The plan of this assignment was to delve into the genres that businesses use when making legal or ethical decisions. Both go hand in and and can conflict with one another during the decision making process. I wanted to show the rhetoric behind both sides of decision making. Showing how legal documents speak in terms of their forwardness and sternness. Each word carries meaning and has a distinct purpose to prove what is being mentioned as fact. This can compare to other genres of law which act more as guidelines rather than fact. The rhetorical analysis of the legal portions of this are concise and seemingly vague for a reason. They are word heavy, but the meaning behind the words and organization is to the point. For legal documents it goes introduction, question, answer/reason. For legal guidelines it is merely a listing of the regulations surrounding certain ideas. Particular language is used, but it has a very simple and to the point purpose. When compared to ethical writing such as mission statements their words are concise, but carry a deeper meaning which needs to be analyze more deeply. The words of a mission statement seem simple and pragmatic, but every detail down to their organization, structure, content and length can be significant to what the company values most. For this reason two mission statements will be discussed in order to examine their complexity in greater detail. This project changed quite a significant amount from its beginning. It was originally meant to show business plans and organizational memos meant for a CEO, but that idea was quickly thrown out the window as I thought back to previous discussion I have had with my past professors. Ethics and laws are a constant driving force for decision making, for better or worse. With this in mind, how do businesses balance legal and ethical decision making as well as communicate their stance on the matter. After my own critiques classmates weighed in and requested that I tie in my presented information to the class more closely. Other than that most readers seemed content with the information. Then came your feedback, professor Hendrickson, which made me think a little more critically about my assignment's content and an explanation behind it. In terms of not showing as many examples in the legal documents, that was done on purpose (which I explain a bit above) due to it being a relatively straightforward document. There may be uncertainty in the legal genre readings at times, but the tone is factual and hard. They simply are giving reasoning behind a decision with facts. The decisions by the company in their mission statements is influenced by these rulings or regulations, and these are the aspects which I attempted to highlight in a more rhetorical way since each one is different depending on the company. To your point about using Starbucks instead of Hobby Lobby, you were absolutely right. It was out of place, so I added Hobby Lobby's and transitioned into Starbucks as another example. I believe that these revisions are sufficient and the information presented will show the meaning behind conveying legal and ethical beliefs/decisions of a company.
0 Comments
I feel like I should preface this blog post by saying this article confused me a bit, but I believe I understand the overall concept. The march is intended to be a demonstration against the Trump administration’s policies when it comes to scientific research on climate change (as well as other issues). This seems like a noble cause, but some voices within the scientific community showed a distaste for the way the march was running things and including information such as inclusiveness. This March for Science is meant to separate politics and science (as is the claim by MfS), but it is difficult to make this claim when the government is clearly involved and the issue of diversity is brought up. Especially when the issues of deportation and potential bans on different country’s green cards. This prevents well recognized scientists of other origins from coming to participate in the furthering of scientific progress with United States colleagues. There is a lot of back and forth between the scientific community and MfS for their attempts at being inclusive and welcoming, but they recieve critique after critique because they clearly put emphasis on predominant white heterosexual males for their accomplishments. Even their attempts just seem a little half assed and lack a genuine feeling (as the scientific community thoroughly pointed out).
