Practicing Quoting

In this post, I will be practicing integrating quotations into my writing. Here is a paragraph explaining the difference between two conflicting viewpoints in my controversy with quotes from each.



Bergmann, Hannah, "Practicing Quoting," September 14, 2015 via screenshot, Attribution Generic 2.0 License

Key:
Blue: signal phrases
Yellow: use of brackets
Pink: contextualization of source material
Green: establishment of source's authority

QRG's: the Genre

In this post, I will be analyzing the genre of Quick Reference Guides by answering assigned questions.

Bergmann, Hannah, "https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/10/14/the-only-guide-to-gamergate-you-will-ever-need-to-read/," September 12, 2015 via screenshot, Attribution Generic 2.0 License

1. What do the conventions of this genre - the Quick Reference Guide - seem to be?
1. Use images or visual data to provide evidence, contextualize data, evoke emotion, or connect things together.
2. Provide hyperlinks to establish credibility and provide context.
3. Use subtitles to guide reader through the article.
4. Use short and clear paragraphs to simplify a complex story.
5. Use a lot of white space to make the post scannable and easier to read. 
2. How are those conventions defined by the author’s formatting and design choices?
1. The authors of these QRGs leave lots of white space in between sections. They also label their sections with subtitles to make the article easier to navigate. All of these authors also include some images throughout their writing to further help break up the big block of text and make the article as a whole easier to read.
3. What does the purpose of these QRGs seem to be?
1. The purpose of these QRGs is to simplify a complex story into a short and clear guide a reader can scan to get information out of.
4. Who is the intended audience for these different QRGs? Are they all intended for similar audiences? Or different? How & why?
1. All of these QRG’s are written for a reader in the general public who might have heard about a certain issue but doesn’t know many details and would like the full background and explanations of the story. This is because of the nature of the genre. This genre is made to simplify a complex story for readers uneducated on the subject. However, all of these QRG’s are written for readers already interested in knowing more about the subject. These articles attract people who don’t already know about the subject are want to learn about it.
5. How do the QRGs use imagery or visuals? Why do you think they use them in this way?
1. Images are used to connect things together in the posts. They can give evidence in graphic form, give context, reflect cultural values, or evoke emotion. I think the authors might use them like this to simplify a story, or make points of a story clearer. Also, including images can draw in multiple kinds of readers to your post: some people might be draw to the story because of the title, and others because of the emotional images, and still others because of the graphs and data.

Update:
I responded to Katherine's and Lauren's posts. Reading them, I discovered that many of the things they included on their lists of conventions were things I included too. Seeing these posts has given me more confidence in writing my QRG because I know that I have a solid grasp on the conventions. Also, I liked how Lauren included the links to the QRGs she was responding to in her intro. I found her layout very clear and helpful.

Cluster of My Controversy

This post shows a Cluster mapping out the different points to my controversy surrounding the recent revisions made to the DSM.

In my Cluster, I started with the major subsections relating to my controversy. I used specific sources to provide me with background for the DSM, the basics of mental disorder diagnoses, and some context of how the current state of the medical field affected the argument around the publishing of DSM-5. However, I used all my sources to compile lists of different critiques and pieces of support for DSM-5, taking into account the biases of particular sources.



Bergmann, Hannah, "DSM-5 Controversy Idea Map," September 12, 2015 via coggle, Attribution Generic 2.0 License

Update:
I read and commented on Clay's and Ann Emilie's Cluster blog posts. After seeing Clay's cluster, I realized that the Cluster is a tool to help the writer organize their ideas and not to help the reader understand the subject. Clay's was very straightforward and used short phrases to help him organize everything neatly, but it didn't necessarily make it easy for me to understand. But I think that's okay. These are different tools we can use to help us write, but we have to acknowledge the fact that these are really only for our drafting purposes. I made my cluster very detailed in an effort to try to help the reader understand my controversy, but it might have been better to make it without worrying about an audience. Making my cluster very detailed helped me get a grasp of my subject, but next time I might make it simpler to view and not write in complete sentences. Ann Emilie's cluster was very organized but not too in-depth. Next time I might keep hers in mind. She used short phrases to illustrate every point but, because she had a lot of subgroups, it was very easy to follow and understand.


Evaluation of Scholarly Sources

In this post I will be analyzing two scholarly sources regarding my controversy about the recent revisions made to the DSM-5. The main revision my controversy focuses on is the deletion of the bereavement exclusion to diagnose Major Depressive Disorder. So now, a patient can be diagnosed with clinical depression even if they have recently lost a loved one, which would have previously just have been considered grief.

