Werbach's Radio Revolution as a Citizen's Discourse and Why This Distinction is Significant

Kevin Werbach’s Radio Revolution is a solid example of what can be called a Citizen’s Explanatory Discourse. The goal of the paper is to show the reader how the world around us is changing because of revolutionary technologies, particularly in the field of wireless radio transmission. This is exactly what makes Radio Revolution an explanatory paper as opposed to being strictly a scientific research paper. Werbach writes with the readers in mind, trying to capture their interest by first educating them on the history of radio transmission and then modern technologies. Werbach explains how this information will change the daily lives of human beings and society as a whole.

Killingsworth and Palmer say on page 135 of their article Transformations of Scientific Discourse in the News Media how the concept of “human interest” goes “against the grain of scientific objectivism because it insists it must have social value outside of its own pursuits.” They’re saying that news reporters in particular are motivated to write with human interest. Werbach is not news media, but Radio Revolution is concerned with informing the audience of radio transmittance history and modern technology, much as a news reporter might be. Werbach says in the beginning of his paper on pages 2 and 3 “this paper presents a set of analogies to explain the basic physics of radio, and the radical shift that emerging technologies present.” Already, we can eliminate Radio Revolution as a plainly scientific discourse. Killingsworth’s and Palmer’s observations support, rather, how Werbach writes a Citizen’s discourse devoted to explaining material to an audience. If Werbach were writing a purely scientific paper he would simply present results and data, rather than rely heavily on what they mean for society.

Flickr

But Jean Fahnestock in her paper Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scienctific Facts says scientific papers are “to some extent epideictic and deliberative; they cannot ignore creating a reason for their reporting” (278). So even if Radio Revolution seems to focus on educating the audience, is Werbach’s lesson on the history of radio transmission reasoning for writing a scientific research paper? Does that make his paper less of a Citizen’s discourse? I believe Werbach‘s center focus is informing the audience of the changes new technology will bring. Werbach isn’t presenting newly discovered research information. There are large portions of the article devoted to explaining concepts or transmission technologies, like his section titled “When the Devices Get Smart” (Werbach 14). But they all lead to a greater analogy or historical example to help explain the concepts. In that particular section Werbach explains how transmitters can change signals they send for maximum efficiency, but he later uses an example of a cocktail party to further explain the concept. A scientific research paper would only need to justify writing about transmission technologies, not apply it to everyday life or explain it on a more relatable level to the audience. This is why Radio Revolution, though it involves scientific research and explanation, is an explanatory discourse, rather than a research discourse.

Another factor of Werbach’s paper is the kairos of the subject. Radio Revolution, published in 2004, is presented at a turning point in technology. The relevance of how new radio transmission technologies were changing how society operated on a macro and micro level would have attracted a wide audience. Miller and Shepherd in Blogging as Social Action: A Genre Analysis of the Weblog say, “we must see genre in relation to kairos.” So to understand a genre, we must also understand why the discourse is created in the context of present culture. To define Werbach’s Radio Revolution as an explanatory genre, it helps to know that he is writing about a revolution that is happening at the present time. His writing is significant partly because it is at a time when people are most interested in it. Were it a paper dedicated to presenting new information, the timing of it might not be so important.

Why is it so vital that we make such a distinction between the definition of a research paper and a citizen’s explanatory discourse? When a reader absorbs information from their reading, it’s also important to acknowledge the perspective of the writer. Depending on an author’s motives and goals, their use of information, research, and explanation can differ. Killingsworth and Palmer say on page 133 of Transformations that scientists rely less heavily on secondhand information than do journalists. And Fahnestock in Accommodating Science says when reading research papers much of the relevance depends on the inferences of the reader. This information is important to recognize when examining a discourse so one can be certain in what they are reading.

Works Cited

Miller, Carolyn. Shepherd, Dawn. “Blogging as a Social Action: A Genre Analysis of the Weblog.” Into the Blogosphere: Rhetoric, Community, and Culture of Weblogs.”  < http://blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere/blogging_as_social_action_a_genre_analysis_of_the_weblog.html>

Fahnestock, Jean. “Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts.” Written Communication July 1986: 275-296. Print.

Killingsworth, Jimmie. Palmer, Jacqueline. “Transformations of Scientific Discourse in the News Media.” Ecospeak