Science, Humanities, and Social Sciences: Not the Different Sides of the Same Coin - Research Paper Example

 We have been asked to write three papers for the fields of Science, Humanities, and Social Sciences. This paper reflects on the differences and similarities of these writing efforts. I learned that they have their own difficulties, but by writing for these diverse fields, I became a better writer who can adapt to different research purposes and methodologies. Definitely, writing for these fields cannot be seen as seeing different sides of the same coin, and instead, they can be seen as different coins with some similarities in their engravings. The papers have diverse writing goals. For Project 1, it asks students to re-write a scientific article in the format of popular science so that they can experience writing for the field of Science. This scientific research should be interesting and can be related to certain human values and/or goals. For Project 2, the chosen animal should be related to an “artifact,” such as text, film jewelry, and other tangible works through a review of literature that uses five sources. This research should help students practice writing about Humanities subjects. The review of literature explores how the animal reflects cultural or historical values of a specific time and place or how it is “coded” with values and beliefs. For Project 3, it asks students to conduct a qualitative research for field of Social Sciences. Students have to collect qualitative data about people’s beliefs, experiences, and attitudes regarding the animals they have chosen for Projects 1 and 2. They are expected to analyze the data and explain what they mean through a solid argument. Data-collection for Science is different from the data-collection approaches of Humanities and Social Science, although Social Science and Science approaches have some similarities in using the scientific approach. For the Science paper, I collected information through searching for a scientific and original article in an academic database. This article can be differentiated from other usual articles, such as news articles and stories, because it generally contains abstracts, detailed descriptions of experiments or methodologies, data analysis, a conclusions section, complex graphs and charts, and uses diction meant for experts in the field. I chose the article from the International Journal of Cow Science. Thirumurugann and Saseendran (2006) wrote the article “Effect of Housing Systems and Sprinkling Water on Production and Reproduction Performances of Crossbred Dairy Cow.” I did not collect the quantitative data firsthand, and instead, I rewrote this scientific article for popular reading. This research is different from other research I have done before, because I had to carefully choose an original article, which means that the author/s collected the data firsthand and did not base their data on the research of others. I also did not use “popular” articles, such as those found in popular magazines, newspapers, and journals, which target the mass market or laypeople. For instance, I did research on the issue of rape against children in the context of Penn State University. I relied primarily on newspapers and magazines for this research, which I cannot do for this Science paper. The Humanities paper concerns collecting information from several sources, so that I can understand my chosen animal, “the cow,” from a cultural perspective. Instead of quantitative data that I collected for my Science paper, I collected qualitative and quantitative data that examined dairy farming and Swiss dairy farming. This research is different from my usual research, because I had to read several articles that explore the topic from different perspectives, but still focus on the Swedish cultural context. At first, I thought it would be hard, because I was not used yet to integrating different articles for a literature review. The process of synthesis is also new to me, and I know I need more practice on this. Still, I learned that research in Humanities has its specific data-collection challenges, such as choosing relevant articles for the field and the topic at hand. Finally, I realized that collection of text-based data is also different from qualitative data, because text-based data offers more emphasis on the writer's meaning, while qualitative data stresses understanding the data on its own. There is more bias then in text-based data than qualitative data. The Social Science paper is quite challenging for me, because I had to collect qualitative data by conducting an interview. Interviews are an effective way of getting in-depth information, and it is also quite helpful in discovering how individuals feel and think about my particular subject matter. I conducted four interview sessions with people of different cultures, who had lived in different parts of the world, so that I can have a multicultural view of their opinions and values about my chosen animal, the cow. Before this interview, I also made a point of visiting different areas where they had reared cattle. I did my observations without interrupting people and I also interviewed two experts to find out why they did the jobs they did, what they found most intriguing about working with cows and if they felt a connection with the cows. All in all I came up with a total of ten questions for my respondents. Most of these questions were open-ended, so that my research participants can freely answer accordingly. To find out more about how people felt about cows, I also decided to gather more information from secondary sources of data. These