When I first came into ENC 1102, I was fairly apprehensive
at first about the idea of writing a large research paper. Prior to taking this
course, I really did not know how to write a successful research paper. A very
crucial lesson that I have learned in this course is that when you are
conducting primary and secondary research on something that interests you, the
task becomes much easier. For my semester long project, I chose to write about
crime in media, a subject area that has held my interest for years. By taking
the first steps in developing a research question, and conducting secondary
research to find a "gap" in the conversation, I successfully set some
goals in what I was looking to achieve in the outcome of this project.
Throughout this semester, I have learned many important skills in writing a
research paper, such as setting up context, using sources as concrete examples
and support for the text, concision, building a framework, and establishing meaning
to results.
Outcome 5: Multiple Drafts of Literature Review
In correcting these mistakes, I took my professors suggestions for building context into consideration while writing my second draft.
Offenders in the media are typically depicted as what would seem like the stereotypical and ideal criminal. When the public reads stories on offenders, they usually are very likely to consume a good amount of negativity and assumptions about the offender. These depictions are usually apparent even when there is more coverage than actual crime. This idea is supported in Rhineberger-Dunn’s analysis of juvenile delinquency coverage in newspapers, where she found that newspapers continue to use violent myths in referencing to juvenile offenders in other stories, even when the crime rates are low (490). Rhineberger-Dunn shows that there is a negative correlation in the use of violent images used in reporting and actual crime rates. Wardle extends Rhineberger-Dunn’s findings by showing how casual use of these negative images overtime in reporting drives the public discourse in her analysis of high-profile child murder cases,...(273)
According to Miller and Kurpius, “Credibility and trust are the core to American journalism. Nothing is more valued” (139). Today, the public will conforms to sources
By identifying the argument as one of my first steps in completing this assignment, I was then able to figure out why Wardle had conducted the study the way she did, as evident on page two in the final draft of my interpretive summary:
Compared to the other
sections of my project, I can say that the literature review was the longest
and most challenging for me to write. Given that I had little to no experience
in writing research papers in high school, I had never learned the skills
needed to conduct successful synthesis of sources and build context. With the
help of my professor during his office hours every Tuesday and Thursday morning
for three weeks, I ended up with several drafts, and a good end product.
In putting together the first
draft of my lit review, I had not realized the importance of setting up context
and using sources as examples for support. I ended up putting together the
first few paragraphs by introducing my subject headings, and then pulling in
back-to-back sources, which is evident under all of the pages for draft one of
my literature review. For example, in the second paragraph on page two, I
listed Herda-Rapp and Wardle as back-to-back sources:
Herda-Rapp
found in her study done on school violence threats concluded from her results
that officials' decisions to act where persuaded by the context of threats
created in the media, the growing awareness of the crime, and reinforced
information on previous shootings, and their own experiences (547). From her
analysis on news images of high profile child murder cases from the 1930s,
1960s, and 1990s, Wardle concluded...(290)
In correcting these mistakes, I took my professors suggestions for building context into consideration while writing my second draft.
The second draft of my lit review includes a thorough introduction of the
subject matter of crime in the media, as evident on page one of draft two in
the first paragraph. Given that I did not have an introduction in the first
draft, I found this revision to be effective in giving the reader a general
introduction of the history and previous research that has been done on crime
in the media. I also had added context to each to in the opening and between
sources in all paragraphs, making the lit review longer in length than it was
before. One example of this added context is in the second paragraph of page
two in the second draft of my lit review:
As
advocates for justice in society, the primary job of authorities in the
Criminal Justice system is to protect the people, but sometimes media
influences affect decisions these leaders make. When criminal justice
authorities read into the reactions the public has to media portrayals, the
result is a sense that there is a current social disorder in society.
After building this context, I then used Herda-Rapp as an
example for support, also evident on page two in that same paragraph:
This
concept is evident in a study done by Herda-Rapp on school violence threats,
where she found that authorities’ decisions in responding to crimes were
aggregated by the growing awareness of this type of crime and reinforced
information on previous shootings shown by the media, as well as their own
experiences. (547)
With the addition of ideas in the conversation, I moved
Wardle's quote to another paragraph, where it would better fit the framework.
