PB2B on Specific Journals
Part 1:
These are the two scholarly articles I chose to focus on.
Ombergen, A. V., Laureys, S., Sunaert, S., Tomilovskaya, E., Parizel, P. M., Wuyts, F. L. (2017). Spaceflight-induced neuroplasticity in humans as measured by MRI: what do we know so far? doi: 10.1038/s41526-016-0010-8
Aubert, A. E., Larina, I., Momken, I., Blanc, S., White, O., Prisk, G. K., & Linnarsson, D,. (2016). Towards human exploration of space: the THESEUS review series on cardiovascular, respiratory, and renal research priorities. doi: 10.1038/npjmgrav.2016.31
They both focus on the effects of long-term space travel, but while the first one focuses on the changes to the brain the second one focuses on the changes to the heart and cardiovascular system.
Part 2:
Both articles focus on the issue of space travel and how it affects humans. However, the authors chose to focus on two different areas of the body. One talks about the brain changes and how space travel can harm the brain while the other is about physical and cardiovascular harm that space travel can induce. They use different terms throughout their pieces. For example, the one about brain function in space uses terms like MRI and neuroplasticity while the journal about physical harm in space uses terms like physiological and cardiovascular. That being said, they do use similar terms like spaceflight and microgravity and define them in similar ways. Also, even though their main topics are different, they researched them in a similar fashion. They both use existing data from previous space travels and simulated flights. I’m sure if they could they would get multiple different tests on different people but it’s probably a bit tricky to take data from space. So they both compare what we have from previous space flights with what we have from the normal status of the human body. Overall, both pieces emphasize that studies we do have show long term space travel could severely impact the body both psychologically and physiologically. Although the cardiovascular article goes one step further to say that creating better technology to counteract these effects would lead to greater interest in space exploration.
Part 3:
Some conventions they both share is that they use very technical jargon, they have a main argument that they are trying to show, they use graphs and diagrams throughout, and they are split into multiple different sections like an abstract or conclusion. One affordance that they have is they can be as long or as short as they need to be in order to talk about their topic, but they are also limited in the fact that they must be written a certain way to appeal to their field of study. The audience is of course other scholars, but a secondary audience could be anyone who works for these space companies or people interested in becoming an astronaut. And in terms of organization they are very similar. They begin with an abstract, then talk very broadly about their subject before getting more specific in different sections, and then finally wrap up and summarize their thoughts in a conclusion.
Part 4:
What strikes me as important is that even though these two papers focus on two different specific studies in their field, since they still are the same field (in broad terms) they studied their phenomena similarly and use similar jargon that relates to space travel.
Comments
Post a Comment