Report on My Interviews

So, after interviewing two of the ECE professionals that I know, what did I learn?

What are the most significant or interesting genres that you learned about from your interviewees? 

• Academic Research Paper - The most common of the academic genres, there are a great deal of papers published every year in all areas of ECE and the advancements being made.
• Lecture - When teaching to students at a college level, professors have to be very careful when designing the topic to ensure those without experience are able to comprehend the information.
• Conference Presentation - Before a paper gets published, the authors usually have to submit their work to a conference and have it peer reviewed, and first present the information the conference as a whole.

How do these genres differ from one another? Think about things like genre convention, content, purpose, audience, message, and context as you describe these differences.

While some of the audiences may be similar, the genres presented above are incredibly different. Though conference presentations and research papers share a closer level of detail, lectures will often have much broader themes and be designed for those unfamiliar with the topic rather than experienced professionals.

Based on the information you gathered in your interviews, what is challenging and/or difficult about writing within these genres (from a professional's point of view)?

Working in these genres often requires a massive amount of time to invest, something that is not always easy to account for. When speaking to both Gavin and Dr. Tharp, they expressed their thoughts on time management as an incredibly important part of the writing process, and said that writing the academic research paper often accounts for 25-30% of the total time of a project.

Based on the information you gathered in your interviews, what is exciting and/or rewarding about writing within these genres (from a professional's point of view)?

As a professional, having readers read through your academic journal shows that you are capable of advancing a field in ways that others may not be possible of doing. Also, when lecturing to students there is a great desire to prove that the subject matter is interesting and that it is worth being learned about.

Where in mass media - popular, academic, and/or social - can examples of this genre be found? If genre examples cannot be found within mass media easily, where can genre examples be found/located?

In academia, successful papers are published in the most highly revered journals, but this is far from mass media. Advancements often come into play in various news pieces, though the facts are far from the entire knowledge required to fully understand the topic.

From Academia to Social Media

From the IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits February 2016 Issue, we'll be taking a look at the social media presence of the author Sagar Ray.

Pasquini, Laura "Social Media" 4/18/15 via flickr. Public Domain.

What is the name of the author (from the academic journal) that you selected and which social media networks were you able to find her/him on?

Sagar Ray (not to be confused with Sugar Ray) is the author of "A 10 Gb/s Inductorless AGC Amplifier With 40 dB Linear Variable Gain Control in 0.13 $upmu text{m}$ CMOS" and is a much easier person to find on social media than either of my interviewees.

Facebook
LinkedIn
Twitter
Instagram

How would you describe the author's social media presence? What kinds of things are they talking about or sharing on social media? Write a brief description of what you learned about them through the listed social media feeds.

Based on what I could find in social media, Sagar is very interested in travelling, the weather, and often posts pictures of himself with friends and family. However, he remains professional on all of these sites, with little conversation outside of the pictures that he's posted (from what I'm able to see anyway) and a detailed and accurate LinkedIn profile for others to see.

Now return to the piece that this author published in the academic journal (from Blog Posts 6.5 & 6.6). How does their persona on social media differ from their persona in the pages of the academic journal?

I think that the author's social media presence matches the level of professionalism displayed in their academic work. However, it is very different to see a real person rather than just the data and analysis that they published in their journal papers.

Academic Discourse & Genre

So, we've looked at the IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits February 2016 Issue as a whole, but now it's time to get a bit more specific.

klimkin "Cactus Reading" 11/24/15 via pixabay. Public Domain.

How many different kinds of genres seem to be published in this particular issue of the journal you selected? 

Based on the articles that I (attempted to) read through, there is only format within the journal that I was able to discern which is shall call the Formal Journal Report. Starting with an Abstract and Introduction, the pieces then move on to the article's main content and then to the data collected and its analysis before ending at conclusions and references.

Identify at least three different genres within the journal issue and describe the significant formal differences between the three genres.

Unfortunately, there is only one type of genre present in the journal, but the formalities within the Formal Journal Report are plenty.

First, each article must start with a short abstract to overview the paper, then move to an introduction to state the theory behind the research being done. Then, the writers move to the content of their piece which often includes tables and graphs of their data. Afterwards, they move to analysis and conclusions that end the paper. Finally, they include a list of references or attributions off of which their research was based.

Now come up with your own definition for each genre (using the name you coined, if you weren't sure what the 'official' name is for the genre). 

Formal Journal Report - A report written to appear in an academic journal with the purpose of informing fellow professionals of work or research completed in the field.

Rhetorical Analysis of Academic Journal

After reviewing the Top 100 Journals for Electrical Engineering, I was unable to find any physical copies within the UA Library system. Though they all have electronic copies available for reading, there was no chance of getting a picture with the real one, so here's the best I could do.