The big idea relating to class in this article that I got was knowing your audience and who exactly is in it. MfS had a great idea in terms of what is happening, but they did not see the bigger picture of the impact. Sure, scientists are being impacted as a whole, but there are so many other who are impacted in a disproportionate way. People who rely on green cards and visas are hindered by these new policies and the new climate (no pun intended) that the Trump administration is is enabling. Minority groups of all backgrounds are greatly impacted by this new administration and MfS failed to recognize many of them. They only considered the issues that directly relate to them rather than the whole scientific community as a whole. They created their own community (a discourse community) that included a select few to participate. I do not believe this was their intention, but it is clear that they failed to take any more pertinent information into consideration before crafting this idea. I am not entirely sure how this can relate to our final project, but it is always a good reminder to see situations such as this when considering who your audience really is and what details are important to include. In this reading Smart focuses on the current issue of climate change in today’s world. He takes an approach that views three differing opinions about the issue. These differing opinions/approaches include advocates, skeptics and eco-optimists. Smart makes it a point that this study’s goal was to help enable readers of this material to take a deeper look into the presented information in order to have a better understanding to contribute to this argument (whichever side you may be a part of) more effectively. One big finding was that scholarly researchers of climate change and other celebrity names have the agency to speak with more weight about the subject. Meaning that these individuals have a distinct advantage as others will be more trusting of the information presented. They are not merely advocates or skeptics, but rather learned individuals providing information in a discourse community in order to facilitate further debate. Science blogs don’t always have the necessary scientific recognition to be credible, but do provide adequate information to support arguments and influence discourse within the academic community. Pretty much everything presented in his study is relevant to what we have been studying over the course of this semester (in not everything). All the ideas presented are familiar, and this is an applied example of examining a discourse community with these concepts in mind (much like we did with our own chosen discourse community). Smart puts an emphasis on chosen audiences for the work and specific genres to continue conversation in the discourse community. In this case, science blogs are chosen because this is an ongoing discussion on a current issue. This chosen genre encourages people to get involved and contribute which further influences the discussion (I sound like a broken record at this point). The main idea that I got from this reading is that one must be aware of the basics before they decide to communicate what the want. You must be aware of your audience, how they communicate and the situation that the chosen topic is in. In this case, it is an ongoing topic that requires constant academic updates. This translates well into our project. We are trying to reach millenials, so we are using Instagram. Also, attention spans tend to be pretty short due to constant use of technology (clearly). With this in mind we need something quick, exciting, eye catching and hopefully somewhat interactive. Being aware of these details seems at its very core basic, but it is the most crucial piece when trying to communicate information effectively. We need to pay particularly close attention to this when dealing with a target audience that tends to lose focus quickly (speaking from the viewpoint of a millennial, but maybe that is just me).
I decided to read an article called, a fatal disease is ravaging America’s bats, and scientists are struggling to stop it. In a nutshell, this article focuses on a disease/fungal infection referred to as “white-nose syndrome.” This infection disrupts the bat’s hibernation cycle and causes them to search for food in the dead of winter. This disruption more often than not results in the death of the bat. In states such as Iowa this is particularly problematic as they are heavily reliant on agriculture. Bats consume an abundant amount of the insect population and keep it in check for farmers so they do not have to depend on artificial pesticides instead. These issues have created a growing uneasiness in scientists, so a team set out to track the bats and discover their migration patterns for hibernation in order to have a better understanding of what areas they need to protect in the winter months. This venture has been more so unsuccessful with the extreme difficulty of tracking a small target such as a bat with a sensor along with the issue of most North American bats hibernating in separate areas in smaller groups.
