The Importance of Grants and How to Write One

By Caitlin Olson

Many people believe that grants are just “free money” which is essentially what it is, but they are also so much more than that. They require a lot of preparation if an organization wants to receive one, and grants allow people to pursue projects they wouldn’t have the chance to pursue otherwise. Writing grants give organizations a chance to improve their facilities, provide educational opportunities, social programs, research, and so much more. For example, Darrell R. Jones submitted a grant proposal to the Ohio Office of Criminal Services (OCJS) trying to increase the public safety of the City of Summerville by improving the overall physical fitness of the officers of the Summerville Police Department. The Summerville Police department is experiencing a high incidence of cardiovascular and musculo-skeletal problems among its sworn officers, resulting in fewer officers on the street. The use of official style is evident throughout this whole proposal where it starts with a slow sentence opener as well as it continues to us passive voice. “It is proposed that a fitness center be developed where Summerville officers can regularly exercise” (Summary) Throughout the grant proposal it talks about what the problem is, the objectives they wish to complete, the project description, and their budget so that the funder can dictate what their organization is about. The use of passive voice is crucial so that that there is no emotional connection between the grant writer and the reader so that the main points of the argument are clearly stated.

Some important advantages that a grant provides are that they are an investment when other sources of capital are unavailable to initiate or expand programs, products, or services. Additionally, unlike loans, grants do not have to be repaid and it enhances brand prestige, visibility, status, and credibility. In the objectives section of the proposal they used a lot of jargon so that the writer seems more credible to the topic as well as showcase the overall necessity to pay attention to the issue at hand.  If the City of Summerville receives the funding, they are asking they will complete the following objectives: Reducing the use of employee sick leave for cardio-vascular problems by 20%, reducing the use of employee sick leave for musculo-skeletal problems by 40%, and lower the average resting pulse of unfit employees by five beats per minute. If they succeed in receiving this grant it will increase the health and fitness level of the officers as well as reduce their time off of work which is inevitably good for the department and community.

Unfortunately, many businesses do not end up getting funded. Common mistakes that organizations make are value inflation, no go-to-market strategy, the grant is too long or too technical, etc. As far as value inflation, investors will judge whether your organization is valuable. They want you to lay out the facts such as the problem, your solution, the market size, how you will sell it, and how well you will stay ahead of competitors. When it comes to not have a market strategy it could inevitably doom your organization all together. Investors want you to explain the sales, marketing, and distribution strategy of your company. You must explain how you have already generated customer interest and how you will leverage this experience through a cost-effective go-to-market strategy. Investors want to know exactly who they are giving their money away to and determine whether they have a plan. Lastly, investors are very busy and they read multiple grant proposals a year. They favour grant writers who demonstrate the ability to convey the most important elements of a complex idea in the least amount of words possible. Also, grant proposals are typically filled with technical details and investors only care about technology when it solves a big problem that people will pay for, can be implemented on a reasonable budget, and can be protected through patents or other means. So, using this information the Summerville police department used a lot of jargon as well as complex sentences to help them seem credible to the investor.

The Summerville police department did not get funded because of the magnitude of the project that they were asking for. However, the funder can fund the maintenance of the project once the major objectives have been accomplished. In consequence of not receiving funding to help increase the health of the Summerville police officers the chance of illness increases as well as the chances of criminal victimization increases when the officers are off work. Another possible consequence of being understaffed for health-related reasons is that the remaining officers at work are less likely to be able to handle the assigned calls causing the community to be in danger. One Study (Fisk, 1988) shows that the response time for police-relate 911 calls is significantly longer when shifts are staffed at below recommended length. In the most extreme cases, this could even be an issue of life or death.

The real point of grants is to rally the necessary resources to help an organization fulfill its purpose. A grant is a tool organization’s use to address issues within the community. While grants impact the organizations they disperse to, they will more significantly affect community as a whole. The Summerville police department grant is crucial because it affects the whole community and not just the health of the police officers. If the grant writer explains that they would be safer if they received funding, people would be less likely to be scared to leave their homes. Grants are an important tool that could benefit any organization and even impact the whole community. When written correct grant proposals could provide educational opportunities, improve facilities in the community, and even help communities be more prepared in emergency situations.

Supreme Court Case Analysis

By Matthew Nelson

      The official style is ever present in the scholarly literature that we have become accustomed to reading and writing for college or for our professional lives.  Some areas of literature have come to expect a higher degree of intensity from the official style than others.  The official style is a key aspect of writing in professional settings because it helps generate credibility and authority through linguistic manipulation and diction.  The legal community for example, is often more official in the texts that are produced than writing areas where less intensive diction is acceptable and does not detract from the credibility of the literature itself.  US v. Lopez is a Supreme Court case analysis I wrote to examine the positions of both the dissent and majority and then align myself with the side that I felt best represented the intentions of the Constitution.  In this case review I used an extensive degree of official strategies for the same reasons that the official style is so prevalent in education and professional settings, because it made me appear more credible than if I were to explain all the same points I made in a way that everyone could understand.

          In the case review, as I had mentioned, I use a number of the official style strategies that one would expect from a document pertaining to the legal formalities of constitutional law.  Below is an excerpt from the case review that I fell best represents the overall diction and style used in the paper.

“It is my position that in this case the majority was correct in their interpretation of the Constitution and in particular the Interstate Commerce Clause.  While the dissent did make a logical argument about the connection between education and interstate commerce and the relationship between firearms and education, far too much speculation was involved in their reasoning.  Had there been empirical evidence in United States v. Lopez to conclude that by bringing a gun to class Alfonso Lopez had substantially affected the education of his peers and that in turn damaged the economy of the area there may have been a case to be made.  As it stood however, I feel the majority made the correct decision.  One particular area that I felt to be especially compelling was the discussion about the possibility of the substantial effects doctrine to get out of hand.  I agreed wholeheartedly with Justice Thomas that such a liberally interpreted doctrine when compounded with the aggregation principle could enable Congress to significantly impose on state legislative jurisdictions and violate the principle of federalism.”

