PB2B: Examining the Rhetorical Features of Scholarly Articles

Part 1: 


Part 2: 
Within these scholarly journals, the research methods used by both are very similar. They used surveys, other scholarly journals, and their own studies. The main idea is the same also, they both are shining light on the argument of whether the use of forensic science in criminal investigations is a good idea or not. The research methods used in the second scholarly journal are very specific as I listed below, the first journal is not as descriptive but they do mention that they used certain criminal cases and other scholarly journals based off the same argument. The scholar's argument in the first article is, Is the evidence that comes from the work of forensic scientists enough of a credible source for convictions during homicide investigations? The argument in the second article is, The application of Forensic science in the Criminal justice system is too risky to correctly convict criminals.


Part 3:


Keywords: criminal investigation, forensic science, homicide

Conventions:  Jargon, Excerpts from other forensic science scholarly journals, Bolded headings,

Affordances: Easily accessible, clearly organized and layed out, involves factual evidence and quotes, references, uses a lot of different scholarly articles to support their claim

Rhetorical features?: Jargon, Logos

Writing style: Professional, Expository, Scholarly, Facts and quotes

Organization/Structure: Abstract, Intro, 6 body paragraph headings, Conclusion

Intended/primary audience: Other scholars in the field of forensic science and criminal justice.

Peripheral/secondary audience(s): Forensic scientists, Those involved in the Court System

Research methods: Other scholarly journals, criminal cases

Scholar’s argument: Is the evidence that comes from the work of forensic scientists enough of a credible source for convictions during homicide investigations?


Citation for Journal Article #2:

Keywords: Criminal justice system, Crime scene, Criminal investigation, Forensic evidence, Forensic science, Prosecution

Conventions:  Bold headings, References,

Affordances:  The first page of the article clearly lays out the structure and organization of this paper, references,

Rhetorical features?: Logos, Antanagoge, Jargon

Writing style: Expository, clear cut and straight to the point, factual

Organization/Structure: Introduction, 9 body paragraph headings, conclusion

Intended/primary audience: Other scholars in the fields of Forensic Science and Criminal Justice

Peripheral/secondary audience(s): Forensic scientists, researchers, those involved in the court system
Research methods:
  • Surveys
  • “Mixed-method five-year study of the effectiveness of forensic science in the criminal justice system in Australia using qualitative and quantitative methods” (Julian, Kelty 195)
  • “11 case studies of investigations of serious crime to identify key risk factors in the use of forensic science from crime scene to court” (Julian, Kelty 195).

Scholar’s argument: The application of Forensic science in the Criminal justice system is too risky to correctly convict criminals.

Part 4:
I think that the most important part of these two articles, as with any writing piece, is the main argument that they are trying to get across. That sets the whole idea and tone for the entire article and allows you to gain a better understanding of what you are reading especially in a scholarly journal. Since these journals can be very professionally written and may not be easy to read, having a general idea of what you are looking for while reading can help a lot.



Comments

  1. Maybe find examples of where the forensic data was enough to convict, and examples of where forensic data was wrong.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

PB2A: Part 1 & 2

PB3: Forensics Used In Homicide Investigations

PB2A: Parts 3, 4, & 5