of the relevance tag. As far as composition goes, I really only used Oxygen to look up attributes for tags and to validate my XML files. For the actual writing of the bibliography, I used vim (more specifically neovim), but I realize my choice of composer is rather unusual.

Overall, I would describe my experience with project 1 to be quite enjoyable. To me, the concept of making generally implicit (except in maybe some post-modern books) genre structures explicit is borderline revelatory.

As I progress through my metamorphosis into an adult human, I have ruminated on my life’s desires. One of the aforementioned desires, among the foremost, is to become some permutation of civil rights lawyer. This is a broad term which, as broad terms do, needs some whittling down. The more specific version, which is hopefully the version I embody, is that of a lawyer that fights for rights in the digital realm, a “digital rights” lawyer. Careers in this vein generally involve such things as net neutrality, the openness of software, and privacy in this digital age. Earth, with each inexorable rotation around the sun, will see its population of this particular form of lawyer increase as, proportionally, associated complex problems arise.

A problem, resolvable by this profession, endemic to the Northeastern/Boston locale is hard, to me, to pin down. Broadening my metaphorical search area to those of generic civil rights gives one more choices to choose from, while having the related effect of being somewhat disheartening. The problem that one can fairly easily hone in on, is that of class relations, and the disparity associated with it. World-wide dominance of societal stratification, as a subject, is essentially intractable and cannot be tackled as a whole. From this ramble, at long last, a problem statement: how can a digital rights lawyer effect change in this university, this city?

How, if at all, could one with my desired profession affect the lives of the of the, by birth, disenfranchised? An obvious avenue would be to supply these people with the the benefits of the technological revolution. However, another, more in the realm of lawyers, course of action presents itself, litigating in defense of the weak. In order to effect this social change, one could directly start a lawsuit against some company, or individual, which is blocking the benefits of the modern era from reaching the lowest layers of society. A somewhat less direct, but possibly more sweeping, way to change people’s lives for the better, is in the drafting of amici briefs. Amicus curiae, Latin for “friend of the court”, references an outside entity who advises the court to make a ruling one way or the other, in the form of a paper referencing the potential ramifications of a ruling and relevant laws and statutes. Class structure and its repressive effects to the lower reaches of the world, or Boston in this case, should be minimized if not eliminated entirely. A potential path to this state of enlightenment is through the work of lawyers, ensuring the the judicial system works in favor of the huddled masses.