From reading this it is fairly easy to discern that I was writing with the intention of implementing official style strategies, or at least attempting to.  To kick off the excerpt, for example, I began with the strategy ‘slow sentence opening.’  At the time I was far less familiar with the nuances of the official style than I am currently, so the implementation of this strategy was likely an attempt to extend my paper to fit a page requirement.  The page requirement itself though is a way of encouraging the use of official strategies like that in practice.  Another official style strategy that I had found myself using to a high degree in this case review was the complex sentence structure strategy.  The example from the text that stood out was the single sentence “In accordance with the parameters set for Congress as they saw them the majority was able to rule the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 as unconstitutional and reserved that right for the states.”  It would have been perfectly acceptable to substitute that entire phrase for one that simply stated that Congress felt the Act was a decision for the states to make, but that would not have captured the essence of the official style and the inherent credibility we associate with it in quite the same way.  This quotation provides a not entirely uncommon example of my writing incorporating more than one official style strategy in one sentence.  In the case the other strategy, alongside the complex sentence strategy, is the verbose/bureaucratic strategy where a sentence drones on and is accomplished using more words than are necessary or efficient to convey the information.  Just like the complex sentence strategy this could have been to elongate my writing and for the purposes of the assignment’s guidelines, but I also believe that it gave me an opportunity to include a level of diction and verbiage that allowed me to present the information in a format that would, to anyone familiar with the topic, appear more credible and trustworthy.

          While I have explored the unnecessary nature much of my writing has, I think that it also helps to answer the question of the significance of this style as well and it pertains to the motive behind why I wrote this text and the purpose of the verbiage involved.  While it can appear tedious it helped me accomplish the goal of the case review itself, which is not only to explain my position on the case US v. Lopez, but also to demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the source material. 

By reflecting much of the language used in the actual Supreme Court position, which was written in perhaps the most tedious and complicated official style I have ever encountered, I was able to inexplicitly convey to my professor that I had a comprehensive grasp of not only the case, but also constitutional precedent as it applied to the case.  While the official style is a powerful tool in specific settings, the exclusivity of it to the niche communities that it is tailored for can make it seem almost like a foreign language to people that are not privy to the jargon or stylistic cues that are uniquely developed in the official styles of specific professional communities.

Philosopher Speak: A Stylistic Review of John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism

 By Draza Kolpack

When first reading Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill you might find yourself going back to read paragraphs multiple times in an attempt to grasp what the man is trying to argue or define, much like I did. It is hard to contextualize how this piece became so wildly popular in 1861 London, where only two thirds of men and half of women were literate at all, when we ourselves are trying to understand the content and implications of his lengthy sentences and use of evidently educated diction. I would argue that his jargonistic writing and flowery academic language was used simply because that style was expected in philosophical circles, but the issue of Utilitarianism being published in a popular London magazine calls to question if that was Mill’s true intended audience. With this in mind, it is my belief that this work was published for three reasons: to clear up misconceptions and provide counterclaims to other philosophers in the field, persuade the educated elite that had opportunities to incite change within the government and support new policies reflecting Mill’s views, and to garner support from the greater public following the principle of ‘I don’t understand this but I trust it’ by playing to his credibility through the use of the official style. However, this is not the only context in which this piece is viewed or understood; because modern philosophers and academics are taught Mill’s works alongside various other historical philosophers, we must also take into account this modern context.

To truly contextualize the contexts at play, however, I feel that it is best to have a greater understanding of the official style of writing this piece employs. The official style, often found in academic and bureaucratic writing, is characterized by the use of passive or impersonal voice, complex sentences, slow sentence openings, shapeless or ‘unspeakable’ form, excessive use of jargon, a bureaucratic tone, and higher levels of abstraction alongside a number of other nuances. Mill’s makes use of a number of these tools when writing Utilitarianism; I will exemplify these strategies and illustrate the implications of such stylistic choices by providing passages from the text. Furthermore, I will provide readability statistics that may grant a better frame of reference for the difficulty of the text.

Passage One:

“A PASSING remark is all that needs be given to the ignorant blunder of supposing that those who stand up for utility as the test of right and wrong, use the term in that restricted and merely colloquial sense in which utility is opposed to pleasure. An apology is due to the philosophical opponents of utilitarianism, for even the momentary appearance of confounding them with any one capable of so absurd a misconception; which is the more extraordinary, inasmuch as the contrary accusation, of referring everything to pleasure, and that too in its grossest form, is another of the common charges against utilitarianism: and, as has been pointedly remarked by an able writer, the same sort of persons, and often the very same persons, denounce the theory "as impracticably dry when the word utility precedes the word pleasure, and as too practicably voluptuous when the word pleasure precedes the word utility."”

This excerpt provides a great example of how the author tends to utilize slow sentence openings, essentially employing a long windup into an even longer and more complex sentence. These drawn-out sentence openings and the subsequent complex sentences utilized by Mill may just reflect the writing style expected of philosophy and academia in his time period, but these strategies serve to exclude the average reader; not only the diction but the addition of multiple concepts per sentence lends itself to unnecessarily complicated text that is not easily understood by those not in academic circles.

Passage Two:

“Utilitarianism, therefore, could only attain its end by the general cultivation of nobleness of character, even if each individual were only benefited by the nobleness of others, and his own, so far as happiness is concerned, were a sheer deduction from the benefit. But the bare enunciation of such an absurdity as this last, renders refutation superfluous.”

There are countless examples of shapeless/unspeakable writing in this piece, of which the passage above is one. While this writing style was and continues to be common with philosophical works it still calls to question how the meaning on this work is understood by different audiences and what information is lost in translation.

Readability Statistics: (Pulled from a longer segment of passage two as listed above)

(Gunning Fog Index: estimated grade level required to understand text / Flesch Reading Ease: scale from 1-100, 1 being most difficult to read and 100 being the easiest)

Now that the groundwork has been set, we must discuss the significance of the strategies within the contexts, and the spheres of human activity, in which Utilitarianism is found. The first that I would like to focus on is the original context; Utilitarianism was a piece published in three issues by Fraser’s Magazine in 1861 aiming to explain what utilitarianism is, to show why it is the best theory of ethics, and to defend it against a wide range of criticisms and misunderstandings. The primary audience for this piece must have been other philosophers, Jeremy Bentham (another utilitarian philosopher) in particular, in order to provide criticisms to Bentham’s ideas and detail the “misconceptions” surrounding Utilitarianism. Mill’s use of the official style suits the purely academic nature of this piece well, but because this work was published in a public London magazine the audience, and consequently the implications of Mill’s style of choice, grew at an incredible scale. While it seems clear that this work was not meant for the eyes of the generally illiterate public, instead with the focus of countering Bentham’s ideas and persuading the educated elite that had the power or opportunity to incite change within the government regarding support for new policies reflecting Mill’s views, Utilitarianism became largely prolific with the masses as an articulation of liberal humanistic morality. The easiest implication of this to pinpoint, and a trend that I feel parallels but is not as prevalent in modern contexts of this piece, is that the use of the official style can effectively gatekeep information from a massive majority of the readership. While it is true that the arguments of Jeremy Bentham and other utilitarian philosophers may have been adequately countered and that the political elite may have been swayed by this presentation of ‘proper’ ethics, the public also played a massive role in this context; the recently formed republic in Britain at this time was meant to represent the will of its constituents (the public) through its policy. From a perspective outside of academia, a perspective shared by nearly all of the general public at this time, writing in this style would likely portray the author as intelligent and credible even though the content would be difficult for them to consume- support for these ethics based on the rule of ‘I don’t understand this but I trust it’ had a very real impact. As a double-edged sword of sorts, half rebuttal half persuasive argument, Utilitarianism accomplishes each goal through the establishment of perceived credibility to its numerous audiences.

