Scientific American Article Submission
Context
In my Writing Science course, we learned how to write for various scientific
contexts including but not limited to scientific book reviews and articles for
popular science journals. For this particular assignment, we were supposed to
choose a topic we wanted to write about and then choose a journal to submit
the article to based on rhetorical decisions. We were also required to write a
“cover letter” explaining some of our decisions and present this to the class as
a powerpoint.
Rhetorical Considerations
In an article by Grant-Davies, a rhetorical analysis different from that of Aristotle is introduced. Aristotle’s rhetorical analysis consists of the following: context, purpose, audience, rhetor, message/medium. Grant-Davies analysis consists of some of the same elements, but new ones as well. Just as with Aristotle, Grant-Davies names audience and rhetor as an important part of a rhetorical analysis, but in addition he names exigence and constraints as important as well. Exigence is something that causes the need for a discourse to happen. Constraints are the rules or limitations of the situation.
The topic I chose to cover was gluten, specifically the idea that eliminating gluten from one’s diet creates a healthier and happier individual. This myth places an exigence on the topic because so many people believe this idea to be true. This is a discourse that needed to happen in order for people to become more educated on the topic rather than just going for whatever new fad arises. This particular topic is close to my heart because I was recently diagnosed with a wheat allergy and had to eliminate the protein, which in fact did not make me happier or healthier.
Some constraints I faced while writing this article was the fact that there are so many people out there writing about how the elimination of gluten from your diet is indeed healthy. A lot of people look toward crazy diet fads in order to be the healthiest version of themselves, and people like that are more likely to listen to those promoting the diet than those naysayers. Another constraint comes from the journal I chose to submit to, Scientific American. This journal, or magazine rather, likes to publish articles written by actual scientists who have spent a long time researching and experimenting. This was not the case for me. I have not been nor will I ever be a scientist, so this makes it more difficult for me to get my words out to the public.
​
This limitation means that I, the rhetor, would need to come across as more scientifically knowledged than I actually am to the editors, the audience. I want the editors to see that I am a student, but see my writing as something from a differently educated individual (I’m an English major not a Science major). In order to do this, I actually had to become educated on my topic of choice, and so spent a lot of time researching the science behind gluten intolerances and sensitivities.
Evaluation
I was pretty happy with my final product, my only wish is that I had more time to do more research. What I found out about the science behind gluten intolerances was complex for a person who stopped taking science courses long ago, so in order to make my article even stronger, I would have spent more time learning about the science. I think that would have brought my article up to par with the standards of Scientific American. Through this project I discovered that no matter how well you can rhetorically analyze a situation, there are still other factors that affect the effectiveness of a discourse. In this case, I was just not up to par as a rhetor for the specifications of the magazine I chose.
