The Role of Writing in Hydro-Environmental Sciences
Tomas
G. Hallsby
The
University of Iowa
One
thing that all three academic writings have is a section that is devoted to the
methodology behind the solution that they used. However, in two of them, they
devoted an entire section to the area that was studied and where the data was
collected by the people who were conducting the experiment. In the section that
was devoted into the methodology, the minimum that is expected for a large
piece writing is five subsections. While, each subsection has no less than five
different studies or pieces of evidence that help support the results that are
being communicated. Furthermore, all the essays contained a conclusion and at
times offered a discussion section that gave possibilities that could happen in
the future.
More
than not, the essays used informal language; however, when a study was about to
be brought up, or when an equation that was used formal language was used. For
example, “This study utilized the implicit four-point finite difference scheme
to disperse and numerically solve the partial differential equations of
hyperbolic type. This implicit finite difference approach, first proposed
by Preissman (1961)…” During the explanation of the
study that coincided with the equations that helped create the hydrodynamic
models that were used, the language changed drastically. For in two paragraphs
above that in the same writing this very informal language was being used. “The
hydrological model GR4J is a conceptual lumped rainfall-runoff model with only
four parameters, which was improved by Perrin et al. (2003) based
on the GR3J model (Edijatno et al., 1999). It is one of the
simplest models and has been proven to have the capability of simulating
rainfall-runoff process at daily time step.” Throughout most academic writings,
the language is quite informal; but when something is explained the language
has quick turn around and is easy to get lost in it.
In each essay the author used innumerable number of
sources. They ranged between graphs, advanced hydrological mathematical
equations, to simple references to other studies that were done. One reason
that this is done, is because the author wants to give so much proof that it is
impossible to make a counterargument to their data or interpretation and
importance of said data. On average, a good piece of academic writing in the
field of Environmental Hydrology there should be no less than forty different
sources. The sources that are used widely vary throughout the essays; there are
some that are phd thesis, to reports that were done or supported by METI &
NASA’s research teams. Some of the sources that are used are a few years old,
but the way the data was used it made sense to use them. In the article called,
A new method for estimation of spatially distributed
rainfall through merging satellite…, they used a source that is a topographic
model for mapping rain on mountainous terrain that was from 1994.
Non-Academic Writing
Non-Academic
writing to the hydro-environmental sciences is informative,
The language that was used throughout the essays were quite similar
to the language sued in the Academic writings. The only difference is that
since no study or experiment was mentioned, there were no words that an average
person would have to look up the definition for; to understand what was being
said. For the majority of the time the writer remains completely impassive,
which gives more credibility to the information that is being conveyed; but
when they are or are about to bring up a fact there’s a hint of excitement from
the author. Take this as an example, in the reading that is called Replacing
the Restrictors to Keep a Hydro Plant Operating. “Using Synthetic Ropes for
Heavy Lifting” by Aidan Smith and Grant Campbell… …Energy Ltd. has found for
synthetic rope as a replacement for steel cable at its…” Now, if this is
compared to an earlier part of the essay, less emotion would be conveyed upon
reading. A few paragraphs above in the same essay something similar is said, “Visco jets contain many internal stages to provide a
very small restriction to flow but still keep the internal passageway sizes
large enough to resist blockage by contamination.” Although, these two quotes
are talking about different things the second has a lot less energy upon being
read; and comparing that characteristic to the other two essays that were found
that should not happen. The other two aggregated essays are entirely impassive,
unenergized and yet are still interesting.
A commonality that was found between
the aggregated writings that no studies or experiments were mentioned anywhere
in the writing. The only type of sources that were used were either experts
that already had the knowledge from elsewhere or from an interview. The main
point of Non-Academic writing in the field of hydrology is to keep everyone up to
date; because it is an ever changing ever evolving field.
Citations
Gao, C., He, Z., Pan,
S., Xuan, W., & Xu, Y.-P. (2018, March 2). Effects of climate change on
peak runoff and flood levels in Qu River Basin, East China. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570644316301496
Ingram, E. (2019,
September 2). Technical Updates on Dams. Retrieved from
https://www.hydroreview.com/2018/06/01/technical-updates-on-dams/
Liu, Y., Zhang, J.,
Wang, G., Wang, G., Jin, J., Liu, C., … He, R. (2018, August 29). How do
natural climate variability, anthropogenic climate and basin underlying surface
change affect streamflows? A three-source attribution framework and
application. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570644316302118
Planning to
Rehabilitate the 3 MW Lago Loiza Plant after 24 Year Closure. (2019, September
2). Retrieved from
https://www.hydroreview.com/2017/04/01/planning-to-rehabilitate-the-3-mw-lago-loiza-plant-after-24-year-closure/
Replacing the
Restrictors to Keep a Hydro Plant Operating. (2019, September 2). Retrieved
from
https://www.hydroreview.com/2018/06/01/replacing-the-restrictors-to-keep-a-hydro-plant-operating/
Shi, H., Chen, J., Li,
T., & Wang, G. (2017, October 31). A new method for estimation of spatially
distributed rainfall through merging satellite observations, raingauge records,
and terrain digital elevation model data. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570644316301502
My overall impression of this piece is that it's got the necessary analysis, but its lack of consistent grammar and sentence structure makes it hard to follow. It is easy to tell that the author is well-versed in the subject matter and understands what they are trying to convey, it just doesn't get across at times. Similarly, the work itself is organized into categories, but few of the categories are labeled. Making it hard to keep track of which writing convention the author is referring to. Simply put, getting through it takes some work, but it has all the makings of a fine paper.
ReplyDeleteThere are two main things that I think the paper requires editing to fix. First and foremost, is consistency. It is not always clear whether the author is referring to academic or nonacademic writing. On top of that, when referencing examples, it is not always clear what the author is trying to exemplify. I think the best way to fix this consistency problem is to simply break down the purpose of each sentence and identify whether it meets its goal. If every sentence's purpose is clearly understood, the inconsistent grammar should resolve itself.
Second, the structure of the paper is confusing. The paper is clearly written to tackle each theme in their writings one by one. Firstly in academic, and then in nonacademic. Unfortunately, this lack of labels makes it difficult to discern what is being analyzed. This is easily rectified by adding section titles.
Finally, the paper is lacking an introduction. There is little else to say other than that I suggest an introduction precedes the analysis. Without the introduction, all the information lacks a reference point. Meaning that I understand what is being said, but not why it's important.