Now, for this post I'll be reviewing the IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits February 2016 Issue, which is Issue 2 of Volume 51.

Authors (Per Article):

• Venumadhav Bhagavatula ; Tong Zhang ; Apsara Ravish Suvarna ; Jacques Christophe Rudell
• Iman Madadi ; Massoud Tohidian ; Koen Cornelissens ; Patrick Vandenameele ; Robert Bogdan Staszewski
• Giuseppe Li Puma ; Christophe Carbonne
• Yan-Jiun Chen ; Kwuang-Han Chang ; Chih-Cheng Hsieh
• Chi-Hang Chan ; Yan Zhu ; Sai-Weng Sin ; Seng-Pan Ben U ; Rui Paulo Martins
• Takao Oshita ; Joseph Shor ; David E. Duarte ; Avner Kornfeld ; George L. Geannopoulos ; Jonathan Douglas ; Nasser Kurd
• Shinwoong Kim ; Seunghwan Hong ; Kapseok Chang ; Hyungsik Ju ; Jaewook Shin ; Byungsub Kim ; Hong-June Park ; Jae-Yoon Sim
• Mina Kim ; Seojin Choi ; Taeho Seong ; Jaehyouk Choi
• Min-Han Hsieh ; Liang-Hsin Chen ; Shen-Iuan Liu ; Charlie Chung-Ping Chen
• Guanghua Shu ; Woo-Seok Choi ; Saurabh Saxena ; Mrunmay Talegaonkar ; Tejasvi Anand ; Ahmed Elkholy ; Amr Elshazly ; Pavan Kumar Hanumolu
• Sagar Ray ; Mona Mostafa Hella
• Jun-Chau Chien ; Ali M. Niknejad
• Walker J. Turner ; Rizwan Bashirullah
• Jong-Kwan Choi ; Jae-Myoung Kim ; Gunpil Hwang ; Jaehyeok Yang ; Min-Gyu Choi ; Hyeon-Min Bae
• Shunta Iguchi ; Hiroshi Fuketa ; Takayasu Sakurai ; Makoto Takamiya
• Dongmin Yoon ; Taekwang Jang ; Dennis Sylvester ; David Blaauw
• Po-Hung Chen ; Chung-Shiang Wu ; Kai-Chun Lin
• Min Tan ; Wing-Hung Ki
• Suyoung Bang ; David Blaauw ; Dennis Sylvester
• Mahmut E. Sinangil ; John W. Poulton ; Matthew R. Fojtik ; Thomas H. Greer III ; Stephen G. Tell ; Andreas J. Gotterba ; Jesse Wang ; Jason Golbus ; Brian Zimmer ; William J. Dally ; C. Thomas Gray

Unfortunately with a list of more than 75 contributing authors, there is no personal information included about any of them. However, at the top of their respective papers, it will list their institution, such as Takao Oshita who is an IEEE Member and published for IEEE itself.

Audience:

The intended audience for this journal is readers who have a deep understanding of the fundamentals of electrical engineering. It is only focused on this audience as all of the articles contain field specific jargon such as in within Oshita's piece where they write "The inverting amplifier contains a pair of the inner cascode pMOS and nMOS devices with fixed dc biasing."

Context:

The IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits releases a new issue every month, and has had regular updates since 1966. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers is the main professional society for Electrical Engineers, and was founded in 1963.

Message and Purpose:

In the case of Jun-Chau Chien from the University of California at Berkeley, the paper "presents the analysis and design of oscillator-based reactance sensors employing injection locking for high-throughput label-free single-cell analysis using dielectric spectroscopy at microwave frequencies." The format of abstract, introduction, content, data, analysis, and conclusion are followed closely for all articles within the journal.

Within this journal, the purpose is to educate electrical engineering professionals about the most recent advancements in solid-state circuit technology. Though the story of each of its paper within the publication is different, they all have the same theme.

My Discipline

Engineering covers an incredibly broad subject, so let's get the down low of a small subset called Electrical Engineering.

Silego, Клокер "Electronic circuits" 4/19/10 via wikimedia. Public Domain.

What do students in your program or department learn how to do?

Over the four years of our degree program, Electrical Engineering students learn how to program in various different computer coding languages, design and build computer circuits, and the basics of wireless communication and power generation.

What do people who get degrees in this field usually go on to do for work?

Within ECE, there are an incredible number of possibilities of where to go after graduation. Depending on your specialization, you can work in the power generation industry, software industry, computer hardware industry, or even begin working on research projects. This could be companies like Apple, Google, Intel, to labs such as Sandia National Laboratories, to companies not specifically focusing on electronics such as Boeing.

What drew you to this field?

Growing up, I was always fascinated by computers and how they worked. As I first learned how to use my family's computer at around 5 or 6 years old, I knew that I was going to be hooked. I was amazed at how much a little box could do, and I wanted to see how I could make it even better.