Source A: Bereavement-related depression: Did the changes induced by DSM-V make a difference? Results from a large population-based survey of French residents

Bergmann, Hannah, "Bereavement-related depression: Did the changes induced by DSM-V make a difference? Results from a large population-based survey of French residents," September 6, 2015 via screenshot, Attribution Generic 2.0 License

1. What is its purpose?
• The purpose of this article was to analyze the increase in the prevalence of depression with the new DSM-V diagnostic criteria.
2. How and where is it published?
• It was published in the Journal of Affective Disorders both in print and online.
3. What kinds of sources does it cite?
• This article cites many sources, almost all of which are scientific research and their findings.
4. Who is the author?
• The five authors are Clesse Florence, Leray Emmanuelle, Bodeau-Livinec Florence, Husky Mathilde, and Kovess-Masfety Viviane.
5. Who is its intended audience?
• The intended audience is other scholars in the psychiatric field.
6. How did I find it?
• I found this article through a search on Web of Science.

Source B: The push and pull of grief: Approach and avoidance in bereavement

Bergmann, Hannah, "The push and pull of grief: Approach and avoidance in bereavement," September 2, 2015 via screenshot, Attribution Generic 2.0 License

1. What is its purpose?
• This purpose of this article is to investigate the approach/avoidant behaviors typical in individuals who have recently been bereaved.
2. How and where is it published?
• This article was published in the Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, both in print and online.
3. What kinds of sources does it cite?
• This article cites many sources, almost all of which are scientific research and their findings.
4. Who is the author?
• The four authors are Fiona Maccallum, Simon Sawday, Mike Rinck, and Richard A. Bryant.
5. Who is its intended audience?
• The intended audience is other scholars in the psychiatric field.
6. How did I find it?
• I found this article through a search on Web of Science.

Note: A previous version of this blog post was posted on September 6, 2015 at 5:08 pm, but was deleted due to unknown reasons. I had to redo it entirely, so the content of this one might differ from what was originally intended.
That was a very formal way of saying: technology sucks and deleted my work. I had to redo it and this is that redo.

Annotated Bibliography in APA Style

This post contains my Project 1 annotated bibliography in APA style. The style guide I used was the APA Style Guide on pages 533-595 of The University of Arizona Rules for Writers, 7th Edition.

futureatlas.com, "Citation needed," October 30, 2010 via flickr, Attribution 2.0 Generic License

References

 

Breel, K. (2013, September 27). Why We Need to Talk About Depression | Kevin Breel | TED Talks. Retrieved September 6, 2015.

             In Kevin Breel's TED Talk, Breel discusses his personal battle with depression and calls for the need to eliminate the stigma surrounding mental illness in order to better treat it. The purpose of this TED Talk was to raise awareness for depression and to reduce the stigma of mental illness. The audience of this TED Talk was the general population, as it was published on Youtube. Kevin Breel is an author, comedian, and mental health activist. This TED Talk was published on 9/27/13, and has 303,328 views, indicating it was not as popular as other TED Talks. I predict I will use this source to indicate the serious and debilitating nature of depression.

Florence, C., Emmanuelle, L., Florence, B., Mathilde, H., & Viviane, K. (2015). Bereavement-related depression: Did the changes induced by DSM-V make a difference? Results from a large population-based survey of French residents. Journal of Affective Disorders, 182, 82-90. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2015.04.039

             Florence, Emmanuelle, Florence, Mathilde, and Viviane researched whether the new criteria for diagnosing Major Depressive Disorder increased the prevalence of depression significantly. They found that overall depression diagnoses only increased slightly. The purpose of this research was to investigate how significant of an impact the recent revisions to the DSM would have on the prevalence of depression. The intended audience for this article was other scholars in the field of psychiatry. This is fairly new research as it was published 8/15/15. I predict I will use this source to illustrate the minor implications that the revisions to the DSM actually had.

Hamilton, Jon. "Why Is Psychiatry's New Manual So Much Like The Old One?" NPR. NPR, 16 May 2013. Web. 12 Sept. 2015.

             This article explains the reasons why psychologists must rely on symptoms to make diagnoses instead of lab tests. It explains that scientists haven’t made enough progress in understanding the human brain. Research has not advanced enough to find the biological indicators needed to develop a lab test to diagnose a mental disorder. The purpose of this article is to inform the public why the DSM is a limited tool in diagnosing mental disorders, which would explain the complications surrounding the recent revision, DSM-5. This article was written in 2013, around the time the DSM-5 was published, and its intended audience of this article is the general public. I predict I will use this source to explain the limits of the DSM to my audience and why there is currently no better diagnostic method available.

Hamilton, Jon. "Experts Agree: 'Psychiatry's Bible' Is No Bible." NPR. NPR, 17 May 2013. Web. 12 Sept. 2015.

             This article explains that the DSM is continuously evolving with expanding medical knowledge and is therefore not perfect. The purpose of this article was to respond to critics who say that relying on one cookie-cutter description of a mental illness is problematic and that psychiatrists should have a more individualistic approach to diagnosing disorders. This article explains that most of the doctors who create and use the DSM see it as a guide and not a “bible” that is the absolute truth to diagnostic criteria. This article was published in 2013, around the time the DSM-5 was published, and its intended audience of this article is the general public. I predict I will use this source to demonstrate how most doctors do not see the DSM as a “bible,” as the media portrays it, but as a dictionary and guide to help standardize diagnoses.

