Reflection: Digital Formatting Workshop
This workshop was especially helpful because I wasn't too sure about how I was going to format my paper. We were given several ideas on what kind of format we could use. The first was kind of linear, and it was to go from the background information to the community to the genre and finally to the text.
Another format was a bit more complicated. The first thing would be to 1. Set the scene of the community and then go to 1a. Ask a question. That delves into 2. The background based on research. From there, we would go to 3. Text analysis, which can be broken down into 3a. Description (look, what), 3b. Analyze (who, when, where, why), 3c. Function (how), and potentially 3d. Evaluation. Then we would go to 4. Tie back to the community. Finally, all of this would shift into 5. The conclusion.
Something else we were told was that, if the interview is important, we could build ethos by describing the interviewee briefly. We can also cite the interviewee later on in the text, and that the interview would probably work best if integrated into the background based on research.
Of the two formats we were introduced to, I think I prefer the second one. The first format is a little too straightforward for my tastes. Since my research definitely cannot be described as straightforward, I think the first format would make my paper seem boring and a bit disjointed. I think the second format would better suit my research and would hopefully make my paper more interesting to read.