Now we must discuss Utilitarianism’s modern context; in that scholars and philosophers have not stopped studying the work of John Stuart Mill even to this day. The sphere of human interaction in which this piece is consumed has changed to a degree, though the implications largely stay the same. The main difference lies in the fact that Mill’s work is not presented outside of an academic setting today, and beyond that, the persuasive element of this piece is not nearly as applicable in a modern setting (in that there are no century old British elites and citizens to sway). Once again, we face the fact that the official style gatekeeps information from those outside of academic circles, but I find that it has a very diluted impact; while the average reader would certainly have difficulty reading this piece, they also have very little opportunity to make the attempt. The gatekeeping element created by the use of the official style is of course still present but academic institutions are now becoming the focal point for this issue- this in of itself has implications. Because of the close ties between academic writing and the official style, Mill’s proposal for a whole branch of governing ethics goes largely unseen by the public; the constituency that had so much pull as support for this work grew in 1861 Britain is not reflected by members of the public in this modern model. One may argue that no one wants to read the work of an age-old philosopher regardless, but I find it important to recognize the official style and the strategies it utilizes to contextualize the true goal of an authors work and the implications that has on the applicable audiences.

Should We Criminalize the Official Style?

By Tommy Knoche

In an effort to look at how the official style is used today I looked at the article Cannabis and Athletic Performance which was published in the academic journal Sports Medicine. The article from September 2021 is focused on the effects that cannabis can have on athletic performance. Marijuana is one of the most commonly used recreational substances in the world and researchers have begun looking into other uses for the substances. This particular article was looking at the effect consuming marijuana has on athletic performance. As I understand, the intended audience was other researchers in the field of sports medicine, athletic trainers, and athletes themselves. The entire article was written in the official style. I believe that this was done to establish credibility for the authors and their writing as well as attempt to make sure potentially obscure information was completely communicated.

As mentioned previously the entire article was written in the official style. The intention of this is to establish credibility so that the research that they are talking about in their journal is taken seriously by others in their field. In fields like sports medicine authors need to ensure that whoever reads their article can trust that they know what they are talking about in their article as well as their actual research. If readers don’t trust that the people writing the articles know what they are talking about then the entire article becomes useless because nobody will take the information seriously. If all of this research isn’t looked at sincerely then people won't use it as a stepping stone to the discovery of more knowledge.This is the case with all kinds of writing, not just scientific pieces . You want your readers to be able to trust that you understand the topics that you are writing about, but as mentioned above, in scientific writing it is especially important. There is little room for interpretation in science and because of that writers need to ensure that they can communicate their knowledge on the subject while knowing that their audience will believe that they know what they are talking about.

Writing in the scientific realm also makes it more difficult for authors to avoid the official style. Because there is so much scientific/domain specific language, it makes the piece of writing more jargonistic than pieces in other fields. The vast majority of people might not know what “putative endogenous cannabinoid receptors'' are but others in the field would rather you say that than “the places in your body where cannabis binds to” because it shows that you have specific knowledge on the subject. Jargonistic pieces like this one tend to exclude a large portion of readers because only a select few have the background knowledge to understand what is being talked about. While the official style is usually used this way to intentionally exclude people, I do not believe that is the case with this piece of writing. The authors are almost forced into the exclusion of others just to prove that they know what they are talking about. I believe that this is one of the problems with the official style of writing. Writers are forced to exclude people from fully enjoying and learning from their work just to prove that they can be trusted. It should not matter what style you write in as long as the information you are presenting is correct, unfortunately that is not the case in the academic community. As of right now it seems that the academic community relies on something I’ll call “trickle down knowledge”. What I mean by that is that people in the scientific community write just to be understood and trusted by one another. They then count on others to transcribe what they discovered and spread it to the general public. Would it not be more efficient to write in a way that allows anybody to access the information? I understand that the jargon will always be there, as that is just the nature of scientific writing, but I think that it could benefit from trying to be less dry and more focused on just effectively communicating what has been discovered and what can be learned.

            That is why I believe a shift away from the official style is needed. So many people and ideas are ignored simply because they do not look and sound like they are “supposed to”. The main focus on different pieces of writing should be the content and what the author is trying to communicate to their audience. It doesn’t matter if it is a piece of legislation, scientific findings, or an on-campus announcement, the content of the piece should be the focus, not how it is written. Writing should be for everyone. In my article, Cannabis and Athletic Performance, for example they say “The ability of cannabis and THC to perturb cardiovascular homeostasis warrants further investigation regarding mechanisms by which performance may be affected across different exercise modalities and energetic demands”. This is a really long and complex way of saying that “weed affects the way that your body sends blood to places and could be a potential way to increase athletic performance”. The whole point of the article is to get that information out to people so that, if they live someplace where it is legal, they can see how it affects their training and performance. By using the official style the authors are isolating a large portion of their audience. Oftentimes people are capable of understanding complex and jargonistic pieces but choose not to simply because they are dense and do not get to the point. The official style is especially bad when used in informative pieces, because they should be straight to the point and communicate the information effectively. The official style interferes with this smooth transmission of information and should be avoided.

            I do understand that there may be some pushback to this for a number of reasons. The official style has been around for so long that moving away from it almost seems blasphemous at this point. But like everything else it is good to grow and evolve which is what I believe we should do with the way we write. The official style is nice in the sense that it gives any piece of writing the air of importance and just writing that way offers an increase in credibility to the author. However, these benefits would effectively disappear if everybody agreed to shift towards plain style as the choice for academic writing. The official style is so ingrained into society's idea of what a “proper” piece of writing should sound like that it will be tough to start the change, but once people start to realize the benefits of using more plain language I think that it will start to gain traction in all kinds of communities. Even certain types of writing, such as academic or scientific pieces, don’t completely switch. I think any decrease in official style would be a benefit.