By making this revision between drafts one and two, I learned to avoid listing
sources back to back, and use them as examples to support my developing
framework in the context.
Outcome 3: Intertextual Map
Assignment
Along with the literature review and annotated
bibliography, I consider the intertextual map assignment to be the most crucial
part in developing my primary research plan for this project and literature
review. By doing the interextual map, I was able to read through the
annotations that I had made on all of the articles read and pinpoint where the
sources overlapped in ideas. An example of this is how I made the connection
between Rhineberger-Dunn and Wardle’s articles based on their discussion of
“predatory characteristics”, evident on slide 7 in the final draft of my
intertextual map:
Discusses 4 “media-fueled myths” (475)
-Discusses “predatory” characteristics and “innocent victim” theme (475),
which is also discussed in Claire Wardle’s article “Monsters and angels: Visual
press coverage of child murders in the USA and UK, 1930-2000” in Wardle
analysis of child victim portrayal in 1930s newspapers (Wardle, 271)
-The articles are also connected in that they both discuss the “predatory”
characteristics in the media:
(1) Wardle discussed how media images of paedophiles in the 1990s were “labeled”
as “detatched”, “monstrous”, and “predatory” (Wardle, 270)
(2) Rhineberger-Dunn discussed how the media portrayed juvenile offenders as
“hyper-violent superpredators”, despite the drop in juvenile offenses at the
time (475)
The overlap of ideas in this excerpt is evident in the
similar discussion on the portrayal of criminals as “predatory” in the media.
By pinpointing this idea in the conversation I was intending to enter, I was
able to include a section in my lit review on the relationship between
depiction of criminals and the correlation between crime rates and coverage. In
this section of my lit review, I pulled both Rhineberger-Dunn and Wardle as
sources to support the context. As evident on page 9 in the final draft of the
literature review:
Offenders in the media are typically depicted as what would seem like the stereotypical and ideal criminal. When the public reads stories on offenders, they usually are very likely to consume a good amount of negativity and assumptions about the offender. These depictions are usually apparent even when there is more coverage than actual crime. This idea is supported in Rhineberger-Dunn’s analysis of juvenile delinquency coverage in newspapers, where she found that newspapers continue to use violent myths in referencing to juvenile offenders in other stories, even when the crime rates are low (490). Rhineberger-Dunn shows that there is a negative correlation in the use of violent images used in reporting and actual crime rates. Wardle extends Rhineberger-Dunn’s findings by showing how casual use of these negative images overtime in reporting drives the public discourse in her analysis of high-profile child murder cases,...(273)
As evident in this excerpt, I built a framework that used
the idea of “predatory characteristics” to support a claim that depiction of
criminals in the media leads to over reporting of crimes, despite the crime
rates being low. This excerpt also shows how I used Wardle to extend on the
Rhineberger-Dunn’s idea of “violent myths”, where over reporting of crime can
drive the public to take action, and there is a conversation going on between
scholars on factors of crime in the media.
Outcome 2: Primary Research/Methods Section
While conducting
the primary research for my project, I ran into some obstacles with the
procedures. The biggest issue that I had in conducting this research was the
questionable results obtained with my initial method. According to a review of
this data done by my professor, these results could have very well hurt the end
product of my project. My professor also stressed the idea of "trial and
error" in conducting inquiry based research, which demands flexibility
from the researcher. With the successful revision of my methods section, I
learned the importance of being flexible in conducting field research.
