Berkenkotter & Murray Synthesis

For the sake of the improvement of efficient and better writing, researchers had been experimenting on unskilled writers in a laboratory setting with an unrealistic amount of time. Unfortunately, the results differed from what goes on in writing during a natural setting, when writers are not stressed for time and can make observations that could lead to discovery. Berkenkotter decided to create a new way of researching the process of a writer. This time, she chose a professional writer and put him in a natural, comfortable setting. She also put him in a one-hour period where he was forced to write on a subject of which he was unfamiliar. The results of an unrealistic setting and a natural setting differed. There were multiple reasons why they differed. Berkenkotter stated that he was not able to "reconceive" or "to scan and rescan in the perspective of the other reader" (223). Murray also expressed his feelings on the whole situation. He said, "I have rarely felt so completely trapped and so inadequate. I have gone through other research experiences, but in this case I felt stronger than I ever had the need to perform" (231). It could be that during this time, he shared the same fear as Lore Allen of the "Inspired Writer." The interesting part was that after the experiment, his fear of the "Inspired Writer" became different. He now feared that he was going to become the "Inspired Writer." In his lines, he expressed the words, "I worry that the experienced writer can become too glib, too slick, too professional, too polished---- can, in effect, write too well" (233). He feared that he would lose his ability of "discovery" or to lose "introspection." Berkenkotter explained that introspection occurred during pauses of composition, and in effect, discovered new insights on the writer's topic. Murray later responded to the term as "bathroom epiphanies" and he believed they should be further researched. These "discoveries" or "writing to learn" were identified by Kleine but he said that usually people who wrote for rhetorical purposes rather than to provide information were the ones who used such techniques. In Berkenkotter's analysis, it showed that he spent most of his time planning and barely any in revisions. Murray argued back that part of revisions were done in his time of planning. Lammott, however, showed to be the exact opposite. She did very little planning (by writing her first draft like a "child") and relied mostly on her revisions. The process of writers' compositions and discovery differ from writer to writer and it is too complex for a static, laboratory setting. Rather than understanding the composition of writers, Berkenkotter's experiment showed how to research a writer.

Allen and Lamott Synthesis and Reflection

Synthesis: Allen

In Allen's essay, "Shitty First Drafts," she stated her experience while writing. When she wrote rough drafts, she released her inner-childish thoughts and poured out everything she felt and could think of. She stated, "There may be something in the very last line of the very last paragraph on page six that you just love, that is so beautiful or wild that you now know what you're supposed to be writing about..." (WAW 302). This was a form of discovery done by Lore Allen. By writing, she discovered ideas that may had never been found if she approached it in a "grown-up" way. She then picked out all the useless phrases as much as she could and utilized the important ones. Kleine argued something similar. He insisted that in order to make a good research paper, one would have to become a gatherer, or someone who "discovered" what could be of use to them (25). He also talked about how one could "learn" from writing. Lore Allen did not have the core ideas of her paper before she wrote them. She "learned" what it was by writing. She also had her "hunting" moment when she cleared out her thoughts and isolated one of the voices in her head (304). This was similar to Kleine's idea of writing with a purpose. 

Reflection: Allen

Although the reason may be absurd, Allen's essay probably captured my attention the most out of all the articles and essays I had to read for my English classes. The reason is, as immature people can guess, is because she titled it, "Shitty First Drafts." Besides the profanity, her humor was also very amusing. Admittedly, though, I had always tried to approach my papers in a more "grown up" fashion, which would explain why my papers had always been so terrible or bland. Maybe next time, I will approach my paper in a child-like behavior and discover something brilliant in the process.

Synthesis: Lamott

In Lamott's paper, she talked about the struggles of many writers. These struggles ranged from writer's block to "bad writing" to the lack of inspiration. For her, it is the ghost of the Inspired Writer. This ghost caused her to feel that if good writing did not come easily to her, then she was not a good writer. Allen also talked about her struggle. She was also someone who did not start out with good writing. However, she believed that all good writing came from bad writing; terrible drafts that would be embarrassing to show in front of the public. In general, both Lamott and Allen could agree on one thing: that good writing comes from the process of trial and error.

