Last year, I took Earth
10, which is a very interesting course with regard to climate changes in
Antarctica. Thanks to this course, I got a chance to read through some research
papers analyzing the effect of global warming on Antarctic. Therefore, I decide
to pick an Antarctic-related paper to be the subject I am going to dissect and
discuss later in this blog. I think it is easier for me to understand and also
closer to our lives than any other dull and exhausting academic papers.
Testing Paradigms of
Ecosystem Change under Climate Warming in Antarctica (Testing
Paradigms) is the title of this scholarly peer reviewed academic paper.
The title, as many other papers’ titles do, directly address the topic of this
paper. Rather than making an ambiguous
but inviting title, academic papers always be honest and direct to their audience about
what they are going to mention. The authors of academic papers, undoubtedly,
are those scholars in related fields, and so are the audience. Using
jargons, such as “paradigms of change” in this case, can further a precise and
concise communication between them, quickly distinguishing the paper itself
from hundreds of thousands of other papers that address disparate themes. For laypeople, the secondary audience,
words such as “Antarctica” and “Climate Warming” at least indicate and help
them understand the content of such a highly scholarly article. Also, academic
study is a very serious domain, where objectivity and scrupulousness are highly
appreciated. Under such context, or constraint, a brief and clear title is more
suitable than a fancy and word-playing one. The certain format is also a
convention of academic papers. Each section is laid out one by one in a fixed
order: abstract, introduction, materials and methods (experiments), and then
results and discussions, and eventually reference. The exigence of paper is
usually mentioned in abstract as well as introduction. In Testing Paradigms, the
exigence is clearly stated in abstract—“large-scale mechanistic explanations…may
not account for complex spatio-temporal processes…we suggest that our network
approach to evaluating a recent and widely cited paradigm of change… could be
broadly applied.” (Melbourne-Thomas,
1) The exigence is crucial to an academic paper because researchers have to
respond to something they deem worth searching. If they are only echoing the
same opinions or findings their predecessors had already discovered
many years ago, the entire paper is going to be meaningless because there is
nothing worth researching. This is the reason why these scholars are very
willing to mention the motivations of their research at the very beginning.
Another convention is the
tone and diction. In Testing Paradigms, the first
personal perspective, “we”, are employed throughout the paper. We can feel that
the discourse to the audience is conveyed in a way like giving a presentation. The
communication is one-sided and does not expect any replies but hearing. The tone
is formal and objective, and words, such as “evaluate”, “formulate”, “model”, “confirm”,
“examine” and “assume”, are broadly used contributing to an unbiased and meticulous
expression. As I mentioned above, objectivity and scrupulousness will never be
considered redundant or excessive in academic field; hence the tone and diction
contributing to these two attributes become typical and repeatedly emphasized among academic pieces. I
think they are the most important aspects of a scholarly piece.
Look back at Testing
Paradigms, the question posed by this article is straightforward: is
the current paradigms of changes accurate? And the approach to test the current
established paradigms of changes is to use qualitative network modeling (figure below).
As per the description of the authors, such approach is superior over the
conventional one because it will account for the complexity and uncertainty which
has been omitted by the old approach. The detailed process is very scientific and,
well, awesome. By comparing the outcomes of the change of portion of each animal
in the ecosystem obtained from different modeling approach, the paper
demonstrates that “network models can be used to critically evaluate
assumptions about the structure and function of ecological networks and to
identify key hypotheses for testing in the future.”(Melbourne-Thomas, 1)
In order to understand this paper, we must clearly know what aim of the
research is and what the result of research has implied so far, which are all
mentioned in abstract and introduction. Therefore, as a layperson, I think
introduction and abstract are the most important parts of an academic paper.
Works
Cited
Melbourne-Thomas, Jessica, et al.
"Testing Paradigms Of Ecosystem Change Under Climate Warming In
Antarctica." Plos ONE 8.2 (2013): 1-9. Academic Search Complete. Web. 31 Jan. 2016.