Name three of the leaders/most exciting people involved in this field right now in 2016. Why are they interesting or exciting to you? 

1. Elon Musk - The CEO of SpaceX and Tesla Motors, Elon is an icon to engineers everywhere. His companies consistently push the boundaries of what's possible today, and it's always excited to watch the most recent space launch or hear of some new tech that Tesla is introducing.
2. Jeff Bezos - As the founder of Amazon, Jeff Bezos is an icon for what new technology is capable of. I know that without Amazon, I'd be having a rough time without my amazing two day shipping.
3. Eric Schmidt - One of the founding members of Google, Schmidt shows the world that great things can be achieved by using technology. With Google X, I'm always excited to see what crazy new project they're up to now.

What are the names of three leading academic/scholarly journals in your field? 

Nature Nanotechnology

IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits

IEEE Wireless Communications

My Interviewees on Social Media

Social Media is consistently entering our minds. In class, at home, and even while driving there is an urge to check the tweet or post you just got notified about. Is that a good thing?

Howie, Jason "Social Media apps" 3/23/13 via flickr. Public Domain.

Dr. Tharp
LinkedIn Page

Unfortunately, Dr. Tharp does not have any sort of active social media presence for me to study. The only page that I was able to find was a dreary LinkedIn page that only included very basic information at best.

While interviewing him, it became very clear that he does not actively participate in social media, so it is hard to say how his appearance online differs from that of his academic persona since it is so limited in scope.

Gavin Young
Facebook Page
LinkedIn Page

Gavin has a slightly better social media presence, including a fully fleshed out LinkedIn page for himself and a Facebook page that I was able to find.

On LinkedIn Gavin Young seems very professional, with a plethora of information including educational experience, publications, and work history. However, on Facebook from the information that I was able to see Gavin appears to be more relaxed, but still only has limited information available for public viewing. Overall though, Gavin seems to act very professionally online from the accounts that I was able to find,

My Interviewees as Professional Writers

When choosing interviewees, it was important to look at their professional writing background to ensure that they would be good sources of information. Do Dr. Tharp and Gavin Young fit these criteria?

the.Firebottle "Journals" 4/4/06 via flickr. Public Domain.

Interviewees:
Dr. Tharp has published many research papers within academic journals, most prominently in the late 1980's and early 1990's in various IEEE journal publications. He has also spoken at many conferences and describes his lectures here at the U of A as an active piece of his writing portfolio.

Gavin Young is a second year Masters Student here at the U of A, and as such has published a few professional works in his academic career. So far, his works consist of research articles rather than full research papers. However, these pieces are both peer reviewed and submitted to various journals

Publications:
Dr. Tharp:

• Minimum Energy Guidance for Aerodynamically Controlled Missiles (Note: Available only at UA Campus)
• Optimal Pole Placement for Discrete-Time Systems

Gavin Young:

• Comparative analysis of 14-3-3 isoform expression and epigenetic alterations in colorectal cancer
• pTyr421 Cortactin Is Overexpressed in Colon Cancer and Is Dephosphorylated by Curcumin: Involvement of Non-Receptor Type 1 Protein Tyrosine Phosphatase (PTPN1)

Context and Message:

Dr. Tharp:

The pieces that Dr. Tharp has written focus on very specific research topics within Electrical Engineering such as control systems, and uses a high level of audience specific jargon within the papers that readers outside of the field would have very little knowledge of. However, the message that he delivers within his pieces shows that he has a deep understanding of the topic and that the research he has conducted has furthered the field's knowledge of the topic as well. 

Gavin Young:

As with Dr. Tharp, Gavin's work often focuses on very specific topics within the field of BioChemistry in the case of his professional writings. Gavin presents research that he and the other authors had worked on to show that there were previously unknown trends within the chemical structures around us. 

Purpose:

Dr. Tharp:

For the paper entitled "Minimum Energy..." Dr. Tharp's purpose was explicitly stated to the reader in the abstract by saying that "the primary focus of this paper is the development of an optimal guidance law for a missile with a directional control constraint."

Gavin Young:

Both of the papers that Gavin has authored also have a very specific purpose, shown in "Comparative Analysis..." where the purpose was "to identify the 14-3-3 eta gene as a tumor suppressor and that its expression is suppressed in colon tumors by DNA hypermethylation."

My Interview Subjects

So it's time to get started on Project Two, but who will be lucky enough to get interviewed? Let's find out.