Reflection: Lamott

Lamott gave a new perspective to me. She gave me a scapegoat of whom I could blame all my frustrations: the ghost of the Inspired Writer. Even writing blog posts like these, I struggled. Writer's blocks would always last longer than the "writing spree." That was what frustrated me the most. But it is nice to see that I am not the only one. That even people who are considered "good writers," can also have the same struggles.

Kleine Summary

Michael Kleine, an English professor of the University of Arkansas, wanted to improve the process and quality of his students' research papers. He believed that the process should be both heuristic and strategic. As a result, academic papers would be epistemic (or referential as Kinneavy would put it) and rhetoric. In order to help his students, he built a model that involved eight cells, four columns and two rows. This model was split into four stages: collecting, rhetorical sifting, pattern seeking, and translation. In each stage, there were two categories, hunting and gathering. Hunting was a method of having a strong sense of purpose and direction, while gathering was the process of "discovering." He then used this model during interviews with eight different professors of varied fields. He found out that the natural and social sciences were focused on researching before writing, however, the people who worked in the departments of humanities immersed themselves in reading and writing. They used writing as a tool in order to learn and discover. He concluded that all academic papers ended up being both rhetoric and epistemic, although specific fields may lean more towards one or the other. What separated professional researchers and students was that professional researchers wrote papers due to an interest, a question, or a gap. Students usually researched because of an external source of compulsion. Kleine argued that the student should write research papers for the purpose of sharing information and bringing something new, not for the sake of reciprocating already shared knowledge. For this purpose, Michael Kleine aimed to absorb his students into the constantly expanding discourse that he and his colleagues participate.

Swales and Greene: Summary and Response

In Swales's "Create a Research Space' (CARS) Model of Research Introductions," he argues that one can improve his or her writing of a research paper by filling the gap of a topic known as "niche." There are three different moves that one could use: to establish a territory, to establish a niche, and to occupy a niche. In establishing a territory, he talks about claiming centrality, making topic generalizations, or reviewing previous items of research. He also states that one can establish a niche by counter-claiming, indicating a gap on the topic, raising questions, or presenting the research as a useful extension of currently existing research (also known as the "traditional" method). In order to conclude and occupy the niche, he talks about how one has to outline their purposes, announce their research or principal findings, and indicate the structure of the research article.

Swales's article was intriguing, yet also concise and to the point. When it comes to guiding research papers, many has trouble with figuring out ways to improve their writing abilities. Swales provides a step-by-step research paper that provides the reader a structure on how a research paper should look like in order to convey their message and be persuasive on their topic. What is interesting is that he redefines the word, "niche." According to dictionary.com, the meaning of niche is, "a place or position suitable or appropriate for a person or thing." Swales tells the reader that the niche of a subject is a space that needs to filled in with further research. Swales's instructions are easy to read and descriptive. It is an efficient guide to writing a proper research paper.

In Greene's "Argument as Conversation," he states that argument is progressive in our academic environment and that arguments are the same as conversations. He believes it is important to prepare and learn about the subjects of the argument by listening and researching before one joins the argument. He also declares that all arguments are interconnected and that it is continuous. He brings up that the way we position ourselves depend on three things: which previously stated arguments we share, which previously stated arguments we want to refute, and what new opinions and supporting information we will add to the discussion. He argues one must understand the conflict of both sides and not just look for details to support one's own ideas. Details and positions may not always invalidate the other's ideas. By forming a good question that can be answered through further research, one learns for whom the argument is for. Framing is important as one wants the readers to understand his or her perspective. Research then becomes a social process as one must learn to know how to enter a conversation.

It is fascinating how Greene reshapes the word, "framing." People know the word to mean as a border that fits around a picture. In this case, he describes it as "a metaphor for describing the lends, or perspective, from which writers present their arguments" (Greene 14). Greene makes interesting points for using framing as a strategy of writing, reading, and doing research. By including framing in the argument, one would obtain further conversation on the subject. The topic then becomes more engaging as a result. He also used Kenneth Burke's passage as a comparison of how arguments are conversations. It is interesting to know that whether or not one is not a part of the argument, the conversation lives on, but one can help contribute to it. No matter how many details one tries to use against his or her opponent, the discussion remains interminable.