            From the insight into the official style and a look at the article from Sports Medicine, I hope that you can see the ill effects that the official style can bring about. In trying to establish credibility, the authors were forced to make their writing less clear, jargonistic, and less accessible. I believe that a shift away from the official style is needed, especially with informative pieces like this one to help ensure that the exchanging of ideas around the world continues and is as effective as possible.

 

Voting Isn’t Just for Academics: Official Style in Political Studies

By Tori Horman

Often, I have been assigned academic articles to read for classes that I just couldn’t seem to understand. The content of the article may be important or useful, but the way it’s written leaves me wondering what point it was even trying to make. This often frustrating type of writing is known as official style. In this article, I will be breaking down certain strategies used when writing in official style and how they can be improved to make the writing clearer. If the writing is clearer and easier to understand, this means that more people will be able to access the information. If more people are able to access the information, they are more likely to be able to use that information to make more informed decisions in their lives. The text I chose to review was an article from the Journal of Social Media + Society titled “Do We Know Politicians’ True Selves From the Media? Exploring the Relationship Between Political Media Exposure and Perceived Political Authenticity,” by Simon M. Luebke and Iris Englemann. The journal it was published in, the Journal of Social Media + Society, focuses on “the socio-cultural, political, psychological, historical, economic, legal and policy dimensions of social media in societies past, contemporary and future.” Their mission is to gather studies on social media as technology evolves and is open to a variety of research methodologies. Both authors work in the Communication Science department at Friedrich Schiller University in Germany. Englemann is a professor while Luebke is a research assistant. Both authors have had their work published in several academic journals.

The genre of the piece is academic writing, which I would characterize by emphasis on research methods, establishing credibility, and the use of the official style. Another common characteristic of academic writing is the fact that it is peer reviewed by other experts, which goes along with the importance of establishing credibility. This type of writing tends to circulate within academic communities and is often published in peer reviewed journals. This text was written in order to explore the social media use of politicians and how that can have a significant effect on voters. Readers may be motivated to read it because they want to know how politicians are using social media and how they may unknowingly be swayed to have an impression on this person based solely on their social media presence and how they are discussed in the news and other mass media. They can use this information to make more conscious and informed decisions on why they support the politicians that they support. However, it is unlikely to be accessed outside of an academic setting, due to the inaccessibility of the writing. It may be assigned to students of a political science or communications class, or it may be read by other researchers and used as a source to expand on the topic.

The article uses a lot of political studies jargon, which makes sense considering the target audience, but for someone like me who is not involved in the study of political science, there were many unfamiliar terms. When explaining how they chose to conduct their study, the authors use lots of jargon referring to several theories, “As previous research provided descriptive insights on the question, we apply a more theory-driven approach, drawing on the literature on media priming theory, performed authenticity in social media, political personalization, and dual processing theory.” Fortunately, these theories, as well as other terms such as “political personalization” are explained later in the article, but when I first read this sentence, I was unsure of what exactly they would be looking at in their research.

Another component of official style that this article uses is passive voice. In the abstract it states, “Results from an online quota survey in Germany (N = 1,210) show that differences in perceived political authenticity are not simply determined by citizens’ political attitudes but can also be explained by their frequency of exposure to political information in different media types.” When I began reading this sentence, I was confused as to who these differences in perceived authenticity were referring to. Was it differences in how the media reported things? Who were the ones perceiving the authenticity of the politicians? Was it the media or the people? A way to reword this so that the subject is clearer could be something like, “Results from an online quota survey in Germany show that in addition to citizens’ political attitudes, how frequently they are exposed to political information in the media can influence how they perceive a politician’s authenticity.” The term “political authenticity” used here is an example of passive voice in itself because it turns an action (the action of perceiving something or someone as authentic) into a concept.

This article also contains sentences that use complex vocabulary and structure where it is not needed, another component of official style. An example of this would be the sentence, “This ordinariness dimension of authenticity comprises impressions that contradict the notion of calculated politicians who do not act based on true convictions but rather on strategic motives.” In this section of the article, it discusses different factors that play a part in how people judge a politician as authentic, ordinariness being one of them.  A way to make this sentence more clear would be something like, “Politicians that appear ordinary and down-to-Earth contradict people’s usual impression of politicians who don’t believe in what they’re saying, but say it to attract supporters.”

An example of a sentence that uses several official style components at once reads, “Media priming is the outcome of attribute agenda setting, that is, processes in which the salience of different personality traits of politicians is transferred from the media to the public.” First of all, this is an example of a complex sentence because it combines several complete thoughts together with multiple commas. we have jargon with the words “media priming” and “attribute agenda processing.” This section of the article is attempting to explain the concept of media priming, which is one of the theories the authors are basing their research off. But in doing so, it brings in another jargonistic term that is defined in an overly complex and verbose way, “in which the salience of different personality traits of politicians is transferred from the media to the public.” I was unfamiliar with the word “salience,” so I looked it up and based on the context of this sentence “salient,” according to Merriam Webster, means “standing out conspicuously” or “of notable significance.” So, they are talking about the personality traits of the politicians that stick out the most. This sentence also contains passive voice. Both the subject and action are made unclear by using the verb “is.” The personality trait “is being transferred from the media to the public,” but wording it this way obscures who is the one doing the transferring and puts more distance between the actor and the action they are doing. One way this sentence could be fixed would be, “Media priming is the outcome of the media pushing a certain narrative. Attribute agenda setting occurs when the media emphasizes certain personality traits of a politician to the public.” This revision splits up the sentence into two, making it less complex. It also uses clearer vocabulary to define the concept of attribute agenda setting, as well as rearranging the sentence to make the subject (the media) and the action they are doing (emphasizing a personality trait) clearer. 

One may argue that language like this must be used when describing a study, because it establishes credibility. And while I understand how the use of language is appropriate for the intended audience, there is really no need to use complex and vague language, when simpler and more clear sentence structure can be used to convey the exact same meaning. I believe that official style certainly has its place, but too much of it can be a bad thing. The study in question looks at something that affects everyone, not just academics. People with a lower education level vote too, and it is important that everyone can become an informed voter. By reading the results of this study, people will be able to be more aware of how politicians are using social media to appear authentic in order to gain their support. This applies to other political studies that look into how voters are influenced. If people know how they are being influenced, they can make more critical and conscious decisions about who they support.

