Authority
In Ann Penrose and Cheryl Geisler’s “Reading and Writing Without Authority,” they highlight the importance it is for writers to develop writing with authority. In the article, Penrose and Geisler conduct a study on two students defining the term paternalism: Roger, who is completing a doctoral degree in Philosophy, and Janet, a freshman college student. From the definitions they each provided, we can comprehend who had ‘authority’ in their writing. Janet’s definition of paternalism, granted not erroneous, was not the correct way Penrose and Geisler wanted her to articulate her definition. Her answer was straightforward, practically verbatim from the dictionary, while Roger’s definition of the term is rooted in his authority of what he views about paternalism. He does not arrive at his definition from the dictionary– of course, that is his general basis, but he thinks critically to give his personal perspective of the term. His introductory clause is a scenario for the readers to get a sense of what he will describe and how he feels about the term. This introduction was great because it displayed Roger’s authority about the term. As the research paper from both students proceeds, readers can dive into the brains of Janet and Roger and follow their process of this paper– through their think-aloud transcript memos- readers could understand any intricacies or trouble they were having with the paper, any new idea and generative thinking, and see what they agree/disagree with. Readers can recognize that from Janet’s think-aloud transcripts, she was seeking a correct answer for paternalism. As the authors summarized, she was trying to find an absolute answer by being an outsider rather than an insider, which is how Roger perceived the readings. He would challenge the point of view of the authors from the articles and try to find numerous solutions for the term. He disagreed with the authors’ definitions and even, at times, disagreed with his thinking. Janet, conversely, was looking for absolute truth, so she did not know how to establish authority.
Justifiable study?
As noted in my earlier section, Janet was a freshman college student, and Roger was completing his doctoral– I am mentioning this again because I think it shows how, perhaps, the study could have been improper. Roger was familiar with the context of philosophical ethics. I think when we find ourselves asserting authority in a paper, it is because we are relatively knowledgeable of the content. And– of course, Roger is an aspiring philosopher. Philosophers tend to delve into problems in such a manner: They are always keen on informing readers of their perspective on a topic, whether erroneous or not, which can lead us to why we read that Roger was creating many possible definitions and scenarios to “properly” define paternalism. He is in the particular discourse community that benefits him here. Janet, conversely, was unfamiliar with ethical questions. She was set on finding one truthful answer, which made the process more intricate. Philosophical questions are difficult, and they are more intricate for individuals who are not a part of that discourse community. Moreover, I also think experience and knowledge certainly were key in identifying why Roger was authoritative. Also, a great point from the text that can raise questions on the high-school teaching curriculum; “She selectively selectively attended to those guidelines that fit with her information-transfer model, ignoring those that didn’t. The information-transfer model leaves little room for provisional or hypothetical thinking.” This is how many high school students who enter college believe questions for their assignments must be answered– practically from a text, with minimal input of their thinking of the topic, hence, what Janet displayed here.
Connections With Both Student
I cannot say there’s a definite answer on which student I connect with from the article because, at times, it depends on the topic of discussion. When I find myself asserting authority in a paper– that is, in the manner of challenging other authors and professors and perceiving my perception of a topic as correct. I would not hesitate to inform readers of my stance on such a topic or create different possibilities (*In that blog, I think I write with authority), similar to how Roger proceeded to write his paper. However, when I am entirely clueless on a topic, I am reluctant to develop authority in that writing, so I stick to the information-transfer model. When I am unsure of a topic and try to write with authority, I believe it is easily refutable. Like Janet, she knows facts are not refutable. So, generally, it depends. But from this text, I can see why it would be worth it to attempt to develop authority even if I am new to the content.
Leave a Reply