This reflection focuses on the process of researching, organizing, and writing my formal report draft and the task of reviewing my peer.

I will admit, I found the formal report draft to be a difficult undertaking. While the format and explanations provided by Prof. Paterson and Technical Communications we very helpful, I struggled to access evidence that I believed I could use at the initial proposal stage. Social media operators often jealously guard metric data and Chief Editors dislike any analysis that might undermine their conventional approach to dissemination or pose a threat to their authority. This is only natural and I should probably have thought about this issue earlier and mentioned it in my draft’s Limitations section. Nevertheless, I was eventually able to gain access to this material as I explained how my approach would focus entirely on the data, rather than make assertions about the quality of the traditional method of publication. This explains why my draft was 2 days late. Otherwise, I found the task of organizing my work to be smooth as I was able to make good use of the format provided and I enjoyed the analysis aspect of the work.

I hope that my own peer review of Yasaman Fazel’s draft could help Yasaman has much as Jamil was able to with mine. In my review, I explained a few issues I had with Yasaman’s draft. In particular, a dearth of analysis and recommendations. The latter can be excused as I believe that, like my own issue, she was unable to get key evidence from her interviews. However, in the case of her pie chart, I explained that I fel she could do with a little extra content, despite the need for brevity. I believe that brevity shouldn’t detract from content. Organizationally, the only major issue that I could see was Yasaman’s lack of contents but, as you will see, I have explained by misgivings about this issue.

In reviewing Yasaman’s work, I learnt that it is easy to pinpoint mistakes when one is reviewing. Yet, these same mistakes make their way into my own work often. For example, grammar or typos are an issue for both Yasaman and myself. This is an area that could do with more attention, as this is the primary method of dealing with this problem. Furthermore, this project, including review and drafting, demonstrated the need for organization and flow. While the impact of a report relies heavily on evidence and analysis, organization is always required so that the reader can predict the transitions of the article and remain focused on the task.

All-in-all, I found both the reviewing and drafting to be tough but rewarding as I was able to pickup on common mistakes and gain an appreciation for the importance of organization in formal documents, such as reports.

301-Unit 3 Reflection 301-Unit 3 James Watson Reflection

In this reflection blog, I will discuss my creation of a LinkedIn profile, formal report, and the peer-review process. Furthermore, I will take into account the remarks made by Professor Erika Paterson during her assessment of my Unit 1 work.

LinkedIn is platform that I genuinely wish to harness as an avenue to build my career. Yet, this project was no easy task as one should acknowledge and speak to the specific requirements and tastes of potential employers. Targeting these employers requires a strong sense of purpose with regard to career goals, which many, including myself, may have not fully formed at this juncture. Through this exercise, my peer-review, and my research, I have learnt that building a personable, yet professional profile requires the succinct communication of qualifications and experiences, a strong summary, and a well composed profile photograph. My peer reviewer, Jamil Devsi, provided excellent advice in this area, especially in the formulation of a strong summary. My own review of Yasaman Fazel’s profile highlighted small organizational issues, which could speak to her impressive employment experiences. Overall, I found the LinkedIn exercises useful.

With regard to the Formal Report Proposal, I found this exercise to be challenging, as I am currently unemployed and my work on The Envoy is performed remotely. Therefore, finding a suitable issue to analyze or correct was a difficult task. I settled on examining a core problem of The Envoy: the stagnation of membership rates. This focus has allowed me to research an area that I am interested in and work towards furthering a project that is close to my heart. Analyzing The Envoy’s analytics on social media platforms will provide me with a good foundation of converting quantitative data into qualitative analysis. I am confident that I can produce a solid formal report for The Envoy. Stephen Razis’ peer review of my proposal provided an important reflection on this task. There was some confusion as to whether proposals are in letterform or longer piece, like the one I produced. Nonetheless, Razis’ emphasized organizational and language changes, all of which were valuable critiques. I have attempted to implement his suggestions into my formal report outline.

Finally, I thoroughly enjoy the practice of peer reviewing as a method to provide and receive constructive criticism. I sincerely hope that my reviews have been as helpful for my peers, as theirs have been for me. I am very impressed with both the professionalism of these individuals and their own, unique, experiences and vocations. I found Devsi’s review to be most useful with my LinkedIn, due to the immediate impact of the changes that he recommended. I will continue to offer my opinions, in an effort to provide helpful advice to my peers.