Officially Scholarly Articles

By Gabriella D.

Scholarly articles are difficult to read. Often, I find myself re-reading the passages of hard text for my 300-level and 400-level classes leaving me to take up as much as half the day to fully finish one scholarly article. It is a common idea that learning about things you are interested makes understanding easier, however certain proses make this task harder than it needs to be. Within the scholarly article form, it is common to see official style. Even with specific search techniques, like using keywords to narrow down my results to my interests, this article that seemingly served my interests was a hard read. Nathan K. Chan’s scholarly article published in the Political Research Quarterly showcases characteristics of official style throughout many aspects of the piece. The article attempts to understand the contradiction of how Asian Americans are the most digitally wired racial group while simultaneously also being the least politically active group online. They dive into possible theories and hypothesis, comparative analysis from pre-existing literature, and the results of their study. However, from the standpoint of an Asian American who is a junior majoring in Political Science, my interest in the article drastically decreased from the beginning to the end. The official style significantly lowered the readability score and made it a difficult read. In this piece, I want to analyze the variety of stylistic strategies the author used and its effect on the context in which the article could be used in the spheres of human activity.

First, I will show how the language used in the article can make it difficult for readers to understand. By way of the author’s sentence structure, word choice, and stylistic strategies, these official style strategies efficiently combined two thoughts into one sentence and consequently created longer sentences. Frequently, there were instances where two types of official style strategies were used in one sentence! Here is an example I found shortly after reading the short introduction on the article’s second page,

Asian Americans may turn out to vote less often because some may not have access to the ballot box but “rather than being passive objects of social forces, Asian American men and women have been pragmatic and calculating actors who have adopted a multifaceted style of politics to maximize their chances of survival and [realizing] their interests (Lien 2001, xii) (883).

There are many strategies that make this single sentence so complex. Here, the author is combining his thought with another author’s thought. Within each respective author’s thought, they each use at least one strategy to connect their ideas. So, to sum up the number of thoughts within this sentence, there are actually four complete thoughts. To be more specific, the two types of stylistic strategies used are relative clause and subordination. Towards the beginning, the author uses subordination through the word “because”. Afterwards, Chen references another author who uses relative clause through the word “who”. Using these strategies create the building blocks of official style – automatic higher readability scores due to longer sentences. I imagine I would be harder to read this article because of the probability of getting lost in who said what in any point of the article. Here, we can see that official style affected the coherency and conciseness of the article.

Next, I want to explore the implications surrounding the context of the article’s circulation, exclusivity of topics, etc. First, we must consider, can a piece be considered “official style” outside of word choice and grammar? An abundance of specific official style strategies is not necessary for a piece to be considered “official style” because exclusion is the main principle of official style. So, if exclusion is the main principle of the official style, what are the other ways a piece can reach this goal? There are many aspects to be considered that exclude groups of readers, for example, through the lack of background information on the article’s contributors, the very little circulation of the article, and the exclusive nature of the subject regarding digital modes of political behavior – a rather niche subject to begin with. To start, there is little to no information readily available surrounding who the author is, and what they do, but instead are left with no distinct information behind who wrote the article. In terms of the article’s circulation, I found this piece on a username-and-password search database unavailable to the public. It’s also important to consider its niche language. Using the concepts of “digital divide” and “pan-ethnic identity”, this terminology required a google search. For example, Chen explains how Asian Americans are less politically active due to less available political space online and offline,

The difficulty for Asian Americans, compared to other racial groups, to share a common pan-ethnic identity with one another helps explain why digital venues are far less developed for them (886).

We can see how the context of an article outside of its actual content can add to how an article can be considered official style due to its common trait of exclusion.

To conclude, the official style can make things harder than it appears to be. Personally, I was interested in understanding the nuances behind political participation as it relates to identity, however I started to become lost within the sea of official style strategies. The language created a maze of thoughts, sometimes occurring all within one sentence. In addition, the context surrounding the article itself continued to exclude parts of the public that not only may find this article hard-to-follow, but also who don’t have access to these articles. It seems that the purpose of the piece was to spread awareness through analysis, but some choices make this information difficult to understand. Therefore, the use of official style was not appropriate and negatively affected the article.

https://journals-sagepub-com.libweb.uwlax.edu/doi/pdf/10.1177/1065912920945391

How Narrative-Driven Text Could Revolutionize Academia

By K.C. Cayo

Case studies within any field are often structured like a thesis or standard scientific research paper with separate sections for the theoretical framework, the methods, the results, and the findings. Environmental research and environmental justice are not different in this regard. Case studies are good for recounting, comparing, evaluating, and understanding different aspects of a given research problem. Though they can be narratively driven, this is not usually the case in the field of climate justice, and yet it is an increasingly prevalent technique used to build rapport with an audience.

“Hogwashed, Part 1: Hundreds of Poor, Mostly African-American Residents of Eastern North Carolina Say Big Pork Is Making Their Lives Miserable” by Ken Fine and Erica Hellerstein is the first of a three-part investigation into North Carolina's hog-farming industry. Using story-banking as the primary way to set the scene, they assess the claims made by lower-income Black residents of eastern North Carolina that hog farms have polluted their properties and efforts by lawmakers to shield pork producers from litigation. The study also examines the environmental impacts that hog farming has had over the last two decades as well as ways to make the industry itself more sustainable. The authors introduce us to the Miller household, focusing on Rene Miller, a sixty-six-year-old Black woman who lives in a home she inherited from her grandmother as part of a post-slavery grant. She shows us the family cemetery where her nephew is buried, having died of cancer years earlier. The most striking part of this narration is that the land with its sprawling hills and greens and wildflowers smells like death and decay because of the “cesspool of pig waste” not even fifty yards away—and that, according to the Millers, is the smell of hog country, and stretches for miles.

After offering cited sources and data statistics from other sources and studies, the authors explain not only the environmental impacts of the hog industry, but how the impacts are tied to environmental racism, or the idea that environmental problems are more harm Black and Brown bodies (and, often, this is intentionally and wittingly done). Hog farms disproportionately affect African-American households. The houses smell like manure, which lowers the property value of their homes and makes it impossible for them to sell, so even if they can afford to move to a cleaner area they are tied down. It has been shown that there is a correlation between air pollution from hog farms and “higher rates of nausea, increases in blood pressure, respiratory issues such as wheezing and increased asthma symptoms for children, and overall diminished quality of life for people living nearby.” These farms are well-documented to be a public health crisis, as well as a clean water crisis.

