Project Summary and Reflection

Webtext Summary:

The purpose of this project was to convey what constitutes information, expertise, argumentation and communication conventions within the individual field of Neuroscience. Some multimedia elements were included. These were composed of links to publications or biographical websites pertaining to an author (Ian Brown). Visual media was used to supplement and cohere the topics that are explored on the individual pages. Photos from online as well as a screen grab of a website were included to create appeal and illustrate the format of an interactive forum. One video was included because it related to the topic of technology in research, but was not cited in text, so would serve as supplementary information. These visual components were only supplementary as the main component of the project was the text (including external links).

The audience of this publication was intended to be people involved in the field of Neuroscience. It is perhaps more accessible to fellow students as opposed to professionals. However, the website would be available to a fairly broad viewing audience. Some terms in the cited tests were included in the composition of this project, but were not defined explicitly because it was anticipated that the viewers of the site would have some background knowledge of neuroscience in general and the jargon or terminology associated with the field. Additionally, it was not necessary to demonstrate too many components via video due to the anticipation that the audience would be able to understand the text. The focus was on conveying the conventions of the field in a new and insightful manner.

The actual publication of the project was accomplished through wordpress.com-a public blog site. The information would potentially be available to a wide audience and would be linked to the greater web. Thus, external links were used but the content was not geared towards specific researchers. The format also allowed for the inclusion of some multimedia elements. It was also intended that the site be easily navigable, so the menus created were linked to the main pages which a viewer could navigate easily and in any order.  The topics were therefore related but still fairly independent.  The pages themselves had aspects that took on a very broad point of view as well as aspects that were more narrowed and specifically related to the cited works. They were therefore self-contained and the conclusions/summaries were included in the page.

Webtext Reflection:

Overall, the experience of exploring the defining characteristics of the field of Neuroscience was very interesting and informative. I learned that a main component of expertise in the field of Neuroscience is first hand research experience. Knowledge is acquired through the research process and then distribute via research studies published in academic journals. This is interesting because many fields require years of familiarity with terminology and other aspects of academia. Few disciplines require contribution to the field’s body of knowledge in the form of empirical research. The way in which research seems to contribute to expertise is that it forces the researcher to extrapolate upon previously acquired knowledge in order to generate new knowledge.  It was also interesting to observe just how ubiquitous the use of logos was in neuroscience texts. There was virtually no other rhetorical device employed in the passages I have come across thus far in my participation in the field. As a means to prove an argument, logos was quite blatantly the only form of evidence. Other publications were cited within a given text; however, I did not read any passage which employed an emotional appeal. That tactic is not seen as a valid means of articulating or proving an argument. Logos, facts verified through research, therefore constitutes information in the field of Neuroscience.

Some texts I encountered were not research reports, though they related to research. It was exciting to examine a text that did not have the specific structure of a research report. It was informative to frame the writing conventions that I was aware of prior to this project in a new way. The intent was that the audience is able to see these conventions in a new light, as well. Additionally, the widespread use of animal studies that were used to make arguments about disease states in humans was interesting. It makes sense to use rodents as experimental models; however, I was unaware of how similar rodent neurological structure was to humans’ or how applicable those results would be to human diseases. The ability to use technology to investigate empirical questions was also enlightening. I was unaware of just how important technological advancement has been to field of Neuroscience. The extent of dependence on technology is staggering. There are not many fields which rely so heavily on technology for advancement of knowledge. Especially in relation to such debilitating psychiatric diseases such as schizophrenia, effective treatments have only been made possible due to the use of new investigative technologies. Thus, the widespread dependence on technological advancement for investigation into new areas of knowledge really sets neuroscience apart from other fields.

There were several outcomes to this project.  I was aware of some characteristics of the field prior to completion of the project. However, I gained new insight into how expertise is defined in this field, as well as the reliance of technology and other communication conventions, such as the use of factual evidence to prove argument and the use of rodent experimental models.