In terms of Montgomery’s rules for science writing, Sullivan does a decent job with this article to keep the reader engaged (at least in my opinion). Sullivan starts off strong with a subtle use of alliteration, “late last summer.” With this beginning it is clear that this will be presented in a similar fashion to a story which Montgomery’s praises as an acceptable approach on page 307. It starts off rather vague and seemingly just about bats, but that is the point. The reader knows the subject of the article from the title and description. They know what they are here for and Sullivan seems aware of this as he does not simply pour facts onto the page to set up all of the information. He uses a background story, describing the team’s experience and listing their comments as the research continues. In a way it reminds me of the first part of Caesar’s Last Breath as the author uses deep and interesting stories to explain the information presented. Sullivan does decent job of this, but to be honest the topic of the article is a rather difficult one to make exciting. It should also be noted that Sullivan does a good job of simplifying scientific or complicated terms. “Gumbert has pioneered the study of bat migrations using radio telemetry, a method of wildlife typically reserved for caribou, moose, and other big game.” This is just a basic example of his simplification of a scientific term like “radio telemetry.” Throughout the article Sullivan continues to use these ideas and delivers his material along the same principles that Montgomery offers. Montgomery wants the writer to keep things simple, but not too simple. His explanation of what science writing is simple on its outward appearance, but when examined more closely it is clear that delivering complicated material in the simplest of terms requires the greatest of understanding. Not to mention, it still must be appealing to the audience. The greatest takeaway for me is understanding that I am not the audience. I have a tendency to write or speak the way I want to hear it. Understanding that I am not the target audience of the material is an essential for being persuasive. Kean’s introduction was primarily about all of the gases that make up the earth’s atmosphere as well as the history of our atmosphere as it developed through time. To me, it seems like Kean has no specific audience. The way he wrote this book gives off the vibe that he is writing for the general public. He gets quite scientific at times in his terminology, but he always brings it back down to earth and simplifies what he is talking about. He wants everyone to understand just how incredible and important the air around us is. It keeps us alive, can kill us and has been around for who knows how long. All his emphasis is on specific gases within the atmosphere and how the atmosphere changed according to particular events. He tells individual stories, switching between the bigger events of the beginnings of earth and more recent events such as catastrophic eruptions or important discoveries. He does not simply list facts and explain each story in boring detail. He truly treats the book like a collection of stories. He writes as though he is going on a fun and detailed tangent about each event. It is packed with information, but it feels like an everyday conversation with witty jokes and personal remarks on the side. In terms of his arrangement, it feels even more similar to a conversation as he strays away from his original point with a supporting story which acts as a reinforcement of his original point. It keeps things fresh in the reader’s mind and certainly makes the reading more enjoyable in terms of diversity and interesting new topics. Personally, I love the way he writes. It sounds relaxed and informal, but each sentence is informative and well thought out. This is the kind of writing I try to emulate, but nothing I have ever done is as riveting as Kean’s. I want to steal his entire manner of writing to be honest. The way his words flow so smoothly and keep the reader interested even when talking about a subject like chemistry is truly amazing (to me at least). Questions I’d like to ask? What brought about the idea to write about air in such great detail? What brought about the idea to explain something like chemistry as a collection of stories about the earth’s history?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-VgQFW8AaSnSFTnWuzLgQ0xomOlgQRN79U8wtN7DaQw/edit
In this paper the rhetoric of writing within business ethics will be analyzed to see how managers in a business can effectively run their business according to their own personal ethical beliefs while considering the law. While considering rhetoric in terms of business ethics it is best to structure this writing as a business research paper. These papers analyze current events and local business and political environments to decide regarding an issue/decision facing the company. These analyses best mimic a business proposal. It follows the same basic ideas by outlining the original point, showing support for this claim or idea with analysis and data followed with a conclusion wrapping up the ideas. The market, current events, local legislation, national legislation are all analyzed which is then compared to the company’s own business ethics. This is the final product of the study, but first many other more pertinent documents and writings must be analyzed in order to understand where the rhetoric of business writing in this specific situation comes from. These writings are crucial to see how the decision-making process of managers is impacted when it comes to ethical or even legal decisions. Like business reports, this paper will have a similar analytical tone. The chosen pieces of writing will be rhetorically analyzed to see how a manager’s decision may be impacted by ethics and law. I will analyze three different genres including a Supreme Court decision, EEOC law (a summary of a law at least) about religious discrimination, and the mission statement of Starbucks. My main concern is my introduction. I feel as though I don't preface what I am talking about well. How can I structure my intro to better represent the overall goal of the paper? How can I go further into rhetorically analyzing my genre pieces? Also, what pieces should I add for the next draft in order to better support my overall question (excluding the interview)? Should I find a more specific source that has to do with managers making a decision based on ethical or legal reasons?
