The way any specific academic discipline analyzes something will look different (just as their methods might look different). But, depending on the macro-structure, there can be different kinds of ways of organizing how analysis is presented to readers.
So, how is analysis organized in each macro-structure? What do you see as far as how sections are constructed? How sentences are formed? The word choice? What is different and what is similar? Again, some of this might be discipline-specific, but some of it is related to values of making knowledge that is coordinated with the organizing principles of different macro-structures.
Skim the following and name the most notable similarities and differences of these articles that you notice in response to the above questions in about 150-200 words:
- Pages 9 to top of 18 (on the article in top right of page, NOT the PDF page number) of Thesis-Driven paper “Donald J. Trump and the rhetoric of ressentiment“ by Casey Ryan Kelly, published in Quarterly Journal of Speech (a journal in rhetoric).
- “Findings” section (i.e., Results) on bottom of page 600 to page 608 of IMRD paper “‘He said he’d deport me’: Factors influencing domestic violence help-seeking practices among Latina immigrants” by Angelica S. Reina, Brenda J. Lohman, Marta María Maldonado, published in Journal of Interpersonal Violence (cited in the Qasim article; a journal in social science studies of trauma and violence).
- Bottom of page 2 to page 6 (look at PDF page number) of Problem-solution paper “Immigration White Paper” published by the Christian Community Development Association (a group that seeks to connect Christians and help under-served communities).
After commenting below, click on the button below to continue.
The first paper expresses the analysis section of Trump’s rhetoric in a concise and important manner. The “avenger-in-chief” heading at the beginning of a section is crucial to show what the author is trying to convey to the reader. Trump plays the role of a man who is being taken down by the whole country and by the media, and this works to his supporters as fuel for their “revolution” against the deep state. In the second paper, the findings section highlights the point of legal status as a major factor for the domestic abuse victims to not seek help, and then it is followed by studies that show the correlation between these two things. In the last paper, on pages two through six, the points that the author brings forward and the reasons for what is going on with immigration. The current system is flawed and the author is able to tell us the major problems and data that support the failing system and at the end, few solutions are provided.
In “Donald J. Trump and the rhetoric of ressentiment“ by Casey Ryan Kelly, the structure is divided into smaller sections in which the author portrays different viewpoints to the same argument. Also in this document, the author is using the Chicago style citation. They use a lot of direct quotes as evidence since they are talking about his [Donald Trump’s] rhetoric. They also quote sole words to portray some specific use of language when paraphrasing or summarizing information.
In “‘He said he’d deport me’: Factors influencing domestic violence help-seeking practices among Latina immigrants” by Angelica S. Reina, the text is divided into four macro sections. Similar to the thesis-oriented text each section can be divided into smaller sub-sections to talk about something specifically. Also, similarly to the first text, this author uses the Chicago citation format when quoting directly. The author analyzes and builds the argument around the narration and testimonies of the subjects.
In “Immigration White Paper” published by the Christian Community Development Association, the author uses bullets to numerate claims in a sub-topic; numerate problems and solutions. They don’t seem to have used any direct quotation, just paraphrasing, and summary. Also, when referring to a text they used they don’t mention the author and year/page in parenthesis. They use subscript roman numbers to refer to sources in their bibliography”ˣ”.
In the thesis-driven paper, the analysis is similar to a rhetorical analysis. It takes different instances of Trump’s rhetoric and analyzes the scene that surrounds Trump’s platform. In doing so, the author describes the situation in detail. For example: “Large amphitheaters and jubilant crowds recreate the atmosphere of a rock concert, a wrestling match, or music festival.” Again, the author’s writing seems to resemble more of a persuasion, rather than an empirical argument.
In the IMRAD paper, the analysis was clearer. It presented the results from the scientific method that they conducted on the immigrant population. It also included quotes from these immigrants. In my opinion, this is a more effective than the thesis-driven paper, because it mostly relies on scientific results, which it supported occasionally with anecdotes. Overall, the argument seems more reliable than one backed mostly by rhetoric.
The problem-solution paper is the most empirical of all. Of the three, this paper uses the least emotion. It generally states the main idea of a paragraph in the first sentence. Also, its paragraphs are generally short and concise, which helps in terms of readability.