Though this study is undoubtedly written in the official style (e.g. legalese, research papers, etc.), with lots of compound-complex sentences, appositives, passive voice, and prepositional phrases that lengthen and complicate sentences, it somehow manages to be a simple read. In fact, the introduction to the aging Rene Miller, followed by a data-driven analysis that supported all the Miller’s claims, provided not only a seal-tight argument, but invokes a certain protectiveness from readers. The audience, whether they be scientists, lawyers, farmers, environmental justice researchers, or students will read this and empathize with the people who are forced to live this way. The narrative is daunting and horrific, especially with the added lens of the multitude of times the law did not protect citizens over corporations, or how the government continues to prioritize the booming economy that is the hog industry over human lives, and it is surely improbable for any level of researcher to read this without wanting to take action. Despite the detached technique that is often attributed with the official style of writing, this case studies, and others like it within the environmental justice field, are proof that not only does this style not need to be impersonal, but that it does not necessarily benefit from being impersonal, either.

This research manages to be both professional and engaging, intrinsically linking us with the plight of the Miller family and other Black households while still informing, while still providing the audience with possibilities for how to alleviate this climate emergency for ourselves and others. At no point is it implied that the authors do not understand the subject material, or that they are too emotional, or that their research is anything less than perfect. This narrative-driven study humanizes an issue that, at face value, might have appeared as a very distant issue. We are given no opportunity to distance ourselves from this problem that affects not only the majority of folks in North Carolina, but people in other states and countries as well. This form of injustice is not unique, and there are proposed measures to combat it in a meaningful way that could save lives. Straying from the strictly-set instructions that come with the official style was a benefit for this case study, and taking elements from non-official spaces, even when writing in the official style, will make your text more accessible.

Fast Fashion, Addressed Slowly

 

By Olivia B.

Sustainable markets: Motivatingfactors, barriers, and remedies for mobilization of slow fashion is an academic article that discusses the harsh the impact that the current fashion industry is having on both society and our planet, as well as what changes can be made to consumers’ habits to make an impact. Written by professors, Zeynep Ozdamar Ertekin and Deniz Atik, the article was published in the Journal of Macromarketing, a peer-reviewed academic journal that covers a variety of business disciplines but focuses on marketing and the social issues that surround and connect to it. Because this is an academic article, it’s main audience is other scholars. It is hard to access the whole article online, so only people who have access to a resource like the UWL library database, or want to pay, can see it. This excludes a lot of the general public, as the majority of readers are likely students or other academics preparing to conduct their own research.

Based on this particular situation, I would argue that publications in academic journals written in the official style are not always the most appropriate way to share research findings. In situations where a lot of background knowledge on the topic is not necessary to understand the findings, official style is the only thing that is standing between the general public and this information. In this case in particular, excluding them almost defeats the purpose of the findings of their study.

In order for their message to make a difference, pretty much everyone needs to know what the research found and what they can do about it. It seems as though they aren’t really trying to change anything with this article, but rather just report their findings to an elite audience. It is an academic article, published in a journal, so it makes sense that it would be written at such a high level, but the content is too important to be hidden in the official style.

The current audience being addressed appears to be environmental activists, other researchers, students doing research or learning about the topic. The audience should, however, be the general public, or at least people who shop for clothes a lot. This is where things get complicated, as there is vast diversity in levels of reading, background knowledge, and topic understanding. The group of “the general public” is extremely diverse because that includes all individuals of all ages, backgrounds, and reading levels. The audiences of this article range everywhere from teenagers who like to shop at H&M with their friends, to academics conducting research on environmental issues, and that is a very broad range of reading and understanding levels.

Small changes in diction and sentence structure would make a huge difference in making this information accessible to the people that really matter. Shorter sentences, reducing unnecessary phrases, and using easier words would make a big difference. For example, “this necessitates taking into account cost/benefit trade-offs among social, ecological, and generational consumption consequences (Prothero et al. 2011) and trade-offs among different accounts of well-being (Dolan et al. 2006)” is such a complex sentence, that the message is getting lost. I like their use of modifiers to describe nouns, like “excessive consumption” and “capitalist system,” but if they were used in a way to make the nouns more understandable, rather than more complex, it would help. These stylistic choices improve the authors’ credibility and establish a certain level of expertise among readers, so if that is what they are going for, they did a great job.

In addition to the authors’ word choice, the decision to write the article in passive voice creates another barrier for readers. Because the piece is written to be an academic article, it is written in passive voice, addressing the issue and possible solutions as abstract concepts, not direct instructions. This article has great suggestions as so how to begin to remedy the issues with the current fashion industry, but instead of urging readers to follow their instructions, they present them as research findings.

Lack of knowledge, skills, awareness, and consideration in sustainability issues and problems often act as barriers (Bonini and Oppenheim 2008; Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002; Thøgersen 2005; Vermeir and Verbeke 2006; Williams and Dair 2007). Increased concern for the environment alone is often not sufficient; increased awareness of the relationship between technological, political, and economic institutions and environmental deterioration is also required (Kilbourne, McDonagh, and Prothero 1997). However, individual consumers rarely connect consumption practices and outcomes (Connolly and Prothero 2003; Hobson 2004). In this regard, education systems and related activities are critical in increasing awareness and knowledge (Ertekin, Z. O., & Atik, D., 2015).

The above quotation, taken from the text, is an example of passive voice because it is addressing an issue that readers can work fix, without the direct call for them to do so. The sentence: “education systems and related activities are critical in increasing awareness and knowledge,” could instead read as “schools need to teach students about the consequences of fast fashion.” The second example addresses who needs to do something different and what they can do, while the first is just recognizing that there is an issue with what might be a possible way to improve. Nobody is being addressed, so the call the action can easily be missed.

            Despite the many reasons that this information should be available to the general public, I can’t help but consider the arguments as to why this article should remain in the official style and only available in online databases. The biggest reason for this is likely that to establish credibility. The authors are signifying expertise by using complex word choice and technical jargon. The tone of the official style also demonstrates a level of credibility. Because they are talking about shopping and clothing production, it might be difficult to gain the attention and respect of other academics. Without the credibility that follows official style, this research might not get much, or any, attention.

Nay, Official Style is Here to Stay!