In developing my primary
research plan for this project, I initially had planned to have two focus
groups, one with 4 younger generation individuals (ages 18-30), and one with 4
older generation individuals (ages 60-80). My procedure for conducting this
study was to have all subjects watch 12 clips total for three recent high
profile crimes (4 clips for each crime), and then conduct individual interviews
with each subject, as evident on slide 10 in the first draft of my methods
section:
1)
Have all subjects from focus groups watch three newscasts (from three different
news and infotainment providers) on three recent high profile crimes
-Three recent high profile crimes: Casey Anthony, George Zimmerman, and Jodi
Arias
-News providers: CNN, ABC News
-Infotainment provider: HLN (Nancy Grace and Dr. Drew)
(2)
Interview all subjects from focus groups (all interviewed individually, some
interviewed over phone due to long distance restraints)
-5 questions focusing on the subjects’ psychological and sociological impacts
from viewing the newscasts (5 for each case, 5 for concluding interview)
- possible skepticism, effects of objectivity, and levels of fear
An example of a question from the interviews asked subjects
how the clips on the Casey Anthony trial from the study make made them feel
about her, and/or anyone else involved in the trial (evident on page one of
draft one of Appendix A):
How
did the clips on the Casey Anthony trial make you feel about her?
· The authorities?
· Caylee?
· Her family?
After interviewing four of the eight subjects, my professor
had informed me that my results obtained so far were fairly questionable. By
the suggestions of my professor, I went back and reviewed the sections of my
literature review, and decided to create a 10 questions survey focusing on the
accuracy of reporting in new mediums of the media, and which sources seemed
accurate to subjects, as evident in the final draft of Appendix A. An example
of a question from the survey asks subjects what characteristics they look for
in an accurate source (evident on page one of Appendix A final draft):
What characteristics do you
look for in an accurate source? (Check all that apply)
-Repetitive
-Vivid in detail
-Concise
-Credibility
-Authority
-Closed-Minded
-Other (please specify)
By having the flexibility to revise the methods of my
primary research, I was able to obtain data that I could breakdown and draw
conclusions from. For example, based on the example of a question from the
survey above, I found that 92.86% of subjects said credibility and 42.86% said
vivid in detail, while only 21.43% said authority and 7.14% said repetition.
Based on this data, I was able to conclude that subjects do not look for
authority and repetition of facts as much as I had predicted. I was able to extend
on this conclusion by building a framework, as evident on page 2 of draft 7 of
my results/discussion section:
According to Miller and Kurpius, “Credibility and trust are the core to American journalism. Nothing is more valued” (139). Today, the public will conforms to sources
Outcome 1: Research Proposal
In preparation
of conducting any kind of research, it is helpful for the researcher to write
up a research proposal discussing the field and subject matter that they plan
to pursue. In putting together my research proposal, I used it as somewhat of a
"free-write" to write all of my ideas down to give some options what
is was about crime in the media that I wanted to learn more about. Given that
this proposal was written before I had conducted significant secondary
research, I found this assignment to be helpful in developing research
questions for my topic.
In the beginning of the semester, our class was asked by my professor to write
up a research proposal to show and discuss with him during office hours. To
help organize my ideas and steps of the project, I typed up an outline to
accompany my research proposal memo. The research proposal outline included
bullet points of what was addressed in detail in the memo, such as the research
question, rhetorical situation, and key challenges that I foresaw, as evident
in pages 1 and 2 in my research proposal outline:
Research Question: How has the
depiction of crime in the media changed over the years? How has crime
programming affected audiences?
Rhetorical Situation:
-Purpose: To find the
reasoning behind all of the public outbursts after a not guilty verdict for
trials for criminals such as Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman, and to see if
there is a possible connection between the way crime is depicted in the media,
the viewers, and the reactions of the viewers.
-Audience: my peers,
public broadcasters, reporters, and the government
-Context: Not available
as this time
My research proposal outline can be considered the plan or
‘first draft’ in writing up the memo. In the actual memo, I converted the
purpose in the outline to questions that I have raised about crime in the media
and a hypothesis (‘domino-effect’), as evident on the first page in the first
and second paragraphs of my research proposal memo:
The current
questions that I have for my semester long research project are how has the
depiction of crime in the media changed over the years? How has crime
programming affected audiences? Problems that I see in society today are an
enormous amount of negativity in the media surfacing around crime, depictions of
the criminals, and the result of these depictions on the public’s state of mind
and psychological well-being. With these problems in mind, I currently plan to
make a connection between the ways that crime is depicted in different crime
programs (the news, dramas, reality shows, etc.), and its effect on the public.
