When examining primary and secondary sources it is important to remember the audience that each article is being written for. A newspaper article published about a recent study, and linked to a published journal paper will have very different content and language.
For this assignment I am comparing the aspects of my primary source: Pollinator experience, neophobia and the evolution of flowering time (Forrest, J. and Thomson, J. 2009) with the secondary source: Decline in bee pollination linked to climate change: study (The Globe and Mail September 07, 2010).
The first difference between the two articles can be found within the titles themselves. In the primary source written by Forrest and Thomson, the title is simply a means to convey information about the study conducted; whereas the title of the secondary source is meant catch readers attention first rather than simply convey information. The reason for the differences in title is a result of who the target audience of each editorial is. The primary source was written and published as a way to share information about the study, results and conclusion with the scientific community, by contrast The Globe and Mail (September 07, 2010) editorial is meant to inform the general public about the study conducted by Forrest and Thomson; but in order to inform its audience it first must be something that people want to read. To attract readers, the title must be something readers have an interest in, hence the use of the phrase “climate change” (The Globe and Mail) with in the title. Climate change is a topic that can strike interest in a population, turning heads. So the use of such a phrase within the title of an article is a tactic meant to make readers want to learn more about the study between the relationship of climate change and bee pollination of flowers.
Both articles have been written with the intent to inform their respective audiences (primary source- other scientists and researchers, secondary source- public at large) about the results of Forrest and Thomson’s study into the role played by “mutualists” (Forrest and Thomson 2009) in the evolution of plants. The primary article by Forrest and Thomson (2009) therefore contains details of the experiment design, results, and notes of cases where individual test subjects reacted to a situation in an abnormal or extreme way, what they expected vs. what they discovered the limitations of the experiment, and links between their study and studies conducted by other researchers. The Globe and Mail (September 07, 2010) article is a brief summary of the article written by Forrest and Thomson (2009) as well as more of an interest piece; therefore it is much more simplified than its primary counterpart, giving a brief over view of the study, focusing much more on the reason that the study originally came into being, rather than the implications of the results of the study.
Because Forrest and Thomson (2009) also linked their study to previous studies on similar topics, they have well over a page of references at the end of the article. By contrast, if you look to the bottom of The Globe and Mail (September 07, 2010) you will see mention only of one previously published article, the article written by Forrest and Thomson (2009).
Location, location, location. While both papers were written and published with the intent to inform readers about the results of study conducted by Forrest (2009), the location of publication plays a major role in content. The primary source, published in the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, was written with the intent to present the findings of a study to other scientists. Because the primary source is meant to be viewed by other researchers it consists of content not seen in the secondary source. In order to fully present the study that Forrest and Thomson conducted, the paper is long and detailed right down to the smallest aspect. By contrast the secondary source was written to fit into a predetermined space on a page; the editorial must fit the hole, the hole provided does not fit to the editorial as it does with the primary source.
d
In conclusion, no matter what editorial you are reading you must think is this a primary or secondary source? Each is geared to a different audience and written based upon the intended reader demographic, which in turn is determined by where the article is being published. A primary source has much more complicated language but is also much more detailed than a secondary source which is a simplified summary of the original work. From title to references, primary and secondary articles differ through and through.
References:
Forrest, J. and Thomson, J. 2009 Pollinator experience, neophobia and the evolution of flowering time. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. Pg. 935-943
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1658/935.full.pdf+html?sid=78b0822a-57f3-4d10-b76b-37e9ae9194b8
Izaak Walton League of America.
http://www.wildlifesightings.org/
The Globe and Mail September 07, 2010. Decline in bee pollination linked to climate change: study.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/science/decline-in-bee-pollination-linked-to-climate-change-study/article1699097/
No comments:
Post a Comment