Ariana Claudio
Ms. Mattie Q. Smith
ERH-101-05
17 November 14
Help Received: Brittani Jackson on Peer Review
Ms. Smith on assistance for expansion
________________________________________
How much is the media really telling you?
Scientific literacy is “described as an ongoing, cumulative, in other words life-long
process (Dijk).” The question is how the academic discourse differs from the popular discourse.
The purpose of science communication is based directly on scientific literacy. Scientific literacy
can be described as “the ideal situation where people are aware of, interested and involved in,
form opinions about, and seek to understand science (Dijk).”
J. Ryder conducted a case study in 2001 that showed people who are not in the profession
of science have “knowledge about the development and use of scientific knowledge rather than
scientific knowledge itself (Dijk).” The problem is that “science is a multifaceted enterprise for
which no satisfying definition that encompasses in it its entirety is likely to be found (Dijk).” The
case study shows that it is important to know how science works to understand the discussion
differences between popular and academic discourse (Dijk).
The academic discourse of science can be altered in many ways when translated to the
public in popular discourse. Science is continuously being executed through rhetoric. A skill that
should be obtained is the ability to identify the content of information provided and how it is
being presented by the media. According to Jason Davis, a basic rule to follow while reading a
science based article is to “read skeptically (Davis)” and pay attention to details of the writing.
Davis recommends looking up where the information originally came from, and comparing and
contrasting each of the genres. Some things to pay attention to are the rhetorical situations,
genres, length, and the amount of accurate evidence and sources provided. Paying attention to
these aspects of the writing are just some of the few key ways to recognize when information is
being manipulated.
Popular discourse uses language that appeals to its audience. An academic discourse of
science will appeal to its discourse community, whereas a popular discourse will try and appeal
to all people through a connection with emotions and attitude to create a sensational appeal. The
media uses the strategy of framing in order to present information not commonly known.
Framing is “a way of packaging complex issues…to help the receiver make sense of the topic”
(Gardner, Jones, Ferzli). Popular discourse may alter the emphasis of certain details and attitude
of certain subjects from the original source (Gardner, Jones, Ferzli). This is known as the
framing effect (Gardner, Jones, Ferzli).
Comparing and contrasting of the magazine article, “Nicotine, the Wonder Drug?” by Dan
Hurley, and the peer reviewed journal Nicotine as Therapy by Tabitha M. Powledge will
exemplify how academic discourse can be manipulated when being translated for popular
discourse. The topic in each article discusses how nicotine can be used as an advantageous factor
for the body. It is said that it can assist with the effects of depressive-spectrum disorders like
ADHD, Parkinson’s, and schizophrenia. Powledge’s journal gives the affirmative that nicotine
can be used as a “therapy” (Powledge), whereas Harley’s article provides more of a question of
whether or not nicotine could be truly used beneficially.
“Nicotine as Therapy” offers a long description of how nicotine can affect the brain, pain,
and weight gain. With the use of an informal tone, the information is directed towards a science
based discourse community while using specific language. Powledge is able to use scholarly
words and explain the topic in a more in depth way because her audience is a community that
would most likely have previous knowledge on the subject. An example sentence to show the
type of specialized terminology is “acetylcholinesterase inhibitors—which block the degradation
of acetylcholine and hence prolong its action—used to treat Alzheimer disease also stimulate
dopamine release (Powledge).” In this example, most would not know what acetylcholine or
dopamine is. Powledge also uses a set of abbreviations that a person from the general public may
not know the meaning of—including nAChR. In addition, Powledge uses simple titles with a
consistent structure. For example, specific paragraphs are titled, “Nicotine and the Brain,”
“Nicotine and Weight Gain,” “Nicotine and Pain.” The titles are presented in a bland way
because the purpose of academic discourse is not to try and attract many followers, but provide
scholarly research and material. Powledge gives support throughout the journal with the regular
use of men and women from multiple universities. The reader can infer that the author is credible
because of the consistent format and large amount of detailed citation provided. Powledge
creates a formal format of the front page of her journal. She does not include the use of images or
any display of an eye catching illustration.
