Progress Report #3

June 12, 2008

To: Dr. Holmevik
From: Amy Jessee

Introduction

This MAPC thesis proposal explores the connections between organizational narrative and strategic communication through the genre of profiles. I will conduct a textual and visual analysis of profiles used by universities on their websites or in print publications.

Work Completed

I finished a first draft of my proposal by writing the introduction and conclusion. Though I might have been tempted to start with the introduction, this class has taught me the value of saving this important section for the end. By writing the introduction in conjunction with the conclusion, I was able to concisely summarize my thoughts and pinpoint the focus of my research. I pulled ideas from the executive summary drafted early in the writing process and updated certain aspects with revised ideas compiled from my literature review. Surprisingly, my proposal followed this original outline, through with more focus. I think this focus has enhanced my ability to describe my topic in my own words, evidenced in the strong conclusion that I eventually drafted.

Both Dr. Holmevik and Ron noted the strength of my conclusion in their comments on the draft; however, I still have several sentences in need of revision. For instance, I learned that I favor introductory phrases and that I might want to consider shortening some of my sentences, though I will consider their length in conjunction with the flow of my writing. On the other hand, if something interrupts the flow, such as a confusing sentence structure or an awkward word choice or citation, I will revise the sentence or section.

Next Steps

Now that I’ve received feedback on the draft, I will use the comments to guide my revisions. These comments highlight areas that I simply skimmed over in my familiarity with the material, and their suggestions allow me to see my words in a new way. Specifically, I need to check a few citations, add more linguistic theory, and specify my thesis chapters. However, these changes are small compared to the next challenge: the multimodal presentation. I could easily prepare a PowerPoint presentation to accompany my proposal, but I’m not certain that this standard choice would be the most persuasive. We are currently learning about films, and due to my stress on the visual aspect of proposals, this option might fit well with what I’m trying to accomplish. In addition, making a film would be an accomplishment in itself, since I’ve never used the film editing software available in the lab. To prepare for the presentation, I will design a storyboard, record a script, and acquire or take images or video to visually represent my thesis proposal.

Conclusion

At this point in the proposal process I’m literally “revisioning” my research in many different ways. I’ve written my initial vision for the research, and I’m editing this draft for content and style. I’m also revising sections that might be confusing to readers. In addition, I’m visualizing my research in order to add any necessary graphics and to present the research in a five-minute film.

Writing Proposals - Chapter 10

This chapter presents an overview and examples of four design principles: balance, alignment, grouping, and consistency. As someone with little professional design experience, I found these rules to be very helpful as a starting point for thinking about the design of my proposal; however, I had to remind myself to balance these guidelines or handbook approach with an ongoing analysis of the rhetorical situation. In other words, knowing the rules is great, but knowing how to apply them in particular context is what will make one proposal stand out for another. Consequently, I think it would be important to know the conventions for proposals in a discipline. For example, those of us writing MAPC thesis proposals know that we should use 1.5 spacing. This convention differs from standard MLA style, which calls for double spacing, yet it still allows enough space for interlinear comments. If we had used single spacing, we might have ignored one of the primary needs of our primary audience. Thus, I can see how we should think of the design as something that enhances or impinges on readability, particularly if we want readers to be able to choose how they want to read the proposal (183).

Furthermore, in this professional writing context, we should heed the advice for grouping related material together and distinguishing it through alignment and headings. While headings signal new topics, they also reveal the organization of the proposal (190). This organization might be one of the first things a reviewer glances at when deciding the fate of the proposal.

A more subtle area of design is typography, and this chapter highlights traditional typefaces and more progressive or creative typefaces. Again, I think convention will play a part here, particularly because we write most academic research papers in a serif font such as Times New Roman. But, perhaps technology is changing our perception of research. Has anyone else noticed that Word 2007 features Calibri as the default font? I did a little online research and discovered that this font was designed to be more Web friendly. In addition, what do you think about using the templates or styles provided by Word, instead of designing your own combination of typefaces? For proposal writers who wait until the last minute, such conveniences might help them deal with the issue of consistency, since they would only need to click a button to apply styles to each level of heading.

Writing Proposals - Chapter 9

While this chapter points out several important guidelines for improving style in our proposals, I wonder how much of it comes naturally as we write, particularly concerning the distinction between plain and persuasive sentences and tone. If we know when we want to pour on the persuasion, such as the introduction and conclusion, and when we need to stick to a plain style to define and explain our topic such as the current situation section, we might write in these styles from the beginning of the process. Though we can surely revise these sections to improve the tone, I think we might begin with distinct tones as we draft proposals.