Dr. Hal Tharp via ece.arizona.edu

Name: Dr. Hal Tharp
Organization: University of Arizona
Education:
   B.S. Electrical Engineering at University of Missouri-Rolla -1981
   M.S Electrical Engineering at University of Illinois - 1983
   PhD Electrical Engineering at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign - 1986
Years of Experience: 30
Website: http://www2.engr.arizona.edu/~tharp/
Interview Time: Friday, Feb. 26 at 3 PM in ECE 256
Interview Questions:

1.      How would you describe your professional experience as an electrical engineer? What are some ways that the field has changed since you began your career at the University of Missouri?

2.      What writing styles are most prominent within electrical engineering? Which styles do you prefer to write in?

3.      When starting a new piece, what is your writing process like? Is there heavy planning before beginning or heavy revision before publication?

4.      How does the intended audience for your works influence the writing that you do? Was it different writing for IEEE than for other academic journals?

5.      When writing, do you ever try and generalize topics so that readers outside of the field are more capable of understanding the work?

6.      As you are writing, do you have a schedule that you follow? If so, has it ever been difficult making these deadlines?

7.      Over your career, how has the writing that you produce changed? Has the popularity of the internet or social media affected your publications?

8.      Since you often serve as a member of the dissertation committee for the ECE department, what are some recommendations for students producing their own publications for your review?

9.      Does the process of peer review change the way that you write?

10.  What is the one piece that you are most proud of from the works you’ve published?

Gavin Young via LinkedIn

Name: Gavin Young

Organization: University of Arizona

Education: 

   B.S. Biochemistry from the University of Arizona - 2013

   M.S. Electrical Engineering from the University of Arizona - 2016

Years of Experience: 7

Website: N/A
Interview Time: Wednesday, March 2 at 3 PM in Science-Engineering Library 214

Interview Questions:

1. Why did you make the switch from BioChemistry as an undergraduate to ECE as a master's student?
2. In what ways are the writing styles between these two different fields similar, and in what ways do they diverge?
3. When working on a new paper or presentation, what does your writing process consist of?
4. While writing, what effect does the audience of the piece have on the way that you write?
5. I know that while working on a master's thesis as you are now, there is a strict schedule to follow. How do you ensure your time management lets you finish on time?
6. Since most works will go through several iterations before publication, what are the benefits and setbacks from this process?
7. What styles do you work in the most? As a graduate student, are you expected to use your skills for presentations?
8. What are some exciting new fields within electrical engineering, or what excites you about the field?

Brutally Honest Self-Assessment

We made it everyone! I'd like to thank everyone that got me here, except Kanye West because he definitely did not make famous, so I guess I'll have to do that myself.

Ritt, Stefan "Canada's Fireworks" 7/31/13 via wikipedia. Public Domain.

1. How are you feeling about the project you just submitted for assessment? 

Honestly, I feel pretty good about it. I feel like my QRG would actually be pretty useful to anyone that's unfamiliar with the topic, and I'm proud of that. For a genre that I've never worked in before, I think it went pretty well, and I'm interested to see where my next projects go.

2. What are the major weaknesses of the project you submitted? 

If I had to choose anything as a major weakness, it would be the length of my QRG. Unfortunately, I wasn't always entirely sure what information to keep and what to put on the chopping block, so most of it ended up staying, and I feel that the length of it may be too long.

3. What are the major strengths of the project you submitted? 

I feel like the guide itself is very informative, and accurately portrays the Ivanpah controversy in a way that would be helpful to people that aren't entirely sure what it's about or the specifics of what went on. Also, I feel like as a QRG there are several graphics and images which can really help show how the controversy unfolded and provide other useful information to the reader as they go through the guide.

4. What do you think of how you practiced time management for Project 1? 

Well, I'll be frank here, I didn't plan my time very well at all. I know that, and I hope that one the next projects I budget my time more effectively during the week so that I don't have to focus solely on English during the weekend before it's due. While I was still able to achieve all of the deadlines, I know that there were a few where I definitely cut it close and I hope to not make that mistake again.

Local Revision: Variety

It's almost time to submit the draft, so what's still left to revise?

Link to Project One Draft

Ramdlon, "Writer Writing" 1/20/15 via pixabay. Public Domain.

1. How much variation is there in your sentence structures in the current draft? Can you spot any repetitive or redundant sentence patterns in your writing? Provide a cogent analysis of what the Rules for Writers reading tells you about your sentences.

When reading through my draft, I realize that the vast majority of my sentences are long and complex, with very few sentences that are short enough to break the rhythm. Without this, the paragraphs seem incredibly long and drawn out, a feature which readers will not enjoy.

2. What about paragraph structures, including transitions between different paragraphs (or, for video/audio projects, different sections of the project)? 

For the most part, to transition between the different topics I use different sub-headings, which may not be the best option. I believe the draft would be more effective if there were transitions between the sections rather than just moving on to a new topic.

3. What about vocabulary? Is there variety and flavor in your use of vocabulary? What are the main strengths and weaknesses of the draft's approach to vocabulary?

