The Home Page · The Integral Worm · My Resume · My Show Car · My White Papers · Organizations I Belong To
Technical Writing · Exposition & Argumentation · Non-fiction Creative Essays · Grammar and Usage of Standard English · The Structure of English · Analysis of Shakespeare
Analysis of Literary Language · Advanced Professional Papers · The History of the English Language · First Internship: Tutoring in a Writing Workshop · Second Internship: Advanced Instruction: Tutoring Writing
Visual Literacy Seminar (A First Course in Methodology) · Theories of Communication & Technology (A Second Course in Methodology) · Language in Society (A Third Course in Methodology) · The Writer's Guild
UMBC'S Conservative Newspaper: "The Retriever's Right Eye" · UMBC'S University Newspaper: "The Retriever Weekly" · Introduction to Journalism · Feature Writing
Science Writing Paper 1 · Science Writing Paper 2 · Science Writing Paper 4
Observation Journal · Gender Language in Science Writing · The Status Quo of Science: A Presentation
Weekly Responses to Reading Assignments and Responses to Peer Responses
Williams' narrative Refuge and Carson's Silent Spring exemplify the differences in two scientific writing styles and methodologies; Silent Spring represents the quantitative methodology and Refuge represents the qualitative methodology. The two books also demonstrate a shift over the past thirty years in scientific thinking when analyzing nature.
There are two different approaches to the discipline of science. There is the Qualitative and the Quantitative approach and both are valid. Due to this difference in approach, science writing is written in two completely different, distinct voices. Both styles of writing have similar approaches and arrive at the same end, but accomplish this with a vastly different voice, tone, and language.
Contrasting writing styles are abundantly clear when comparing Rachel Carson's Silent Spring to Terry Tempest Williams book, Refuge. Both authors weave a complex analysis of how mankind utilizes technology to control nature and both authors appeal to their audience to take a position in reducing this control, but the mechanism by which they do this, their writing styles, are vastly different.
Carson's writing represents the quantitative approach. Carson uses facts and figures drawn from various sources to demonstrate how we attempt to control the insect population through the use of toxic chemicals without considering the effects on the rest of the ecosystem including mankind. The language used is typical of most science writing. The writing is tight, concise, to the point, and objective. Carson states the facts analyzes them and presents the results of the information. On page 57, Carson states, "The production of synthetic pesticides in the United States soared from 124,259,000 pounds in 1947 to 637,666,000 pounds in 1960 - more than a fivefold increase." Carson's provides a straightforward statement of the facts. The use of the word "soared" is of no consequence here. To adhere to scientific protocol, Carson could have used the word "exponential" which would have similar meaning. Most of the language is in the third person, which is typical of science writing.
Williams's science writing, on the other hand, is based on first hand observations of the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge located in the Great Salt Lake, Utah. Refuge is the example of a qualitative approach. Williams witnesses the rising of the lake due to unusual weather patterns and records her daily observations. She presents the outcome of this phenomenon by describing how it changes the lives of the wildlife, mainly the bird population. The language Williams uses is very different in style from that of Carson. One reason for the difference is it is difficult to not write in the first person when recording personal observations. It can be done and is done every day, but Williams chooses not to. This serves a purpose in her science writing. Williams is informing us that these are observations that she, with her own senses, has observed and is not compiling data from other scientist's observations. Williams also uses literary constructions within her writing such as similes, symbolism, imagery and metaphors that are never used in science writing. On page 8, Williams describes the nest of a burrowing owl through the use of a simile, "What is distinctive about these owls is their home. It rises from the alkaline flats like a clay-covered first. If you were to peek inside the tightly clenched fingers, you would find a dark-holed entrance." Williams' description could have conveyed the observation in a technical writing tone. The tone would have been similar to the science writing we are normally accustomed to, but the language would become so cumbersome, the very image that Williams would present would be lost in obscurity.
In both texts the death of an animal is described but the language used is vastly different. In Silent Spring, Carson provides testimony of a scientific observer in Sheldon, Illinois, describing the death of a meadowlark due to insecticides on page 99. "Although it lacked muscular coordination and could not fly or stand, it continued to beat its wing and clutch with its toes while lying on its side. Its beak was held open and breathing was labored." The description is rather clinical in nature devoid of any verbs or adjectives and rather unemotional despite the bird's horrible death.
In Refuge, Williams describes the death of a barn swallow that she finds caught in barbed-wire fencing.
"When I saw the bird, my first instinct was to stop and help. But then, I thought, no, there is nothing I can do, the swallow is going to die. But I could not leave the bird. I finally took my hands and unwrapped it from the wire. Its heart was racing against my fingers. The swallow had exhausted itself. I placed it among the blades of grass and sat a few feet away. With each breath, it threw back its head, until the breaths grew fainter and fainter. The tiny chest became still. Its eyes were half closed. The barn swallow was dead."