In comparison to the journal, “Nicotine, the Wonder Drug?” is a short article that
discusses how the use of nicotine can have a positive influence on “Parkinson’s, schizophrenia,
and other neurological diseases.” Harley presents background with the use of a formal tone while
speaking to a broad audience who may have little to no knowledge on science. Hurley uses an
informal tone while using the common science frame of “moving forward (Gardner, Jones,
Ferzli).” He presents a “solution (Gardner, Jones, Ferzli)” that could potentially help the “quality
of life” (brown) of certain people who suffer from specific diseases. Nicotine, known as the most
addictive drug in the world (Powledge), would never be thought of as having a positive potential
outcome of its usage. When nicotine is mentioned, most would never assume that “a drug linked
to one of the greatest public health scourges the world has ever known” (Hurley) could in any
way be good for the body. The readers can conclude that Hurley created the title of the magazine
article with the question, “Nicotine, the Wonder Drug?” with the intention of grasping the
reader’s attention. In addition to the main title, Hurley gives unusual paragraph titles including,
“Tweaking the Brain” and “Not the Great Satan” in order to make the article more appealing to a
wide audience. Along with the creation of catchy titles, Hurley uses a strong word choice
throughout the article to also catch the readers’ attention. Hurley uses the word, “ravaged” to
explain how tobacco takes over the heart, lungs, and teeth. He also explains that the drug
levodopa has been the “gold-standard treatment” for the disease Parkinson’s. Throughout the
article, Hurley attempts to provide credibility by using facts and quotes from an assortment of
people. Quotes are taken from a neurologist, neuroscientist, and a psychologist with other
minimal citations. Hurley inserts that “the neurodegenerative disorder effects about 1 percent of
people by age 60, rising to about 4 percent by age 80 (Hurley).” Although Hurley consistently
provides support from possible credible resources, he does not give any background information
on where he received the information from. Because of this, it does not ensure the reader that
what Hurley is saying is completely accurate. Hurley crafts the front page of his article with an
illustration of a person physically putting a nicotine patch on their arm. This is used to catch the
readers’ attention to show that some people are willingly using nicotine for helpful purposes.
Although there are distinct differences between the journal “Nicotine as Therapy” and
article “Nicotine, the Wonder Drug?” the information discussed between the two corresponds
well with one another. The central purpose discussed in each is how nicotine can benefit certain
diseases. Both the journal and the article get the point across; just in a different way. Most
academic and popular discourse will differ in rhetorical situations, genres, length, citation, and
format. When comparing an article with its original source, it may be extremely different or
extremely similar. The main factor of the extent of differences relies in the author of the article.
The facts that Hurley provided in the article resembled well with the journal. In the case of
Powledge and Hurley, Hurley only used a minimal amount of strategies such as illustrations and
word choice to attract the reader.
Academic discourse is not intended for the common eye. The purpose of academic
discourse is to write directly towards a specific discourse community. The greatest benefit of
academic discourses are that they offer accurate information with credible facts and citation. A
set-back is that they are not as exclusive as popular. Popular discourse is made for the everyday
read. The main purpose is to make a story that will want to be read by many. It can be found
almost anywhere: magazines, newspapers, online. The benefit of popular discourse is that it is
readily available to most and allows for the general public to be informed of the current story
going on. It is important to remember that popular discourse comes from a wide range amount of
sources. The downfall of popular discourse is that because the purpose is to make a story that
will want to be ready by many, the information given will be exaggerated and shifted in some
sort to appeal to all audiences. If the reader would like to learn more on the topic or make sure
that is it completely accurate, it is best to try and find the original source.
Works Cited
Dijk, Esther M. van. "Portraying Real Science In Science Communication." Science Education
95.6 (2011): 1086-1100. Academic Search Complete. Web. 16 Nov. 2014.
Davis, Jason. Lecture. “Truth to Power: The Importance of Scientific Outreach.” Virginia
Military Institute. 29 Oct. 2014.
Gardner, Grant E., M. Gail Jones, and Miriam Ferzli. "Popular Media In The Biology
Classroom: Viewing Popular Science Skeptically." American Biology Teacher (National
Association Of Biology Teachers) 71.6 (2009): 332-335. Academic Search Complete. Web. 16
Nov. 2014.
Powledge, Tabitha M. "Nicotine As Therapy." Plos Biology 2.11 (2004): 1707-1710. Academic
Search Complete. Web. 16 Nov. 2014.
Hurley, Dan. "Nicotine, the Wonder Drug?." Discover Magazine. 05 Feb 2014: n. page. Print.
Word Count: 1510