Overall, I believe that the vocabulary used in my draft is somewhat varied, but could definitely use improvement to ensure that the words that are consistently repeated within the draft are kept to a minimum. Also, it is important to keep the technical vocabulary to a minimum so that the reader is comfortable understanding the guide with little difficulty.

Local Revision: Pronoun Usage

So, I found out that I don't use many pronouns in my writing. Is this a good or a bad thing?

Link to Project One Draft

StockSnap "Writing Writer" 9/21/15 via pixabay. Public Domain.

1. Based on your analysis, how effective is your pronoun usage in Project 1? What does actively examining your pronoun usage tell you about your writing style?

In my draft there were very few pronouns outside of references to the reader, I was actually very surprised by that. I found that in my writing I am very unlikely to use pronouns, most likely because I find it confusing when there are multiple entities being talked about simultaneously such as in my controversy.

2. Are there any instances in your project where you speak to or refer directly to the audience? If so, how effective are these moments at creating a bond or connection between audience and author?

Each one of my references to the reader occurs within the introductory paragraph, which serves the purpose of putting the reader in the setting as one of the employees of Ivanpah. I think these are very effective as all of my peer reviewers found that this helped them understand the area and the plant fairly well. However, I don't really believe these create an emotional bond, but rather help the reader immerse themselves in the story.

My Pronouns

As a reader, having multiple pronouns can be incredibly confusing, so it's best to keep them to a minimum. Did I end up doing that?

Link to Project One Draft

CollegeDegrees360 "Confused" 7/12/12 via flickr. Public Domain.

you (reader)
you (reader)

you (reader)

you (reader)

you (reader)

you (reader)

you (reader)

you (reader)

you (reader)

you (reader)
it (bird)

you (reader)
it (bird)
it (bird)

you (reader)
their (bird)
who (environmental groups)
it (Ivanpah Solar Power)
it (Palen Solar Plant)
it (Palen Solar Plant)

them (BrightSource Energy Inc)
it (solar power)

Local Revision: Passive and Active Voice

Earlier, I looked at the verbs used in my post and analyzed their tense and how often each verb was used. So, are my verbs interesting and specific, or too broad and general to be exciting?

Link to Project One Draft

Clker "Table Grey" 6/4/14 via pixabay. Public Domain.

Active (Specific)	Active (General)	Active (General)	Passive
Rises Notice Forced Ignite Singeing Alleged Criticized Discovered Misquoting	Heard Step Coming Starting Ensuring Runs Taking Standing Becoming Begins Look See Heading See Following Run Landed Find Lying Pick Feel Knowing Burned Began Operating Surpassing Operated Invested Sitting Houses Reflect	Turned Operating Provide Heard Caused Shown Reach Ran Killed Starting Citing Reviewed Lobbied Stay Dig Finding Lies Included Responded Researching Estimated Published Found Studied Allowing Predict Show Remains Reducing Making Remain	Be - 2 Are - 4 Will - 2 Was - 5

When looking over this list, I realize that my guide is inundated with general active verbs rather than their more descriptive counterparts. Based on this knowledge, I would try to incorporate more specific verbs into the piece so that the reader has a better mental picture of the story based upon what they're reading.

Local Revision: Tense Usage

When writing any document, it's important to keep your verb tenses consistent, but still show the reader the whole picture. How did my draft accomplish this?

Link to Project One Draft

O'Shea, Pete "Writing Tools" 4/8/11 via flickr. Public Domain.

Past Tense	Present Tense	Future Tense
Heard Landed Burned Operated Was Invested Turned Forced Heard Caused Shown Alleged Killed Seized Included Caught Were Was Reviewed Lobbied Responded Was Discovered Was Estimated Published Found Studied Was Was - 5 Heard - 2  Responded - 2	Rises Be Step Starting Ensuring Runs Taking Standing Becoming Begins Look See Notice Heading See Following Falling Falling Run Find Lying Pick Feel Knowing Began Operating Surpassing Sitting Houses Reflect Operating Provide Reach Ignite Singing Ran Starting Criticize Citing Researching Lies Show Be Allowing Remains Reducing Making Are Are - 4 Be - 2 Operate - 2 Run - 2 See - 2 Find - 2 Starting - 2	Will Predict Will Remain Will - 2

After reviewing my draft, it is incredibly clear that both the present and past tense verbs are very common in my verb usage. While I believe this helps show the whole story, there are some points at which the verb usage switches back and forth, which may confuse the reader. However, I think that using both past events and present day realities do help the reader understand how the controversy evolved over time.

My Verbs

MLibFR "Picto Verb" 6/4/12 via wikimedia. Public Domain.

Verbs are an incredibly important part of writing any piece, whether it be a script, an essay, or a video. So, what verbs went into my piece?

