In today’s society most knowledge is presented in written form. Whether it’s through textbooks, journals, or articles, this is the primary way to attain information. In his article, What Written Knowledge Does, Charles Bazerman analyzes how this knowledge is presented, interpreted, and how effective it is. He states that “The written text, published in journal or book, serves as the definitive form of a claim or argument, following on earlier printed claims and leading to future claims” (Bazerman 18). Written knowledge can be presented in different forms ranging from a scientific style to a more literary one. Although very different fields, Theobald et al and Jarvis both use the guidelines, laid out in Bazerman’s work such as focusing on an object of study, one’s audience, and developing a persona.
The most important aspect of writing to establish is the author’s object of study. A scientific journal or essay presents information in a more obvious way. Authors tend to clearly state their claim and then produce evidence to support their case. David Theobald, Sarah Reed, Kenyon Fields, and Michael Soulé were no exception. In their essay, Theobald et al work to show the approach they developed that estimates the connectivity of natural landscapes as a gradient of permeability. Although Jarvis, does not explicitly state her object under study, it is not difficult to discover what it is she is aiming to accomplish with her writing. Jarvis works to credit women and their role in wilderness conservation. More specifically, to point out how women’s contributions to this field have been overlooked due to gender bias. Identifying the author’s object under study is the baseline to attaining written knowledge.
Anticipating one’s audience is also very important in writing. This guides the author in how to write their works. They do not give much background to their topic, they just begin stating their claim. The writers assume that their respective audiences already have a knowledge in human modification and conversion of land and the effect of this leading to fragmentation of natural ecosystems. They do however provide some definitions to help their readers along for example defining connectivity before stating how it plays into their invention. The writers assume that their respective audience believe the current method in place, which is why they focus on arguing why their discovery is better. The article attempted to achieve persuasion by describing the current devices used to tame this issue and stating why their product is more useful. They also used certain adjectives like novel and robust to describe their approach, making it more desirable in the reader’s eyes. These methods are effective ways of persuasion because it states why other products are not as good as theirs and gives theirs a more attractive spin to it through the use of linguistics. In addition to the vocabulary used, they provide a table showing their calculations of the proportion of human-modification for thirteen major land cover groups. When calculating their results, they provide visuals of the United States permeability and connectivity. By using these, it gives evidence to support their claim, making it more credible. In attempting to achieve to persuasion, the author(s) must take into account their audience.
Jarvis anticipates the audience is unaware of the importance women had in the conservation of nature. Although, it is implied that this is due to gender bias since she does not explicitly state the background of its origins. Jarvis proceeds to highlight the names of males whom have contributed to the preservation of the wilderness and have been hallmarked over those who were not, of course all women. Jarvis brings to the reader’s attention the contributions made by Susan Cooper, Mary King Sherman, Rachel Cannon. Jarvis points out that women were commonly seen as physically delicate regardless of the fact that many women were apart of outdoor clubs, went mountain climbing and camping, and participated in many other wilderness activities (150). Jarvis makes this point to show how women were overlooked and belittled during this time. In attempt to achieve persuasion, Jarvis cites other works of her field. This makes her article more credible, leading a reader to have a greater chance in trusting her claim. She also uses images throughout her article to add to her credibility. A visual gives the reader a chance to really see why her argument is strong. In addition, by using gender bias as the reason why women were suppressed during this time, provides the reader with a logical explanation as to why women were left out of other works on the preservation of nature. By foreseeing who her audience is, Jarvis can successfully argue her claim.
In all written works, each author must develop their own sense of self. The writers in Connecting Natural Landscapes Using a Landscape Permeability Model to Prioritize Conservation Activities in the United States develop a persona by the use of “we.” This gives a more familial realistic persona. In addition, they do remain professional in the way the readers perceive them. They conduct a professional demeanor through the vocabulary used. They also remain very respectful and show appreciation towards those whose studies have assisted them, but are otherwise solely focused on their work. Throughout their essay, they are consistently citing their sources through in text citations. They cite all previous information about the current model as well as discussions about it. The only information they do not cite is their results of the discovery. This shows that it is their own work and discoveries being made. Jarvis, on the other hand, does not use first person and actually uses a lot of generalizations, such as “many” and “various,” to support her argument. For example, “The conservation movement reflected the ideas behind a variety of reform programs and agendas that developed during the Progressive Era (c. 1890–1920). Many of these reforms attempted to control the increasing chaos of American society” (Jarvis 151). Throughout her essay, Jarvis makes assumptions regarding the reason why women were not recognized for their efforts. Much of her article becomes subjective rather than objective, making the framework of her work her opinion. Each author develops their own persona, although the two are very different.
In order to prove their claim, many authors turn to related literature in their specific field. However, in a scientific journal with a new discovery does not focus much on referencing other authors. Theobald et al do not specifically reference certain people, but they do cite all works that have used connectivity and permeability maps. They are using these other texts in the beginning of their article to show why the current model in place is not the most effective. They do not pertain to their specific claim because they are challenging it rather than using them for support. Although these references are important to the introduction of their article, it is not relevant throughout the rest of their writing. They do not have any other reference since their claim is that their model is new and original to them. Therefore their maps and mathematical proof is more significant than other literature in their specific field.
Contrary to Theobald et al, Jarvis’ reference to specific literature related to her respective field is more relevant to strengthening her argument. She uses Susan Fenimore Cooper’s Rural Hours to argue that descriptions of nurturing connected paintings of nature with the role of a caregiver, similar to women of the 19th century (151). Cooper, being a naturalist and woman of this time, was able to provide insight that made Jarvis’ claim more credible. Jarvis’ use of Roderick Nash’s, Wilderness of the American Mind, does not prove the contributions that women made in this field, but instead highlights the nonexistent presence of women mentioned throughout his novel. Since Nash makes major contributions in this area of study and is a foundation for the history of wilderness, Jarvis utilizes him to make her claim stronger in that women were not appreciated or credited with the preservation of nature. Jarvis proves that Nash’s research was lacking recounting the contributions made by multiple women, specifically. Harriet Hemenway, Lovell White, Alta McDuffee. Since the Jarvis assumes that the audience has not done much research in the influence women had in the conservation of nature, most of her references are explicit. Her references serve to not only inform her readers but also strengthen her claim.
Bazerman’s structure of how written knowledge is presented is recognized through all works, regardless of their field. Although, Theobald et al and Jarvis use many different techniques in order to convey certain knowledge. Since Theobald et al write a scientific journal, they first state previous knowledge, prove why it is wrong, and then state their claim, providing evidence to support it. Jarvis, on the other hand, jumps right into her argument and then presents evidence to support. Both, of course do present evidence to back up their claim, as this is needed in any written work attempting to achieve persuasion. The claims throughout Bazerman’s article are seen in both works, despite the fact that they are very different fields of study.