I have attached a link to my revised Formal Report Proposal below, a link to Stephen Razis’ review of my original proposal, and a link to my own review of Razis’ proposal.

301 James Watson Edit-Proposal for Formal Report

James Watson’s Review of Stephen Razis’ Formal Report Proposal

Stephen Razis’ Review of James Watson’s Formal Report Proposal

At the time of writing, I have not received a peer review of my definitions piece and, therefore, I cannot provide an account of my experience nor provide an updated definition piece. As soon as I receive this review, I will implement the necessary changes to the document immediately and note the advice given.

The lack of peer review, however, does not inhibit my ability to discuss my experience thus far and to comment on the advice provided by Professor Erika Paterson. I believe that I am prone to wordiness and over-elaboration. Prof. Paterson has corroborated this issue in her remarks concerning my letter of application and biography page on my blog. This is a serious issue for the reader as they can become either disinterested or tired when reading long-winded work. My central rationale for joining this course was to work on this aspect of my writing. I aim to build concise, readable prose for business, while maintaining some of my personality or voice in the writing. This is an area that I feel will affect my definitions piece and I will endeavor to deliver succinct work in this course.

I took the opportunity to review Stephen Razis’ definition piece, which was aimed at high school and university students who studied English and philosophy. My overall impression of this piece was very positive. Stephen’s organization was very clear and straightforward as he provided subheadings. Furthermore, his ability to break down  Pharmakon using three categories, such as etymology and modern usage, provided context for both English and Philosophy students. In fact, this is an approach that I would like to incorporate into my own work, as Stephen was able to accomplish the above with in concise and short sentences. I have pointed to where I think he could make a few changes in my review and it is interesting to discover that we both use flowery-language. This is an area that I would like to cut back on and work within established parameters of business language, rather than academic terminology. Generally, it was a pleasure to read Stephen’s work and reviewing his piece allowed me to reflect on some of my own issues within writing.

We all have areas to work on in our writing, I more than others. I took the opportunity to read a few of the students’ writing and I was impressed by their ability to unpack abstract or scientific concepts for the reader. With this in mind, I will attempt to work on my understanding of technical writing so that I am able to offer my readers short, succinct descriptions, briefs, and papers that are accessible. I look forward to reading more of my peers’ work and learning from both them and Prof. Paterson to gain a solid understanding of business English.

My review of Stephen Razis’ definition piece can be found here.

James Watson, ENGL 301 Team Member

Stephen Razis, ENGL 301 Team Member

January 29, 2016

Review of English Language and Philosophy Definitions for Assignment 1.3

My impressions of your Definitions piece, throughout, were very positive! I am interested in increasing my knowledge of English and Philosophy and you achieved that expectation. You unpack these definitions very well and I feel that your piece was well composed. Please consider some of my suggestions and comments.

Purpose: You clearly define your purpose (paragraph #1) in easy, concise language. You do mention that your audience are (hypothetically) High School or University students studying English and Philosophy. You also mention that these definitions are some of your favourite words. However, I do not see a specific purpose for your definitions. Why should a Philosophy or English student use or need these definitions? Perhaps you could add a short sentence at the end of this paragraph that states clearly why these definitions are useful for your audience.

Definitions/Audience:

Overall, your definitions were accessible for those who are have not been exposed to the subject(s). Your Sentence Definition, I believe, could be slightly shortened. You use two sentences to describe this definition when one would suffice. I understand that it is difficult to describe “Saudade,” a non-English word, without discussing the feeling it is describes. But I feel, for the sake of brevity, that you could cut some of the origins section and use this in an expanded definition.

Jargon, Grammar, and Language:

As a student of history, I am accustomed to and appreciate jargon and flowery-language. In this assignment, however, we are attempting to provide accessible definitions, divorced from complex language. In your expanded definition (Pharmakon) you provide an excellent sentence definition. I would cut “constellation” from paragraph #5, sentence #2, and replace this with a word that isn’t as ambiguous for the reader (you are correct in your meaning but there are different synonyms for this word). Instead, you could use “set” or something to the same effect.