Bazerman’s analysis seems to bring together everything that we have read and analyzed so far. This chapter starts off as most papers with the intention of persuading a specific audience, there is a question/argument stated clearly so that the reader knows exactly what the purpose of the writing is. In this particular case, Bazerman is arguing the significance of the economic incentive of patents for assisting in the invention of new products. This is immediately followed by an example to give the reader a sense of credibility behind his argument. He goes into detail about Edison and all of the specific patents that were necessary in order to protect the rights to every little detail that was modified while working on the light bulb. He provides solid document evidence of one of the specific patent applications. He goes on to explain patent applications as their own genre. He goes further with genres as a form of speech act (he also goes into the difficulties or arguments involved with speech acts) which have a single specific purpose. This allows the text or work to be focused and concise which gives the reader a complete understanding of its purpose. Now, I may not steal this exact format, but I enjoy the way Bazerman lays out each detail or example. The overall topic/argument is presented, examples are given as a backbone, the examples are examined in a rhetorical manner and then the ideas are concluded to bring all of the ideas together. Now, after reading all of this information I have a better understanding of what steps I need to take. I want to focus on business ethics within an organization and decisions managers make regarding current events and issues in today’s society. I’ve worked with projects like this before and I feel that it is something that I will definitely be involved with eventually. To start off I will be looking at mission statements and ethical codes that businesses put in place which they and their employees must uphold. This also ties into business law in certain cases, so I can look over court decisions on particular cases and new laws put in place to regulate ethics within business. For questions, I will ask about the importance of a code of ethics for a business and how far should a business go to uphold those values? Also, can you think of any examples where personal beliefs of a business interfered with the sale or performance of a service? Any questions regarding business ethics will suffice. I feel this aligns with the goals of the course because with both law and code of ethics there must be a particular genre used that best explains their purpose. They must follow their own structure and format to effectively persuade or explain their information clearly.
I am interested in writing my preliminary analysis within the discourse community/activity system of management within a business. This is my major, so it would be a productive learning experience to delve into the world of management and see what genres best convey particular messages in a persuasive manner. Obviously this will end up being some sort of professional document within the business world. My big question is what type of documents would be best to rhetorically analyze? There are many documents within the business world such as: memos, business plans, employment agreements, company bylaws, operating agreements, and many others. These pertain to all of business, but I want to analyze the documents that management deal with most on a regular basis. I’ll need to do some research and find the option that best shows the rhetoric within my activity system. As of now I will focus primarily on specific genre sets, as I feel most documents managers deal with have to do with their specific role in the company and have a clear defined goal (according to page 318 of Bazzerman’s text). These texts will most likely include memos, possibly initial business plans, and the agreement documents listed above. I don’t want to stick to these basic documents. I’d like to analyze some sort of research document or report to see a more substantial example of writing within management. If anyone has any suggestions it would be much appreciated. For genre systems, the only example I believe is concrete enough to analyze would be some sort of merger agreement or document pertaining to a partnership agreement. Maybe I’m interpreting Bazzerman’s descriptions incorrectly, but from what I see it can apply to documents that take the ideas and genres from two or more groups and come up with a compromise or agreement to appease all parties based on all interests. Perhaps I could take a look at situations in which management works alongside accountants or the finance department in order to plan out the years finances. What places a business document within a particular activity system, and what genre do they typically follow? These are the questions I want to answer as I research and rhetorically analyze documents. For my interview I believe it would be best to speak with Alexander Knights of the RWU faculty. He was my Management 200 professor and I believe he could have some insight on what exactly I am looking to analyze. After speaking with professor Knights and doing more research I believe I will have a better understanding of what exactly I will include in my proposal. I have a basic idea of what to analyze, but I need to have a more solid understanding of what writing and genres apply specifically to management.
|
AuthorMy name is August Colburn and I am a junior management major. I transferred here last year from Ithaca College where I was originally a physics major. |