However, perhaps some people need some rules or guidelines for writing with style, and some of the rules remind me of a favorite TV show, What Not to Wear. In this reality show, two hosts pick an unsuspecting fashion novice to make-over during a week’s time. They critique and trash the person’s current wardrobe, give them rules for buying new pieces, and send them on a mission in New York City to transform themselves through style. I think it would be hard to admit if you need such a make-over, but at that point, a strong critique and strict rules would be helpful. Therefore, I can see the usefulness of these style guidelines, such as finding your subject and placing it early in the sentence and choosing strong verbs rather than nominalizations. If I come across a confusing sentence in my writing, I will try to evaluate it and revise it using these guidelines.

On the other hand, I want to question a few rules from the chapter, such as the rule of thumb that we should use similes and analogies more often for inexperienced readers. I think similes and analogies can be helpful for any reader, regardless of experience with a subject, since they make our writing more interesting to read. I would also agree and disagree with the book’s advice to use familiar metaphors. Sure, they can be helpful in instantly connecting with readers, and a powerful tool at a subconscious level (a very Burkean idea, I believe), but they can also become cliché, and I wonder if proposal reviewers tire of reading the same metaphors. I might favor the persuasive power of new metaphors since they convey new ideas in a new perspective. However, I don’t think we should consider such strategy as being manipulative, since that implies a negative connotation toward rhetoric. Instead, persuasion is a natural part of the proposal process, and style might be the area where we can pinpoint our attempts at persuasion.

Writing Proposals - Chapter 8

This chapter on budget basics provides a wealth of information about constructing a budget to include in the proposal, though its greatest wisdom is to consult an accountant. With that said, I have several questions for the accountants in our class, as well as anyone else with budgeting experience. I also wish to point out several ways that this chapter applies to my work beyond the classroom walls.

First, when choosing between the budget considerations of fixed and flexible, how do you factor in time and inflation? The book distinguishes between these two categories on the basis of whether the program has a clear conclusion date or if it is ongoing, yet what is the appropriate amount of time that you can forecast figures? For instance, with the price of oil and plane tickets, would a flexible budget be a more appropriate choice? Again, I’m seeing how even this section requires knowledge of the current situation.

In my own situation, I can see how knowing a little about the elements and presentation of budgets can go a long way in my academic and professional pursuits. Not only would an itemized budge be good practice for a graduate student on a limited income, but perhaps the presentation of a budge can help us secure funds for our research and our travel. Specifically, I’m thinking of the travel grants, called student enrichment grants, offered by the graduate student government each semester. If anyone has had any success with this application process, please share some pointers. In that case, the GSG provides a form to fill out and one section asks for detailed expenses. Any advice about how to calculate the costs for attending a conference, and how to present them in a persuasive way?

I’m also going to have some experience on the other side of the proposal process this summer. For my assistantship, I will be able to participate in the bidding process for a publication that needs printing. Thanks to this chapter I will have a more critical eye toward the budgets that we receive, and I might be able to evaluate them in the terms presented in the chapter. Nevertheless, I think the information is helpful to keep in mind for future projects, even if it is not applicable to a thesis proposal.

Progress Report #2

June 4, 2008

To: Dr. Holmevik
From: Amy Jessee

Introduction

This MAPC thesis proposal explores the connections between organizational narrative and strategic communication through the genre of profiles. I will conduct a textual and visual analysis of profiles used by universities on their websites or print publications.

Work Completed

This week I drafted the current situation and project plan sections of the proposal. Due to the interdisciplinary nature of my thesis topic, I researched three main areas: profile writing, organizational communication with an emphasis on strategic communication, and genre theory. In addition, for the project plan I incorporated research on critical discourse analysis, content analysis, and visual design. As I wrote the sections I begin compiling a bibliography of sources.

The challenges of this part of the writing process were not only finding sources on profile writing, but quickly gaining an understanding of the subject matter in order to distill it to sections of 3 and 4 pages respectively. In addition, I continued to consider my audience as I drafted this chunk of the proposal, and I factored in ideas about constructing a persona as I write. Mainly, I used the literature review to address the issue of authority or credibility, and the project plan to explain how and why I want to carry out my research. In addition, I composed a short bio to include on my blog and save for future proposals and applications.

Next Steps

Now that I’ve drafted more than half of the proposal, I will restate my main points, the purpose, and the structure of the proposal in the introduction and conclusion sections. Thought I wrote an executive summary earlier in the class, I have a much more refined idea about what I want to study now that I’ve learned more about previous research and direction for future research. I’ve learned that my study will fit into genre studies, and I believe critical discourse analysis will be a useful methodology. Now I need to make sure these two sections fit together and transition smoothly, add transitions to connect the body of the paper to the bookend sections as I’m calling them, and read through and revise the proposal as a complete draft. If there is time, I would also like to address the suggestions in the comments from my peers, including explicitly stating my purpose in the current situation section, though it might be too repetitive depending on the transition from the introduction, and to add more information about discourse communities and ideologies to the project plan section, or at least make this part more prominent in the literature review. I will also revise my project plan according to possible thesis chapters.

