Emily Ferrell

Writing 2

18 January 2020

To Bee a Biologist or to Bee a Lawyer

People can belong to many different discourse communities. There are academic groups,

clubs, organizations, or any other groups that align with John Swales definition of a discourse

communityand many more. He defines a discourse community as a group of people that have “a

broadly agreed set of goals”, use different genres to further their goals, have their own specific

language, and have a threshold of expertise for their members (Swales 2016). Discourse

communities have discipline specific writing to address topics and make arguments. OOur

affiliation with our own discourse communities creates a part of our identity and isare how we

impact the world around us and create a part of our identity. For instance, a UCSB student

majoring in biology would be a partbecause I am a part of the UCSB discourse community, part

of my identity is being a UCSB student, specifically, thea UCSB biology discourse

communitystudent. Being a UCSB biology student becomes part of their identity. John Swales

defines a discourse community as a group of people that have “a broadly agreed set of goals”,

use different genres to further their goals, have their own specific language, and have a threshold

of expertise for their members (Swales 7-9). Discourse communities have discipline specific

writing to address topics and make arguments. The discourse communities of biology and law

have both been used to address the topic of pesticides and their effect on bee populationsThe

topic of pesticides and their effect on bee populations has been addressed by a few different

discourse communities, specifically, biology and law. The piece “Regulatory Improvement

Initiative: Proposals to Improve California's Pesticide Regulatory Program” by Pete Wilson

 Ferrell 2

addresses this topic through the legal discipline while “Field populations of native Indian honey

bees from pesticide intensive agricultural landscape show signs of impaired olfaction” by

Priyadarshini Chakrabarti addresses it from a biological perspective. Specifically, Wilson

proposes pesticide legislation reforms through the conventions of the genre of a legal document

whileand Chakjrabarti’s article is a report about an experiment she conducted.conducted. In this

way, tThese two articles showcase the differences between theirse two respective disciplines

through their language, structure, and their authors’ background.

Differences in the disciplines of biology and law are highlighted through the authors’

jargon and language choice. Karen Rosenburg states in her article “Strategies for Reading

Academic Articles” that “authors often use specialized jargon to convey complex ideas” and

“make assumptions of prior knowledge” (Rosenburg 201116). This aspect of academic writing

appears in Chakrabarti’s lab report and is a characteristic of academic articles in the biology

discourse community. The author assumes that the reader already knows the material being

discussed, so she does not take the time to explain or simplify terms. While reading

Chakrabarti’s article aloud to a student outside of the biological disciplinean English major,

certain words were unfamiliar. Some of these words weresome of the words that garnered a

‘huh’ were “proboscis extension reflex, … ion channel activity, … morphometry” and

“fluorimetry studies” (Chakrabarti 2015-3). Using such discipline and field of study specific

terminology, like the previous words, helps the author convey her data and arguments in a clear

and concise way. This strengthens the idea that a level of expertise and education is required for

certain discourse communities. In order to thoroughly understand this piece of writing, prior

knowledge of the terminology and field of study is necessary. However, this is not the case for

the “Regulatory Improvement Initiative”. This article does uses legal jargon that can be difficult
 Ferrell 3

to comprehend as it is unfamiliar to outsiders of this community, however, but it isis written in a

way so that the public can understand without knowing the meaning of all the text for the public

to understand. Also, the authorIt even has includes a section that tells the reader who to contact if

they have questions regarding the legislation. Words such as “enforcement, … regulation

reforms” and “legal mandates” mark this piece of writing as a legal document (Wilson 1995).

Writing that stems from the legal discipline tends to use strong key words that emphasize the

point being made. The repeated use of the word ‘reform’ leads the reader to believe that this

piece of legislation will help to mitigate problems stemming from pesticide use. Authors of

legislation, like this one, want their audience to agree with their propositions. Using persuasive

and powerful jargon aids the author in reaching this goal. JThis is why jargon and language

choice are important parts of discipline specific writingwriting; they determine how the audience

will react and respond to the writing..

The structure of a piece of writing can also vary from discipline to discipline. The

structural and formatting differences in these articles are geared toward the information being

presented by each. To begin with, the “Regulatory Improvement Initiative” is much longer at

sixty-eight pages compared to Chakrabarti’s thirteen pagethirteen-page lab report. The

“Regulatory Improvement Initiative” begins with a note from the editor and the table of contents.

The seal of California on the cover of this document stands out as a marker of a legal document.

This article also has a mission statement and an overview of the program being proposed. Each

different proposed reform is stated and then followed by the “arguments” for it, the “discussion

points”, and the “implementation requirements” (Wilson 19957). This organization style helps

the reader understand what is being proposed and why, this is effective because, if they would

like to reference a specific reform, all of the information is in the same place. This style of
 Ferrell 4

organization also creates a clear outline of the argument being presented. TThe section

containing the argument includes evidence and the authors’ reasoning for the specific reform.