included journals, books, and the Internet. These sources also provided more information about my research study and helped me improve my questions and knowledge for the research. This Social Science paper is different from the Science paper, because I did not treat values and opinions as something that would harm the objectivity of my paper. Instead, these values and opinions are given importance, as in the Humanities paper. This Social Science paper is the same as the Science paper because of the scientific data-collection process. Triangulation of data is important for the Social Sciences, so that the validity and accuracy of the data can be enhanced. These different fields have diverse and common points when viewing and explaining cows and they take different/similar approaches and emphases because of similarities/differences in their goals as a field of knowledge. I learned that Science sees the cow as a source of livelihood, which can be enhanced through scientific inquiries. It takes the approach of scientific inquiry that increase scientific knowledge about the topic, because Science is concerned with scientific methods and knowledge. The article concluded that the secret of having cows that can produce more milk and more fertile is that one should provide them with facilities that allow cooling down of temperature: “The use of loose housing and sprinkling of water addresses this concern and the implications are that similar situations remedies may be thought about and applied as well provided that they produce the same cooling affects to cows.” This conclusion makes the Science article quite pragmatic in its perspective of the cow. The humanist perspective focuses more on how cows impact human living through a cultural and historical perspective. It takes the approach of researching from a secondary perspective, since it aims to understand how other cultures already see the world. This is the approach of the humanities, because it wants to integrate studies about human interests and goals from their own perspectives and not from the perspective of the researcher. Like the Science paper, the humanities also want to increase knowledge about people's cultures and histories. My paper showed that dairy farming productivity has declined in some countries especially Switzerland: “As a result, dairy farms are not making enough revenue from their practice to enable them enhance their business. Hence, cattle population is reducing in various countries around the world.” There are so many issues that all the counties need to consider in improving the practice of dairy farming, since it can still be a lucrative industry and has been a traditional source of income for many people. The social science perspective emphasizes the impact of cows on people and the people's views on cows. Its approach is to understand topics from the users or participants themselves. It uses this approach because it wants to interpret reality according to how society defines and interprets it, which makes it similar with Humanities. The main finding of my social science paper is that “The participants perceived a cow [as] admirable, attractive and moreover very friendly.” The social science perspective share similarities with the humanities, in terms of understanding how people see cows in relation to their lives. The social science and humanities perspective demonstrate that cows have more than a practical role, which the science paper highlights. Cows also offer something to reflect on, because they have similar characteristics as people. Furthermore, the social science and humanities perspective agree that cows also have cultural and social relevance, since they parallel how people can harmoniously live with one another. I developed as a writer and researcher during WRIT 1133, because I learned how to do research in three different fields, Science, Humanities, and Social Sciences. I learned these three fields' differences and similarities in how they collect and analyze data. I also learned that their specific perspectives and goals impact how they see my subject and how they interpret people's opinions and values. I further learned how to adjust my language to different perspectives, because they have their own jargon. In addition, I learned to change my language according to my target audiences, since each field can also have specific target audiences. I also want to reflect on the differences between research-based writing for a popular audience, as opposed to research-based writing for an audience of scholars or experts. When writing for a popular audience, I have to identify who I want to write for. I cannot just write for the general public, because there is no writing that can please everyone. Instead, I have to start with imagining who I want to speak with, which I decided on the people who are involved in the dairy business, since I love dairy products and enjoy dairy farming experiences too. After that, I changed my tone and language, as well as writing style to these people. The same goes for research-based writing for an audience of scholars or experts. I also have to write in the same language that they use. The research, however, has to be more rigorous, since experts criticize data-collection methods and data. If I want to make my writing credible and relevant to them, I must also be ready to use the same data-collection and analysis methods that they use too. Thus, I change how I think and write, when writing for both a popular audience and scholars or experts. The writing and its content and style should respond to the audiences' languages and knowledge needs. Read More