In terms of grammar, I notice that you may have left out one or two commas. In paragraph #7, sentence #4, you may have forgotten to add a comma after “Thus.” Therefore, the sentence has a clause issue and I would recommend having a quick re-read for grammar mistakes etc.

Organization:

I feel that organization of your piece was excellent. Using bold and underlined sub-headings helped me to understand the flow of the document and to gain a better understanding of your definitions. I especially enjoyed your break down of Pharmakon into Definition, Etymology, and Modern Usage. Furthermore, I thought your ability to show two an English and a Philosophical usage of the word was smart and demonstrated how this word could be understood in different contexts, for different audiences. The only word of caution I have here is that I believe that you should have picked one audience, rather than two. This may sound counter-intuitive but I feel that providing multiple understandings could confuse a reader, who is not versed in both subjects.

Visuals:

As mentioned previously, your organization of the piece was very pleasing to eye and to the mind. Yet, I feel that we were supposed to add a figure of some sort? Maybe I am wrong here or perhaps that requirement is for those definitions that need this aid.

Research:

I can find no fault in you research at all! In fact, I commend you for use of Derrida (his Lexicology work has informed much of my own work) and I enjoyed your excellent breakdown of his argument.

301 James Watson Peer Review

Criteria/Objective of Assignment

The objective of this assignment is to gain a greater understanding of the importance and composition of definitions. Furthermore, this assignment aims to demonstrate how an appreciation of audience and purpose is required, while differentiating between the levels of definition.

Audience/Purpose Profile:

The intended readers of this material are second-year and third-year International Relations Theory students. Before they can actively engage in theory, they will require a solid understanding of the terms and concepts that constitute major theoretical paradigms. These definitions are intended to provide an introduction to this academic field, so they offer general (but comprehensive) views of the concepts and terms.

1: international institutions

Parenthetical definition:

(International norms and rules)

Sentence definition:

International institutions are sets of norms and rules devised by states to order and constrain their behavior in the international system.

Expanded definition:

International institutions are sets of norms and rules devised by states to order and constrain their behavior in the international system. The term international institutions is an amalgam of the words international, or “global,” and institution, which, in this context, means “customs or “practice.” The modern concept of international institutions dates to the League of Nations, establishment in 1918, which instituted international law to constrain countries (Kennedy 903-904). International institutions consist of a set of three types of norms and rules: constitutive, regulative, and procedural, which affect the international system, actors, and, their activities (Duffield, 7-8). Constitutive norms and rules, like sovereignty, formalize units within the international system, such as states. Regulative norms and rules seek to regulate the behavior of actors in the international system, through provisions in international treaties. Procedural norms and rules govern formal and informal relationships between actors. International institutions form the basis of international organizations, such as the UN, WHO, and ASEAN (Figure 1).

2: Empiricism

Parenthetical definition:

(Testable knowledge)

Sentence definition:

Empiricism is a theory of knowledge that holds that all knowledge should be based on testable, conclusive evidence.

Expanded definition:

Empiricism is a theory of knowledge that holds that all knowledge should be based in testable, conclusive evidence. The term empiricism is derived from the ancient Greek word empeiria, or “experience” (Quinton). Early Enlightenment scholars, such as John Locke and Robert Boyle, conceived and articulated this principle in the 18^th century. The core component of empiricism is the belief that “all knowledge of real existence must be based on the [quantifiable] senses or self-consciousness, that is, on experience” (Meyes, 2). Rationalism, on the other hand, states that knowledge can also be gained through non-sensory experience (Figure 2). Empiricism has been influential in informing philosophies of science and it underpins positivist theories in international relations theory (Dunne et al, 353).

2: Deterrence

Parenthetical definition:

(Defensive persuasion)

Sentence definition:

Deterrence is the capacity to persuade an actor not to initiate a particular action because the perceived benefits are offset by the expected costs and risks.