I also would like to know if these crime depictions have any connection to a
possible ‘domino effect’ between the jury’s verdict decision and public
outbursts...
My
hypothesis with this ‘domino effect’ of events around a crime is that I think
that the media’s constant emphasis and obsession over major crimes and
rehashing their timelines and facts presented in court triggers possible anger
and fear in the public…
As evident in these two excerpts, I showed the audience my
general interest in the subject matter, or the purpose of conducting research
in this line of inquiry. I found this purpose to be crucial to identify in my
outline and memo, as it was a problem that I had identified in society today. I
then expanded my purpose into more detail, such as by showing questions that I
have about this problem in society and giving examples of my ‘domino effect’
hypothesis, or the prediction that repeating reporting of crime in the media
aggregates public outbursts toward the offenders and criminal justice system.
By “free-writing” all of my ideas down about my interest in exploring crime
reporting as a problem in society in the research proposal outline and memo, I
was able to conduct solid secondary research by reading various scholarly
articles with a lens in reading for studies that have been done on the
relationship between crime reporting, crime rates, and effects of reporting on
the public.
Outcome 4: Interpretive Summary
As one of the first major
assignments of the course for this semester, I feel that the interpretive
summary assignment taught me some of the basic, but most important skills for
beginning secondary research. In writing this assignment, I learned to look for
a scholar's purpose for primary research, their argument, and why they chose
the methods they did in reading a scholarly article. In reading an article with
a lens for these different factors, I was able to identify a "gap" in
the scholar's conclusion and raise questions about the results. My successful
gain of these news skills are evident in the final product of this assignment.
For the interpretive summary
assignment, I had selected Claire Wardle’s article “Monsters and Angels: Visual
press coverage of child murders in the USA and UK, 1930-2000” to analyze and
interpret. In interpreting the article, I was able to identify the argument
that Wardle was trying to make in her study done on news images of child
murders in the 1930’s, 60s, and 90s, as evident on page 1 in the final draft of
my interpretive summary:
In the
beginning of the article, Wardle almost explicitly states her argument and
reasoning for doing her analysis: “This study is based on the premise that
photographs in the news can prevent critical judgment, acting as they do as a
visual chronicle of events. It is assumed photographs illustrate the ‘truth’,
sharing just what the eye can see with the readers of the newspaper” (264).
By identifying the argument as one of my first steps in completing this assignment, I was then able to figure out why Wardle had conducted the study the way she did, as evident on page two in the final draft of my interpretive summary:
She then
goes on to tell us why she conducted the analysis with images from child murder
cases: “It is for this reason that I believe it is so critical to study visual
representations of crime, particularly concerning crime so infused with emotion
as child abduction and murder” (264).
As evident in these two excerpts, my interpretations of the
scholar’s argument and reasoning for her method gave me ideas on how to
expand the lens that I had been using to conduct secondary research in
exploring the subject matter of crime reporting in the media. My lens had
expanded to include a discussion on the effect of using emotion in news images
on the public discourse, as evident on page 3 in the final draft of my
literature review:
With the media as their primary source, the public consumes
many images of one crime. These images can show the details of a case from many
perspectives, to which the public interprets. From her analysis on news images
of high profile child murder cases from the 1930s, 1960s, and 1990s, Wardle
concluded that… What Wardle is saying here is that mostly all the public saw in
images of these cases was of the struggle of victims’ families to deal with
their loss and the idea of revenge against the offender as a resolution when
reading the stories about the murders.
As evident in this excerpt, I had used the idea of
incorporating emotion and revenge into images introduced by Wardle to build a
framework that shows the reader that different images of crime can create many
perspectives, such as for example, the repeated use of images of grieving
families and angry mobs in the newspapers.