At first glance, Williams recording of the account sounds melodramatic, or is it? Williams describes what she saw at the bird's last dying moments. The way she describes the death is a matter of observation. Analyzing the paragraph, it is neither the choice of words nor the length of text that accounts for the difference. It is the use of the first person that makes the reader feel that they are making observation and not Williams. From this viewpoint, the reader's emotions are affected which creates the difference of the recording of the observation. Psychologically, the pronoun "I" is interpreted by the mind as self, therefore the reader feels they are making this observation.
If Williams and Carson wanted to present the clinical scientific viewpoint of the bird's deaths, they could have said, "The bird died." This would not be true in reporting a scientific observation. Scientists are expected and trained to record precisely the information that they observe. Therefore heart rate, respiration, muscular response, physical appearance, color, and sound would all be important for future analysis.
The reason these two books are written in two completely different styles is in order to appeal to completely different audiences. Carson's text is targeted towards an audience that more than likely works in the discipline, is knowledgeable in the sciences and is seeking information. This audience is going to be accustomed to reading literature in an objective voice.
On the other hand, Williams' text is targeted towards a general audience that is not necessarily familiar with the objective writing style. This audience will be seeking enlightenment, while at the same time has a desire to be entertained. For this audience a subjective voice is more suitable in order to connect with them.
Williams writes from a qualitative approach and has a more flowery form of writing being less objective and more subjective in voice. This style does not make Williams' observations less objective, for they certainly are, but Williams' subjective writing style would capture a greater number of reader's interest. Recently, many books dealing with the sciences have been written from the qualitative viewpoint and have a metaphysical tone to them. Possibly due to Eastern Philosophical influence, more science writers are beginning to incorporate a spiritual nature into life science writing. Spirituality is dismissed from Western Science because it not quantitative. It is not something that can be observed or measured through ones senses. Spirituality is something that is concrete, nor can it be quantified; only qualified through the musings of the human mind. Therefore Western Science dismisses anything that cannot be objectively observed or quantified. Yet on the other hand, environmentalism and conservationism seem to lack the glue or the electron attraction so to speak to hold the entire system together. It reduces living things cause and effect, which is not what we observe in ourselves. As other scientists are brave enough to state what they really think and really observe, there is an emerging to include a spiritual portion to the observations that apparently seems to exist for all in the life sciences, but cannot be quantifiably explained, measured or observed.
What we may be observing is an emergence of a second period of enlightenment or a second renaissance within the life sciences, that is neither quantitative nor qualitative, but a merging of the two methodologies of science. This merge may form a picture that provides a better model representing the life sciences, for is not science the search for the truth?
Alexander, C. (2003, March 31). Breaking the Silence on DDT. Time, 161 (13), p.A36. Retrieved November 11, 2003 from Academic Search Premier. http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=9349596&db=aph
Cafaro, P. (2002). Rachel Carson's Environmental Ethics. Worldviews: Environment Culture Religion, 6 (1), p.58. Retrieved November 11, 2003 from Academic Search Premier. http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=7104717&db=aph
Environmentalism: a whole new revolution. (2003, May). Citizens Centre Report, 30 (9), 38-39. Retrieved November 11, 2003 from Academic Search Premier. http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=9709423&db=aph
Hiebert, R. (2002, July 11). Technological genocide. Report/Newsmagazine (Alberta Edition), 29(15), 60-62. Retrieved November 11, 2003 from Academic Search Premier. http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=6991476&db=aph
Little, C.E. (1995). Books. Wilderness, Vol. 55, p. 34. Retrieved October 27, 2003 from Academic Search Premier. http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=9111112129&db=aph
Michaels, D. (2003, January). Environmental Health Science and the Legacy of Popular Literature. Environmental Health Perspectives, 111 (1) p.A14. 2p. Retrieved November 11, 2003 from Academic Search Premier. http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=9096517&db=aph
Mitchell, C. (2003, March). Reclaiming the Scared Landscape: Terry Tempest Williams, Kathleen Norris, and other Nature Writing. Women's Studies, Vol. 32, p. 165. Retrieved October 27, 2003 from Academic Search Premier. http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=9243868&db=aph
The National Audubon Society Field Guide: Birds. eNature.com. National Wildlife Foundation. Retrieved October 27, 2003 from http://www.enature.com/guides/select_Birds.asp
Riley, J. (2003, July/August). Finding One's Place in the "Family of Things": Terry Tempest Williams and Geography of Self. Women's Studies, 32, 585. Retrieved October 27, 2003 from Academic Search Premier. http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=10530050&db=aph
Sale, K. (2003, July). An Illusion of Progress. Ecologist, 33 (6), 24. Retrieved November 11, 2003 from Academic Search Premier. http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=10242384&db=aph
Watson, B. (2002, September). Sounding the alarm. Smithsonian, 33 (6), 115-118. Retrieved November 11, 2003 from Academic Search Premier. http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=7238850&db=aph
Williams, T. (2001). Refuge: An Unnatural History of Family and Place. Vintage Books. New York.
The Home Page · The Integral Worm · My Resume · My Show Car · My White Papers · Organizations I Belong To
Contact Me · FAQ · Useful Links