Link to Project One Draft

rises
be
heard
step
coming
are
starting
ensuring
runs
taking
standing
becoming
begins
look
see
notice
heading
see
following
falling
run
landed
find
lying
pick
feel
knowing
burned
began
operating
surpassing
operated
was
invested
sitting
houses
reflect
turned
forced
operating
provide
have
heard
caused
shown
reach
ignite
singing
ran
alleged
killed
starting
seized
criticize
citing
was
reviewed
lobbied
stays
dig
finding
responded
researching
was
discovered
was
misquoting
lies
included
caught
were
responded
estimated
published
found
be
studied
was
found
allowing
predict
show
remains
is
due
are
are
reducing
making
will
are
remain

was x 5
are x 4
operate x 3
be x 2
heard x 2
start x 2
run x 2
see x 2
find x 2
starting x 2
responded x 2
remain x 2
will x 2

Local Revision: Wordiness

Zebest, Orin "Pen to Paper" 10/1/07 via flickr. Public Domain

In a QRG, it's important to give readers the essential facts about your topic without having any extra "weight" to slow them down. To accomplish for myself, I went in and revised one of my paragraphs to make it slimmer.

Link to Project One Draft

Before
"In fact, in the report published by the USFWS forensics lab, out of 141 bird carcasses found at the Ivanpah plant, only 47 (33%) of the fatalities could be linked to exposure from the solar flux. After the initial report from the AP, BrightSource Energy quickly responded, stating that “Ivanpah reported 321 avian fatalities between January and June 2014, of which 133 were related to solar flux” rather than the 28,000 estimated fatalities within the AP report. BrightSource also commented that the vast majority of the avian deaths cause at the plant were within 280 meters of a heliostat, which accounted for 94% of all carcasses found on the 3,900 acre property, allowing them to accurately predict the total number of birds affected. This shows that the claims originally made by the AP and rallied around by various different groups were far from reality."

After
"After the AP's initial report, BrightSource Energy responded quickly, stating that "Ivanpah reported 321 avian fatalities between January and June 2014, of which 133 were related to solar flux" rather than the 28,000 estimated fatalities. In a report published by the USFWS lab, only 47 (33%) of 141 bird carcasses found at the plant could be linked to exposure from the solar flux. BrightSource Energy also commented that 94% of the avian deaths studied were found within 280 meters of a tower, allowing them to accurately predict fatalities within the 3,900 acre area. These studies show that the AP's initial claims were far from reality."

I believe that through editing this section I enhanced the readability greatly by working to reduce unnecessary clutter in the paragraph and arranging it differently so that it gave a steady stream of information rather than jerky tidbits like before.

Peer Review 2

Despite the lack of class time this week, it is still important to give our peers feedback for their work. As such, we were responsible for peer reviewing the work of two other authors, whose feedback is below.

McPhee, Nic "I tend to scribble a lot" 1/26/08 via flickr. Public Domain.

Title: Fusion v Fission
Author: Noelle Young
Review: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1siuNN6NCZkWedhxPKVB2ULfvtaCjI_rcg7_G2HXbAyk/edit?usp=sharing

Title: Project 1
Author: Benjamin Meyer
Review: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16yguZj4pe1uPnLxFehKjqjKfkKG-UWn0Okq8gaPz9OM/edit?usp=sharing

1. What did you learn about your own project (or the project in general) by comparing drafts of the same project in different genres?

While reviewing other QRGs posted by both students in my own section and in others, I found that the most effective guides were simple to read while still being informative to the reader. They also had a good ratio of pictures to text, something that I am not sure about within my own article.

2. Tell me the top three issues or problems with your draft in its current form and what you plan on doing over the weekend to address those issues.

For me, there are a number of issues with my draft. First there is my lack of introduction for the stakeholders, since I only mention them in short segments rather than introduce them fully. Second, there is my use of language at some points which could be considered too technical for the average reader. Finally, I believe that my text to picture ratio might be slightly off, which I will work to fix over the weekend.

3. Tell me the top three strengths of your draft. How/why are these things strengths? How will you build on them to make the rest of the draft as strong?

While reading my reviews, it was apparent that many people believe that I effectively used the conventions of the QRG to portray the Ivanpah controversy. I also found that many readers found that as an author I did a good job of integrating sources and sounding authoritative on the subject at hand. Finally, both reviewers said that I did an excellent job introducing the setting which I believe strongly helps the reader understand the story since the setting plays a major part in the controversy. I hope to improve on these over the weekend to make my final QRG include these strengths and less of the weaknesses shown above.

Peer Review 1

While writing any new piece, it is always important to receive feedback on the work that you've done to be able to fine tune it to perfection for release.