Two skills that I had become stronger in while interpreting Wardle’s article
were raising questions and identifying stakeholders. In the interpretive
summary, I had addressed how Wardle briefly discussed how images were processed
before being published in the newspaper. Based on this discussion, I raised
questions on how the new technology used today to process images might be
different than in the past, as evident on pages 2 and 3 in the final draft of
my interpretive summary:
…I compared
the news image materials used in this study to news image materials available
today. Given that this study was done in 2000 and not published until 2007, I
questioned how the newspaper images used today would be perceived by the
public. My questions were: Are people skeptical of the images they see in the
media today? Can they still be drawn by the emotion in the images? Today in our
society we have the privilege of accessing the news digitally, primarily the
internet. With the improvement in technology of computers, we now have editing
software for photos, videos, and other media. Given these facts, it may be
possible that one would look at an image from the news and give it a little
more thought, as it may have been downloaded and manipulated by another user
over the internet.
As evident in this excerpt, I made an attempt to identify a
small “gap” in Wardle’s study. Given that I needed to eventually identify a gap
at the end of my literature review, the gaining of this skill was very crucial.
The two stakeholders that I had identified in this study were journalists and
the citizens that viewed crime images from the three decades analyzed in the
article and gave them some thought. I pulled in direct quotes and analysis of
those quotes as support for my claim, as evident on page 4 in the final draft
of my interpretive summary:
We see
clearly that the journalists are the audience for Wardle’s article, as she
mentions how and why they should take caution in her discussion: “While still
acknowledging this, and accepting that there will be an inevitable seeping of
emotion into our newspapers, caution needs to be exercised on this issue of
crime” (280). While journalists snapshot and layout images that they feel would
most appeal to their readers, Wardle has made it apparent in her study that
their work has done more than appeal to the public. In the conclusion of the
article, Wardle states “Picture editors have a choice and their selections
shape the way we perceive these crimes and consider how those who have
committed them should be treated” (281). What Wardle is doing here is
connecting the brief description of the process of news images, the emotion it
draws, and the results of that emotion to conclude that these editors are the
only ones with the power to help resolve this issue.
Without overgeneralizing, Wardle makes it clear to the
reader that the journalists and public are the stakeholders in this issue.
Wardle keeps a good ethos by describing the cause-and-effect relationship
between the journalists and public outbursts without directly asserting blame;
the way journalists choose to manipulate their images has a major impact on the
public discourse. I found this strategy be very helpful in writing the
conclusion of my lit review, as evident on pages 10 and 11 in the final draft
of my lit review:
As evident by these scholars, there has been a lot of focus
on how the perceived objectivity used in crime stories and images can be used
to manipulate members of society to think, feel, and act. Images of grieving
families and violent portrayals of offenders can lead many to believe that
crime is a serious problem and action needs to be taken. However, as many of
these studies focus on the mediums of newspapers and early news television, new
technology that has evolved over decades influences society in a new way.
People may have different perceptions of what they see in the media today. How
might the public read images through new mediums today? Do they find these
mediums to be accurate?
Shown by this excerpt, I establish a good ethos by
summarizing the current issue of crime reporting in the media and what previous
studies have discovered without asserting any blame on either the public,
criminal justice system, or journalists. By establishing a good ethos, I have a
better chance of appealing to the scholarly audience regardless of age, gender,
or occupation, which was the goal audience for this project.
Overall, I feel that all of the
excerpts pulled into this piece are concrete examples of all the outcomes that
I had met this semester. As a writer, I feel that I have improved quite a bit
in putting together a research paper. I have learned that a research paper is
not only what previous studies have contributed to the conversation, but what
you have done to expand on it. Given that I am a Criminal Justice major, this
project has allowed me to explore an area of research in this field of study.
With the decisions that I will make for my future plan of study and designated
career choice, I will choose to engage in a research project very similar to
this one in order to explore and get some insight on what the desired field of
study is like.
No comments:
Post a Comment