Machacek 1
Arranging Conversation
by
Amie Machacek
Professor Rebekah Eckert
University of Lethbridge
Writing 1000-C
Words: 563
Student Number: 001165075
5 October 2012
Machacek 2
Arranging Conversation
Giltrow et al. discuss in chapter six in their book, Academic Writing: An Introduction,
Second Edition, how different voices are orchestrated in different forms of writing. Orchestration
is the term that Giltrow et al. uses “to emphasize that you as a summarizer are arranging this
conversation” (103). When arranging the conversation it’s vital to make the speaker visible no
matter if it’s a scholarly or non-scholarly voice.
Generally scholar voices are easy to hear. Giltrow et al. state this when they write:
“These voices [scholarly voices] are relatively easy to orchestrate because they have much in
common: they come from researchers publishing their findings for other researchers” (111).
Giltrow et al. uses the examples such as followed to identify the voice in scholar works. The
speaker may use a “state of knowledge in which the key voices speak briefly, providing a
snapshot or research on a given subject” (Giltrow et al. 104). This can also be achieved through
one speaker presenting or there could be two or more voices being heard discussing the topic to
explore different options or opinions.
Scholarly voices aren’t always clear and to the point. When this occurs the author’s voice
may become invisible to the reader. Giltrow et al. show the reader three key examples to develop
this point. The scholar could already be in dialogue and quote or summarize another piece of
work that they have already read in order to support their point. Speakers with similar research
will find it relatively straightforward to orchestrate these two voices together because they are on
‘common ground’. Other times two voices may use the same technical terms or abstractions but
come from different research situations. Giltrow et al. exemplify this in the text when they write
about the technical term “traditional ecological knowledge” and its acronym TEK. “Huntington
Machacek 3
et al. use TEK in their research on the migrations and the movements and other behaviours of
beluga whales in Alaska, Wenzel reflects on TEK itself” (115).
Giltrow et al. bring up a very interesting point of when older scholars’ or non-scholars’
voices need to be orchestrated. “These writers may hold different, problematic views on certain
subjects, or they may not be researchers at all – they may represent genres or situations not
primarily focused on research” (121). When they orchestrate the voice it needs to be clear that
it’s not their own voice, but the voice of a textbook for example. Giltrow et al. make this clear
when they say, “It’s almost as if difficult writers wait in an anteroom while the summarizer
explains and anticipates their odd behaviour” (122). They continue to reflect on how the
scholars’ interests are not their own, but “bizarre” and “exotic” elements will be found (122),
which are of interest to the general public. This could be found in textbooks: scholars writing to
non-scholars. In the end of the chapter they discuss orchestrating the internet and making its
voice clear. Giltrow et al. stress’ to make sure that the address is noted when orchestrating the
internet’s voice.
Orchestrating voices can be very difficult. It doesn’t matter if it’s a scholar’s or nonscholar’s voice: summarizing their thoughts into your own words can be a challenge. Giltrow et
al. give the reader tips and tools to overcome and create a better understanding of how to
orchestrate other voices in chapter six: Academic Writing: An Introduction, Second Edition.
Machacek 4
Works Cited
Giltrow, Janet, Richard Gooding, Daniel Burgoyne and Marlene Sawatsky. Academic Writing:
An Introduction . second edition. Peterborough, Ontario : Broadview Press, 2009. Print.