L, Alan "Sunset over four telescopes of the Mauna Kea Observatories" 2/17/08 via wikimedia. Public Domain

For today's peer review, I looked through the Quick Reference Guide on the Thirty Meter Telescope, posted here by Erica Mohr. While reviewing this document, I realized that my own guide was severely lacking in the description of stakeholders within the controversy, and that I did not include any social media about the event, which I feel could have added a new view from both the environmentalists and industry professionals. However, I found that while reading through the document, I felt that the number of pictures compared to the actual amount of text seemed rather high, something that I do not want to do within my own guide. Also, the pictures that were included were often lacking solid commentary behind their meaning which I hope to provide. The rubric that I prepared to show all of my grading choices is located here.

Draft of Project 1

After several weeks of work, it's finally time to get things really going. As such, here is the first draft of my quick reference guide I've prepared for Project One.

Draft of Project One

As you read over my draft discussing The Ivanpah Affair, I hope that you find an intriguing piece on the controversy surrounding the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility and its avian death "epidemic." I ask that you please give me any feedback to make the piece better, including information that you would like me to add to make the situation more clear, or facts that you wanted to know while reading. If anything confuses you, let me know and I'll do my best to clear it up before the final release!

The Time Period

When discussing a controversy during any time period, it is important to know what's going on outside of your isolated incident. So, what was going on in the world in August of 2014?

Loavesofbread "Tear Gas" 8/17/14 via wikimedia. Public Domain

Local News

Another Valley Albertson's set to Close

Lake Mead Levels Not Just Vegas' Problem

National News

Gov. Nixon taps National Guard to help bring calm in Ferguson

Rep. Eric Cantor Resigns From Congress

Global News

The Ebola Epidemic

Scotland Votes To Stay In The UK

Overall, the year of 2014 wasn't exactly great for most people. Near the Ivanpah site in Las Vegas, a severe drop in Lake Mead's water levels was causing concern, and the economic downturn was still taking its toll on local establishments. Across the United States there was a great cause for concern with the National Guard moving into Ferguson to try and dispel the protests, and with political gridlock at an all time high, there was hardly anything being done on a national level at this point. In other countries around the world, things unfortunately weren't looking much better. As the Ebola epidemic spread across Africa, millions were being panicked by the fast moving virus. In Europe, a controversial referendum on Scottish independence was being held, and in Ukraine things were only getting worse after Russia's annexation of the Crimean peninsula.

The Setting

It's another day at the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility, the largest solar plant in the United States. So, what's it like there?

Oregon State University, "Solar Thermal Plant" 9/16/15 via flickr. Public Domain.

As the sun rises deep in the Mojave Desert, a distinct humming noise can be heard as you step closer to the large tower in front of you, coming from the steam generator nearby. You are starting another day at Ivanpah Solar Power Facility as a technician, ensuring the plant runs at optimal efficiency during the day. Nearly 200,000 mirrors surround you, taking up an area of nearly 4,000 acres, with three towers such as the one you're standing next becoming the focus of the sun's energy as the day begins. As you look out onto the horizon and see the Spring Mountains, you notice a small bird heading towards one of the solar towers. Suddenly, you see a trail of smoke following the now falling bird, and you run over towards where it landed. As you find the bird laying on the ground, you pick it up and feel its charred feathers, knowing that it has been burned by the intense heat of the solar flux above you. While this is not an entirely uncommon occurrence at the plant, it becomes clear that the intense sun being focused by the mirrors is cause for concern.

Stakeholder #3

In a world where global warming threatens us all, is it really important to focus on the small impacts that renewable energy is making? Let's see what the new environmentalists have to say.

Kahn, Phillip "Gopherus agassizii" 5/2/08 via wikimedia. Public Domain.

1. Can you describe this stakeholder in 200-250 words?

While environmentalists bring an image of 60's hippies to many people's minds, it is important to distinguish that in the case of the Ivanpah controversy, these "hippies" are nearly everything but. From California senator Dianne Feinstein to the Center for Biological Diversity, the opponents to the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility are incredibly varied and come from many different viewpoints. The new environmentalists focus their attention online, where they know that they have an ability to elicit feedback from a captive audience around the nation. It is for this reason that there is no real way to put a face or a label on environmentalists, and part of the reason that their movements are able to gain so much traction across the nation. When one person claims they have a new crusade, it becomes very easy for others to join in.

2. Can you identify THREE specific claims being made by this stakeholder? The claims should be public and about the specific story you're investigating. Provide direct quotes for three different claims or ideas made in public by this stakeholder. Each quote should be clearly hyperlinked to the original source.