Overall, tThis organized and direct approach to writing is typical of legal documents and can be

observed . when comparing different legal documents. While other documents may have

different content, they are outlined in the same (or a very similar) way. In contrast, tThe first

page of Chakrabarti’s lab report has the title of the study and an introduction to the research with

background information. FurthermoreH, headings and subheadings organize this article into

important sections. Lab reports typically have a methods and materials section, a results, and a

discussion or conclusion. This report includes many charts and tables organizing the data the

researchers collected. For example, her results section includes electron microscope images of

the experimental bees’ brains followed by a group of line graphs organizing the data from the

images so that data trends can be clearly observed (See Addendum A). This This type of data

organization is a true reflection of the scientific method and is universal to biological lab

reportsy articles because it is the clearest way to organize results and highlight findings; this can

be observed through comparing any biological lab reports. Using charts like these helps the

reader visualize the data trends. Another Furthermore, headings and subheadings organize this

article into important sections. Lab reports typically have a methods and materials section, a

results, and a discussion or conclusion. One characteristic to note is that the legal document does

not include a list of sources, while the lab report does. Lab reports are contributing to past

experiments and data that already exists. This existing data must be acknowledged in order for it

to be built upon. In the discipline of biology, new data is constantly being added, however the

‘old’ data is used as a background or basis of understanding.

 Ferrell 5

When comparing discipline specific writing, an often- overlooked aspect is the writer.

The writers’ “motivation and agenda” are what created these pieces in the first place (Rosenburg

201112). In this study, eEach author has a different background and education that makes them

an excellent writer for each of their disciplines. The main authors of the “Regulatory

Improvement Initiative” are Pete Wilson, who was the governor of California from 1991-1999,

and the Secretary for Environmental Protection James Strock. Politicians are a part of the law

discipline and are key authors of legislative documents like this one. The authors of the article

“Field populations of native Indian honey bees from pesticide intensive agricultural landscape

show signs of impaired olfaction” are all scientists and researchers. Priyadarshini Chakrabarti is

a research associate at Oregon State University in the Agriculture and Life Sciences department.

Her associates are PhD holders in the field of Zoology. This level of education means that they

are well versed in the language of biological science and have extensive knowledge of the jargon

and vocabulary being used. Having higher education and a certain level of credibility is an

important part of being a member of these discourse communities. The credibility of these papers

can also be attributed to the peer review process they must go through. Chakrabarti’s report went

through six months of peer review before it was accepted and published by the journal Scientific

Reports. The “Regulatory Improvement Initiative” had to pass through multiple committees and

both sides of the House of Representatives which voted on whether it should be enacted or not.

The amount of peer review both of these writings go through shows how important accuracy and

credibility is in regard to these disciplines. The more peer reviews a paper goes through, no

matter what discipline it stems from, the more credible it is. Credibility is very important in the

discourse communities of law and biology.

 Ferrell 6

WAs Swales said, when comparing discourse communities, as Swales says, “our focus is

on rhetorical principles of organizations, on discoursal expectations, on significant linguistic

tokens, and on intriguing textual artifacts” (Swales 201610). To simplifyIn conclusion, the

structure of these articles, authors, and language create effective discipline specific articles. It is

clear that theThe authors have expertise and skill in these forms of writing and know how to

appeal to the audiences of their disciplines due to their use of specialized jargon and discipline

specific formatting. When looking at the structure, authors, and language of these two articles,

some similarities can be noted: namely, t. They are rigidly structured, the authors are well

educated, and the jargon is specialized. However, I believe there are more differences than

similarities when you take a closer look. Each of these three characteristics have specific roles

that cater to the audience of their discourse community. The structure, language, and authors of

the biological discourse community are all oriented towards writing for other researchers and

scientists. On the contrary, the legal discourse community uses structure, language, and the

credibility of the authors to persuade the public and other members of the community to support

their position. The differences in the writing of these discourse communities is one of the things

that make them unique. The uniqueness of the writing, members, and every other aspect of

discourse communities create niches in academia for scholars, lawyers, scientists, and many

others to thrive.
 Ferrell 7

Sources

Chakrabarti, Priyadarshini, S. Rana, S. Bandopadhyay, D. G. Naik, S. Sarkar, P. Basu. Field

populations of native Indian honey bees from pesticide intensive agricultural landscape

show signs of impaired olfaction. Scientific Reports, July 2015.

Wilson, Pete, J. M. Strock, J. W. Wells. Regulatory Improvement Initiative: Proposals to

Improve California's Pesticide Regulatory Program. California Environmental Protection

Agency Department of Pesticide Regulation, October 1995.

 Ferrell 8

Addendum A