 By Peter Hliqaim

Writing has transformed over the millennia into the many stylistic forms we know today such as the official style. Official style is the higher educational approach many credible individuals adopt to deliver their research and findings. The Death of Language: Listening to the Echoes (of Georges Bataille) in Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II—The Sith Lords is no exception to the system. Author Marcin Hanuszkiewicz uses official style strategies to address his audience. The article was published in 2020 and made available through the University of Wisconsin - La Crosse’s Murphy Library. Hanuszkiewicz is a graduate student from the University of Silesia in Katowice. The article was published in the journal Text Matters: A Journal of Literature, Theory, and Culture. It compares the similarities between Star Wars video-game character Kreia and her ideological position regarding the Force, to ideals presented by philosopher Georges Bataille and the constraints and rules of language in mankind. Hanuszkiewicz’s text can be used in the context of education, philosophy, and videogames. Though Hanuszkiewicz’s audience is limited due to the content of his text, the official strategies prove to be effective for the intended purpose.

There is a constant among all official style texts, and that is writing in the passive voice. This means text is mainly written from the third-person point of view. Writers are more focused on the subject being acted on and not the action being performed by the subject. The passive voice strategy helps emphasize focus on the topic of the text, and in this way, there is less emotional attachment between the reader and the text allowing for more objective observations. This is critical to official style texts as most are of informative nature. Writing objectively is an important element of official style text and being able to effectively communicate between parties and professionals is a valued skill.    

Official style has been around for a long time and can be difficult for many individuals to comprehend. The difficulty makes it apparent that the intended audience is not geared towards a wide array of groups. Professionals use official language as a communication tool and it makes sense that not everything has to be understood by the average person outside the field. It can be argued that the use of official strategies are not needed to express ideas, but if the reader is not within the intended audience, then there is no need to have writers accommodate the general public. Audience is a key factor in every piece of writing, and though official style limits this, it works for higher education and professional purposes. 

 Further analysis of Hanuszkiewicz's text reveals that the audience does indeed gravitate towards insiders, individuals who fit into the category of philosophical theorists, Star Wars enthusiasts, and video gamers. In-depth analysis of texts and inclusion of many philosophical figures may not make complete sense to individuals unfamiliar with these kinds of texts and ideals. Hanuszkiewicz includes references to other figures such Vladimir Nabokov, “Therefore, if one is to listen, then one has to listen in a way reminiscent of the listening described by Nabokov: ’I am like one of those inflated pale spiders you see in old gardens...’” (Hanuszkiewicz, 2020, p.264) Readers unfamiliar with Nabokov, would have to research background information to grasp an understanding of why the inclusion of his ideas make sense in this text. Again, audience is a key factor in why using official strategies make sense and work for this text. Not only is the audience important, but word choice also narrows the scope further.

How an author chooses to express ideas and emotions through word choice plays an important role in the level of writing which can be accomplished. Complex word choice can tie in ideas with deeper meaning. This stylistic approach brings forth the idea of credibility and appearance of intellect. As an individual who writes at a high level, there is a component of professionalism to be kept. Academic text is no stranger to this element, and The Death of Language: Listening to the Echoes (of Georges Bataille) in Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II—The Sith Lords follows this style. Hanuszkiewicz displays this with word choice such as “bereft” (deprived of or lacking), “etymologically” (relating to the origin and historical development of words and their meanings), and “vehemently” (in a forceful, passionate, or intense manner; with great feeling) which he does an excellent job at expressing more emotion in an official style text. An inevitable encounter with complex word choice can be the abrupt stop in the reader’s flow of thoughts. It will cause the reader to seek out the meaning of the word with the context in mind. An argument can be made as to why the writer did not choose more easily understood words and phrases because there are alternatives to which the same emotion can be expressed, but in some cases, one meaningful word can do the same as a five-word descriptive phrase. There are so many tools to use in writing an effective official style text, and some are more effective than others.

Some strategies used in Hanuszkiewicz’s text help emphasize ideas by adding more details to an introduced idea or by combining thoughts for fluency. This adds an element of credibility by showcasing an author’s writing skill, as well as helping the text be more engaging and not too dry. This is done well in the text as Hanuszkiewicz uses them effectively to add more details and combine thoughts that do not need to be separated. In this instance, he uses both appositive and coordination strategies to effectively introduce the idea of the Force, “The Force seems to be a life-force, a fabric of energy woven into the matter of which all things are made, a rhizome of pangalactic proportions, the pulsations of which can be heard by those attuned to it—Force sensitives.” (Hanuszkiewicz, 2020, p.260) This sentence describes the force in detail by continuously adding on to what it is, that it actually is something else to make sense of it in terms of human understanding. The thoughts could be separated at “a rhizome of pangalactic proportions,” but by combining these like ideas and not separating them, it adds emphasis to how massive and important the force really is to the Star Wars universe. Being able to effectively use official style strategies like this adds so much color, credibility, and understanding to the ideas presented in a text. Collectively, all of these elements make an effective official style text because it checks off all the marks for its intended purpose. Though these make an effective text, some may question the necessity for official style strategies to be used in communicating ideas.

Realistically, the same message can be expressed without using official style prose strategies, but there has to be established credibility beforehand. Official style is used to communicate professionally, and when ideas are communicated without this level of formality, the background of an individual comes into question such as their education, profession, and experience. Once this has been established, this is where individuals can express their ideas in plain text for the general public to digest, otherwise, it would be effective any other way.

Overall, official style strategies prove to positively affect the message intended for its audience. They provide the desired established credibility individuals seek and professionalism expected by peers and experts. There may be the limitations of which audiences can understand these texts, but overall these strategies provide the necessary basis of professional writing. Arguments can be made to eliminate official style writing altogether, but that can be said about any writing style, and it's evident there is a purpose for its continuous utilization in today’s society.

The Significance behind Credibility: Context or Style?

 

By Tiffany Yang

This blog post analyzes a scientific article and compares and contrasts the significance behind the rhetorical context and the physical texts used, to answer which one plays a bigger role in determining credibility and the human sphere of activity.

An article was chosen to analyze Official Style strategies used, to determine if the prose style or the context have a significance or play a role within the sphere of human activity. The article in question is “Natural anti-aging skincare: role and potential,” written by Idris Adewale Ahmed, and co-written by Maryam Abimbola Mikail, Norhisam Zamakshshari, and Al-Shwyeh Hussah Abdullah. These writers have graduated with Ph.D.’s in various fields of sciences. This article was published by Biogerontology Journal. To briefly elaborate on the specifics of this journal, here is a description from their website:

The journal Biogerontology offers a platform for research which aims primarily at unravelling the biological mechanisms of ageing with an aim of achieving healthy old age. The focus is on efforts to understand, prevent, cure or minimize age-related impairments. Biogerontology provides a peer-reviewed forum for publishing reviews and original research data, new ideas and discussions on modulating the ageing process...