1. "Deserts don’t need to be sacrificed so that people in L.A. can keep heating their swimming pools" (Source)
2. "The CEC in December proposed to deny (PDF) BrightSource's petition for another power tower in California — the 500-megawatt Palen project — mainly because of regulators' concern over solar power tower flux danger to avian species" (Source)
3. "Environmentalists ... are concerned the project will devastate the desert tortoise habitat and the Mojave's scenic vistas" (Source)

3. Can you explain how valid these claims are?

While these claims may be valid, the vast majority of the environmental appeals are based off of emotional appeals rather than solid facts, so these claims are not as substantial as the claims of both BrightSource Energy and the USFWS. However, many people will still follow these claims so they are mildly successful in getting people to believe their cause.

4. Can you explain how these claims are similar and/or different to the other stakeholders?

Because the environmentalists are often considered the opponent to the the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility, their claims vastly differ from those of BrightSource Energy and the US Fish and Wildlife Service who are attempting to prove that Ivanpah is not a mass avian killer, and that the environmental impact of Ivanpah itself has been minimized in many ways.

Stakeholder #2

When more than a billion dollars of government money is at stake, there's bound to be some outside investigation that occurs. Enter the National Fish and Wildlife Forensic Laboratory, a key stakeholder int the Ivanpah investigation.

USFWS "Evidence Processing" 6/2/14 via wikimedia. Public Domain

1. Can you describe this stakeholder in 200-250 words?

From Ashland, Oregon comes the second stakeholder in the Ivanpah controversy. A neutral party, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory is the only forensics laboratory in the world focusing on wildlife law enforcement. The USFWS is a large bureaucratic organization within the federal government, housing around 9,000 employees at offices around the country. When looking at the Clark R. Bavin National Fish and Wildlife Forensic Laboratory, it is easy to be underwhelmed as it is merely a large concrete building surrounded by gardens, unlike other impressive government buildings. Itself housing about 200 staff, the lab is responsible for investigating crimes against wildlife and endangered species across the globe.

2. Can you identify THREE specific claims being made by this stakeholder?

1. "It appears that Ivanpah may act as a "mega-trap", attracting insects which in turn attract insect-eating birds, which are incapacitated by solar flux injury" (Source, Page 3)
2. "Solar flux injury was identified as the cause of death in 47/141 birds" (Source, Page 12)
3. "Indeed OLE staff observed birds entering the solar flux and igniting, consequently becoming a streamer" (Source, Page 23)

3. Can you explain how valid these claims are?

I believe that these claims are valid since the findings in the report given above were found by having the National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory investigate claims of avian mortality at the plant. The findings are also backed by various reports by USFWS staff and USFWS Office of Law Enforcement officers.

4. Can you explain how these claims are similar and/or different to the other stakeholders?

Since these claims are designed to present only the facts, these claims are not entirely similar to any party, however BrightSource Energy used the research presented here to prove their "innocence" in the controversy. Thus, the claims of the environmentalists are fundamentally different since their claims are based on much higher numbers.

Stakeholder #1

So, you're looking to build a solar power plant somewhere in California. It may not be for you, but for BrightSource Energy, it's what they do.

Stillings, Jamey "Mirrored Helistats" 10/27/12 via flickr. Public Domain

1. Can you describe this stakeholder in 200-250 words?

Perhaps the most important stakeholder in the Ivanpah controversy is BrightSource Energy, Inc., who is the primary operator of the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility in the Mojave Desert. Though headquartered in Oakland, California, their main presence lies within the Ivanpah Plant itself. This 3,900-acre plant lies 40 miles southwest of Las Vegas, and is littered with 173,500 mirrors, each producing a light bright enough to easily make you wince if you look at it. Besides the massive power plant that lies above, there is also a thriving wildlife scene with species such as the desert tortoise. Each day, around 80 employees make their way to plant to begin work producing energy for various California cities, with their primary customer being San Francisco. The immense heat takes it toll on the workers, and to the wildlife the immensely concentrated light being reflected by the solar mirrors can be deadly, causing the controversy at hand.

2. Can you identify THREE specific claims being made by this stakeholder?

1. "Ivanpah reported 321 avian fatalities between January and June 2014, of which 133 were related to solar flux" (Source)
2. "There is no scientific evidence that birds are “vaporized” after traveling through solar flux" (Source)
3. "Ivanpah has one of the most comprehensive approaches to monitoring avian impact at a thermal energy power plant – renewable or fossil fuel" (Source)

3. Can you explain how valid these claims are?

Even though these claims are produced by the stakeholder who in my opinion has the most to lose, the claims do seem to be valid, and their claims are backed up by research by the National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory, along with other government agencies including the U.S. Department of Energy.The research into the avian mortality rates has been thoroughly reviewed my many different parties.

4. Can you explain how these claims are similar and/or different to the other stakeholders?

Just like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the claims stated above show that despite the implications by the AP, there is a far lower risk of avian mortality than claimed. However, their claims go against the environmentalists whose claims of a vastly exaggerated death count look to damage the plant's reputation.