In the thesis driven paper “Donald J. Trump and the rhetoric of ressentiment“ by Casey Ryan we see how the analysis is organized and can be similar to the others. This essay works on its main argument and then follows it by brining in many examples from Donald Trumps speeches. The author analysis both sides in the “Trump’s pain, or the sufferer-in-chief” and in “Trump’s revenge, or the avenger-in-chief.” This is similar to the other sources where they tend to also quote and analyses text helping to further prove their arguments.
In the second paper we see how the author bring in quotes and then tends to analyze them using many different studies. This analysis seems to be easier to understand with a clearer structure. Each claim and quote is followed by an analysis which helps the reader understand it better. Additionally in this style on writing there tends to be more factual and scientific data compared to the thesis driven paper.
In the problem solution paper we see how its analysis of each topic is quick and to the point. Each problem is backed by many small paragraphs who use scientific and factual data much like the IMRD paper. With its use of numbers and data we can see how this style may be useful in simply getting your point as quick as possible.
In the thesis-driven paper, the author uses several examples from Trump’s speech to explain how the president frames his arguments and presents them to his supporters. More specifically, the author utilizes rhetorical analysis to explain what Trump states and means when he communicates with his supporters. On the other hand, the section in the IMRD paper breaks down the findings of the research by quoting evidence from sources as well as the lived experiences of the participants. Unlike in the thesis-driven paper, the author here only states what has been observed as opposed to making assumptions regarding what might happen. Alternatively, the problem-solution paper follows a method where the author utilizes short paragraphs to provide as much information as possible concerning the issues under discussion. This method is somewhat similar to the research paper because it utilizes facts and statistics to explain phenomena unlike in the thesis-driven paper where the analysis largely relies on the presumptions of several scholars.
In the thesis-driven paper, the author is using the method of rhetorical analysis to explain how Trump constructs his arguments to persuade his supporters. He uses specific examples from Trump’s speech to do so, similar to the other texts being presented.
In the IMRD paper, the author demonstrates both evidence in which he cites and from the violence victims directly through interviews that were conducted. After providing both the claims and the evidence, he analyzes each claims stated. Being that this paper provides clearer and more reliable evidence, it is a stronger paper in my eyes.
In the problem-solution paper, each paragraph is short and gets straight to the point. The paper definitely lacks emotion and I find myself reading it in a very bland tone. Here, the analysis is conducted through certain facts.
In the thesis-driven essay, the author analyzes the rhetoric that Trump makes use of in his speeches directed towards his followers. The author directly quotes Trump and then talks about the techniques that Trump tries to use in an effort to present his ideas in a convincing manner. In the IMRD essay, the author uses testimonies of 10 women who were victims of domestic violence and then includes a discussion about each incident. The IMRD seems to rely more on evidence and less on preconcieved opinions, like in the thesis-driven essay. In the problem-solution essay, the author present multiple things that they believe are bad about our current immigration policies, and at the end, they offer possible solutions to these problems. This style of analysis seems to be the most concise of all three methods.
In the first paper it is written in a way that one idea leads to the next. There are also sections within the paper that indicate complete topic changes while new paragraphs indicate small topic or idea changes.
In the second paper it is very structured and flow is less of a thing. The introduction really explains the fact of the matter and from there it is really straight to business with the method, procedure, and findings.
In the third paper, it is also very structured. There are a lot of sections within the paper since there is a brief explanation of all the smaller topics within the larger topic.
Persuasive language and techniques are used in the first paper, but it is backed up by the heavy use of quotes. I believe when building an argument about a person, it’s best to use their quotes because it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for an opponent to claim that the words are mischaracterized or taken out of context. This is in contrast to the other two papers, where the analysis is dry but it is because of the genre constraints. Using facts and figures enhances your objectivity if you hope your audience can be persuaded by that.
The structure of each paper helps distinguish them from one another. The first is loose, and partially opinion based (although the author does quote President Trump and explains his points)… The second is very straightforward and well-directed. It is factual and supports its claims with evidence. The third ventures off based on a singular idea. It is also direct, but slightly different from both other papers.
One of the most noticeable similarities is that these excerpts contain the most evidence for all of the sections. But what differs is the structure of how the research is presented. In the first paper, the author’s tone is more laid back in the sense that the author’s opinions stand out blatantly at times. In the second article, the evidence is presented in an extremely plain manner that is void of the author’s own opinions. The last article serves as a combination of both by showing enough opinion to not overpower the facts.