The article was found on the Murphy Library page located on the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse’s website. The article contains information about what the skin is, how the skin works and ages, and what steps or preventions could be taken to alleviate the signs of age within one’s skin. It is obvious that this article is scientifically informative, with the goal of educating and informing an audience to whom it may concern. The audience this text may have relevance to but not limited to: scientists, researchers, educators, professors, students, organizational businesses, entrepreneurs, etc. This article circulates within the libraries of colleges and universities, meaning it carries reliable and credible information. In my opinion, the use of Official Style is most fitting and appropriate for a genre such as this piece. Although the contextual factors of this article show its purpose of being credible, looking at the physical text and strategies being used can help determine how this article successfully portrays itself as a trustworthy piece.

To prove why the physical text is a greater indicator of how a piece is portrayed, specific examples of strategies used and related evidence will be provided, and a reflection of the significance behind each one. To simplify this breakdown, only the abstract of the article was analyzed, which is essentially a compressed version of this article. The first obvious piece of evidence is the data we get when putting this abstract into a readability calculator. The Gunning Fog Index indicates the number of formal educations that a person requires to understand the text calculated. This abstract has a Gunning Fog Index of 24.70, which is high compared to most accessible texts. This means a person would need 24 years of formal education to fully comprehend the text. We should consider the Flesch Reading Ease as well, which determines the reading complexity of this text. The higher the number, the easier it is to read, the lower the number, the harder it is to read. This text had a Flesch Reading Ease of 4.07, which is very low, meaning this text is considered overly complex to read. Having a high Gunning Fog Index and a low Flesch Reading Ease are indicators this text may be using Official Style strategies.

The next piece of evidence we will discuss is the physical and textual strategies seen within the abstract. The first strategy I identified was the continuous use of passive voice. Passive voice is often used in scientific papers like this one and is a distinctive indicator that Official Style is being used. Some examples from the text are: “Therefore, the aims of this review...,” “Recent investigations have shown that...,” “These trending narratives have....” The use of passive makes the article appear credible through the means of presenting and stating thoughts, facts, or evidence in a formal tone.

Secondly, there was an abundance of complex sentences used. Complex sentences usually involve many other Official Style strategies such as verbose language that uses excessive jargon and euphemisms. Verbose is often used to describe “hard to understand,” jargon is the use of specific terminology, and euphemism is substituting words or phrases to sound more pleasant. When you put all three of these strategies together, it can create complex sentences. Here is an example from the article: “The deterioration of the skin morphology and physiology is the first and earliest obvious harbinger of the aging process which is progressively manifested with increasing age.” This could be described as verbose writing because there are simpler ways to state the ideas presented in this sentence, such as: skin deterioration is the first sign of aging. The special terms here are morphology and physiology, which showcase high levels of expertise and knowledge within the science field. Euphemism can be seen in the phrase “...earliest obvious harbinger of the aging process...” which simply means: first obvious sign of aging. Another phrase is “...progressively manifested with increasing age.” which could be interpreted as: increases/grows as we grow old. These strategies serve a purpose which also happens to be more general ideas of Official Style and contribute to the author of this article and their goal to provide credible information.

The first one we have briefly mentioned was the showcasing of knowledge and expertise within the science field. This article shows that they are knowledgeable when it comes to skin, aging, and the science behind it when they use scientific jargon terms. Secondly, by advertising one's expertise, you are invoking authority. This is another strategy of Official Style that can be used. In doing so, this makes the reader feel insufficient when it comes to knowledge about the skin and views the writers as higher than themselves, in turn making the article and the writers seem trustworthy and creditable. This same concept can be applied to anything, for example when one has little to no knowledge about a topic, it is a common initial reaction to believe what you first hear/read from someone who appears to know more.

Before we draw any conclusions, let us now discuss arguments/counterarguments, other possibilities, and questions. After carefully analyzing and taking into consideration the context of this article and the physical text, I argue that although the physical text and strategies used may seem to have more significance (in terms of appearing credible) than the context, context of a piece plays a bigger role in how it is perceived and used within the human spheres of activity. Let us consider hypothetical instances, the first one being the writers are Ph.D. graduates in science fields but wrote the article exactly the opposite of Official Style and did not incorporate any strategies. Would the article still be considered credible and reliable? I can argue that the answer is yes because their status of education still shows they are knowledgeable, reliable, and certified in their area of expertise. When one goes to the hospital and the doctor gives you recommendations, do they say it in an obscure way for one to believe it and take their advice? I would say no, many would agree the doctor's status alone is credible enough and a simple worded recommendation still serves its purpose. Now consider the opposite instance, if the writers were not Ph.D. graduates and had no experience in the science field but wrote their article in Official Style, would it be credible? I argue that it would no longer be credible. That is not to say they are not educated, but when it comes to the contents of this article (science and skin), they could be educated enough to write in Official Style but educated in the specific contents of science and skin, to provide accurate, reliable information the reader needs. Others could argue that Official Style is needed to grant credibility. A hypothetical situation we could consider for the counterargument would be if a doctor who does not know or understand medical terminology, plans to give you medical advice, without understanding what your medical condition means, would the doctor feel credible? Most would say no and find it concerning that a doctor, who is an educated and trained professional, is clueless about terms they should know.

Other contexts to consider that could change are the purpose, genre, and the audience. If these contextual factors were to change it would then affect my opinion on whether Official Style is the appropriate prose style to use. If the purpose is to entertain, this would fail at entertaining readers because of the formal tone and lack of creative and artistic writing. If the targeted audience were children, this article would be too complex for them to understand, and Official Style would no longer be appropriate. This discussion then leads me to my conclusion.

To conclude, this article successfully used the Official Style strategies to prove credibility, but the context of this article is what makes it credible and affects the way this article will be and would be used in the spheres of human activity. The context appropriately fits the use of Official Style, which is why I was able to locate it on a college university library website, where only trusted sources are allowed. If the context of this article were not considered credible, this would entirely affect how readers view and use the article. They may question the accuracy of the information provided, the reliability, and as a result it could deter them from utilizing this article as a source. In addition, the level of writing may not have been as advanced to what college universities, professors, or researchers desire, also affecting the purpose this article is meant to serve. Context determines the audience, accessibility, and the sphere of human activity. Therefore, Official Style may have a significance, but not as determining as the context of a writing piece.