Expanded definition:

Deterrence is the capacity to persuade an actor not to initiate a particular action because the perceived benefits are offset by the expected costs and risks. Originating the mid-1800s, the term deterrence entered common usage in 20^th century and is derived from the Latin word deterrent (“deterrent,” def, n.d). Within international relations theory, deterrence is a term that describes a policy which can be “directed at preventing an armed attack against a country’s own territory or that of another country” (Huth, 27). Deterrence is often linked to cost-benefit analysis: in the Cold War, contested by the United States and the Soviet Union, the possession of nuclear weapons by both parties increased the cost of war and reduced the likelihood of conflict (Figure 3; Brown and Arnold, 297).

301 James Watson Definitions

Appendix

Figure 1: Institutions and organization of the United Nations. Historicair. Wikimedia.org. Translated by Jowwww. 1 Nov. 2011. Web. 26 Jan. 2016.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UN_Institutions.svg

Figure 2: Stephanie McMillan. “Empiricism.” StephanieMcMillan.org. 18 Oct. 2012. Web. 26 Jan. 2016. http://stephaniemcmillan.org/comic/empiricism.

Figure 3: Unknown. Mr. Wiggin’s History Class. Web. 26 Jan. 2016. http://mrwigginshistoryclass.com/home-page/modern-world-history/unit-11-cold-war/11-1-origins-of-the-cold-war/

Works Cited

Brown, Andrew and Lorna Arnold. “The Quirks of Nuclear Deterrence.”International Relations 24.3 (September, 2010): 293-312. Sage Journals. Web. 26 Jan. 2016.

Deterrent. Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University Press, n.d. Web. 27 January 2016.

Duffield, John. “What Are International Institutions?” International Studies Review 9.1 (Spring, 2007): 1-22. JSTOR. Web. 26 Jan. 2016.

Dunne, Tim, et al. International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Print.

Huth, Paul K. “Deterrence and International Conflict: Empirical Findings and Theoretical Debates.” Annual Review of Political Science 2 (June, 1999): 25-48. Annual Reviews. Web. 26 Jan. 2016.

Kennedy, David. “The Move to Institutions.” Cardozo Law Review 8.5 (1986-1987): 841-988. HeinOnline. Web. 26 Jan. 2016.

Meyers, Robert G. Understanding Empiricism. Durham: Acumen, 2006. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 26 January 2016.

Quinton, Anthony. “empiricism.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Web. 2016. Web. 26 Jan. 2016. http://www.britannica.com/topic/empiricism.

18A Willoughby Road
London, NW3 1SA
January 25th, 2016

Writing Team Partners
University of British Columbia
2329 West Mall
Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4

Dear Potential Writing Team Partner,

Please consider my application for a position on your writing team that is required by the course: ENG 301 Technical Writing.

I believe that my professional experience at the Embassy of Canada, Washington D.C. places me in a unique position to contribute to your writing team. In this capacity, I managed the mission’s central communications product by consulting internal government stakeholders and issuing Canada’s position on high-profile bilateral issues to senior level representation across the U.S. Furthermore, I identified issues of importance and sent daily summaries of press coverage directly to Canada’s Ambassador to the United States of America. This opportunity allowed me to develop my research skills, brief writing competence, and gain an understanding of communications within traditional and non-traditional diplomacy.

My recent academic experience and editorial work has helped me to develop a skill set that I feel could be of interest to your writing team. Through my studies, I have acquired strong critical reading skills, analysis techniques, and an enthusiasm for research-intensive work. My published piece, found on UBC’s Journal of Political Studies, and my work as a contributing editor at The Envoy, an online international affairs op-ed platform, demonstrate my interest in and aptitude for relevant and concise prose.

I have a number of academic strengths that I feel set me apart. I take a mature approach to work and I am, therefore, a firm believer in rigorous attention to detail and setting achievable goals for myself. Patience, empathy, and teamwork are values and attributes that I value in others and myself. Due to my attitude to work, I struggle to delegate responsibilities to others and I can be uncompromising in reaching goals that I feel are achievable. As part of your team, however, this is an area that I would like to work on in my professional development.

Given the opportunity, I would be a dedicated asset to your team and I believe that I could make a worthwhile contribution to the various projects we need to accomplish.

If you are interested in collaborating, please e-mail me at jamesafwatson@gmail.com.

Sincerely,
James Watson

301 James Watson Application Letter

You’ve made it to James Watson’s Technical Writing (ENG 301) Blog! Click on Home Page, Biography Page, or my Blog to see more.