Conclusion

Overall, I need to focus on the main points of my proposal and the transitions between them. I want to make sure I hit the key points in an order that my readers expect and that the structure of the proposal is clear from the introduction. I think I have a strong start, with several good transitions already in place, specifically between the small section of the proposal and between the current situation and project plan. The peer readers have helped me see things I might miss in my own “re-visions,” but by thinking of these larger issues now, I will be able to focus on small editing issues later in the revising process.

Writing Proposals - Chapter 7

The introduction may be the first part of a proposal, but we write it at the end of our drafting process. Perhaps we delay writing it because it is the most important part of the proposal, and thus the most difficult, or perhaps we wait to write it because we don’t know what we want to say until we’ve already said it in mindmaps, in outlines, and in rough drafts. We want to make sure the first impression is a good one, short but sweet, and with that sentiment in mind, I want to focus on several good lines from this chapter, if only to remind myself of them as I draft these bookends of the proposal. (It can’t hurt to read it, write it, and talk about it, much like the adage to tell them what you are going to tell them, tell them, and tell them what you told them).

To begin with the subject of the proposal, and as stated in Figure 7.1., what is not the subject of the proposal. Oddly enough, I often find it helpful to narrow down my ideas by describing what they are not. In that way I am able to whittle down my subject to the essentials as I do my best to remember to explicitly state what my subject is. When we only have a page for an introduction, we don’t have time to be subtle.

Similarly, the conclusion is as short with a similar goal to stress the main point, but end on a positive note. Ironically, the conclusion also is a beginning of sorts, since we want to encourage our readers to not only say yes to our plan, but also to take action on our proposal. I think the advice to use active headings and transitional phrases are good points, as is the suggestion to include only the bottom line. Though most of us writing thesis proposals do not have a budget, we can still think in terms of a bottom line. In other words, how will our proposed research advance the discipline or field in which we are working? Even if we don’t speak in monetary terms, we can discuss the contributions. For instance, in the book’s term of hard benefits a report results in understanding and insight.

In conclusion, the conclusion of our proposal is often the beginning of the next step of the writing process, while the introduction of the proposal is often the end of the proposal drafting process. Yet, both sections are essential to the proposal, even if we don’t know what we are going to say until we are in the middle of the proposal itself. Hopefully, as I revise, I learn to make the proposal more cohesive without be repetitive, though I can certainly understand how proposal writing is an art of rhetoric rather than a handbook tradition. As stressed throughout this class, there’s no set template for writing a proposal. We must evaluate each proposal based on the situation, the page requirements, and our audiences expectations.

Writing Proposals - Chapter 6

This chapter reinforces the importance of knowing your audience, but it also describes ways to know yourself in the proposal writing process. When writing the qualification section of a proposal, we should think of our audience to determine whether the section is needed at all. We would want to introduce ourselves to a client unfamiliar with our credentials, as would be the case with a organization to funding source; we might want to tell more about ourselves to a source familiar to us but not to our previous work in a team to management situation; and we might want to write more of a recommendation to include outside agencies. However, in the unique case of the MAPC thesis proposal, where the committee members are probably familiar with us already, we might prefer omitting the qualification section as a separate component of the proposal. For the 10 page limit, a qualification section would only take up space, so I’m curious to learn how I might weave in this information in other parts of my proposal, particularly in response to the project plan’s why question.

This chapter also has several other superfluous suggestions, which may not be necessary in every proposal writing situation. In fact, some of the suggestions stray into the category of want to tell information. For instance, the chapter discusses the dreaded organizational chart, calling it a requisite for the proposal. But if the theme of the chapter is to know your audience and to know yourself, including your strengths and weakness, then the organizational chart could be deceptive, since rarely does the organizational chart depict actual relationships in an organization. It may be the formal map of the organizational hierarchy, but communication does not necessarily follow the chain of command. Displaying such a graphic may provide reassurance for the funding agency, but I doubt it depicts actual relationships. As the book states, the image eventually needs to measure up to reality.

I prefer the suggestion to describe specific people leading or working on the projects, though again for the MAPC proposal, this description may not be necessary. However, the advice to develop a persona using a theme and key words may be adapted to our proposals. Certainly, as we revise we can think how we refer to ourselves in relationship to the research we are proposing. Do we use passive or active voice? Do we take responsibility for our work? Are we engaged in the subject? Later in the revision process, I hope to consider this aspect of my writing in relation to my persona, particularly as I reconsider the details of my audiences.