Lane, C. (2013, May 4). The NIMH Withdraws Support for DSM-5. Retrieved September 6, 2015.

             In Lane's article, he illustrates opposition to the revision to the DSM by reporting that the National Institute of Mental Health has decided not to support the DSM any further. The purpose of this article was to attack the credibility of the DSM by pointing out a professional organization that has withdraw support for the DSM-V. The intended audience was readers of Psychology Today magazine, which are members of the general public that are interested in psychology. This article was published in May, 2013, soon after the DSM-V was published. I predict I will use this source to further illustrate professional opposition to the DSM's recent revisions.

Maccallum, F., Sawday, S., Rinck, M., & Bryant, R. (2015). The push and pull of grief: Approach and avoidance in bereavement. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 48, 105-109. doi:10.1016/j.jbtep.2015.02.010

            Maccallum, Sawday, Rinck, and Bryant researched the approach and avoidant behaviors in individuals who have been recently bereaved. They found that Prolonged Grief was associated with "slower avoidance than approach behavior towards grief-related stimuli." The purpose of this article was to investigate the behavior of those who have been recently bereaved. The intended audience of this article is other scholars in the psychology field. This is a fairly new article, published in September, 2015. I predict I will use this source to help my reader understand the behavior of those recently bereaved and what that means in accordance with the new depression diagnostic criteria that now includes those that have recently been bereaved.

News analysis: Controversial mental health guide DSM-5. (2013, August 15). Retrieved September 6, 2015.

            This article by the NHS from the UK analyzes the different sides to the controversy surrounding the recent revisions to the DSM. It also contributes information that the revisions will not affect the NHS a lot. The purpose of this article was to inform the public about the recent revisions to the DSM. The intended audience was the general public. This is a relatively old article, published in 2013, and is slightly biased in favor of the NHS. I predict I will use this to illustrate both sides of the argument for and against the recent revisions to the DSM.

Pies, R. (2012, December 11). Bereavement and the DSM-5, One Last Time. Retrieved September 6, 2015.

             In Pies' article, he explains the reasons for the recent revisions to the DSM, citing research to back up his claims. The purpose of Pies' article is to answer questions regarding why certain changes were made to the DSM. The intended audience is opponents of the DSM revisions. This is a fairly old article, published in 2012, and it slightly biased in favor of the revisions to the DSM, as Pies is an editor of the DSM himself. I predict I will use this source to illustrate the reasons the editors of the DSM provided for the recent revisions made.

Tanner, Lindsey. "DSM-5: Mental Health Professionals, Critics Face Off Over Upcoming Psychiatric Manual." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 15 May 2013. Web. 12 Sept. 2015.

             This article explains the controversy surrounding the DSM. It also clarifies why some of the recent revisions are such a big deal. This article gives context on the time in which the DSM-5 was published; it explains that the health field has grown increasingly influenced by pharmaceutical companies and how these circumstances are affecting the argument and possibly increasing backlash to the DSM-5. This article tends to be critical of the DSM revisions but still includes a pro-DSM viewpoint at the end of the article. The purpose of this article is to explain to the DSM-5 controversy to the reader and provide possible explanations for its cause. This story was published in 2013 and its intended audience is the general public. I predict I will use this source to give context to the story and provide possible explanations as to why these DSM revisions have become such a large controversy in the modern medical field.

Yale, Kathleen. "Psychological Disorders: Crash Course Psychology #28." YouTube. Ed. Blake De Pastino. Youtube, 25 Aug. 2014. Web. 12 Sept. 2015.

             This YouTube video educates the audience on the basics of mental disorders and the DSM. It also explains that the DSM is a work in progress that evolves with science’s growing understanding of the brain. This video is from the Crash Course channel on YouTube, meant to help tutor and teach students about different topics in school. For that reason, this source is pretty neutral and unbiased. The purpose of this video is to tutor psychology students in understanding the basics of mental disorder diagnosis techniques. This video was published in 2014 and its intended audience is psychology students. I predict I will use this source to help introduce what the DSM is and explain the basics of mental disorder diagnoses.

Here is an example of an annotated bibliography in APA style.

Ideology in My Controversy

In this post I will be analyzing the different groups in my controversy and how they interact with one another through assigned questions. My controversy surrounds the recent revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM-5. In this most recent revision, the bereavement exclusion criteria for Major Depressive Disorder has been removed. Meaning, grief from the loss of a loved one may now count towards having Depression.

CCAC North Library, "DSM-5," September 8, 2014 via flickr, Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic

1. Who is involved in the controversy?
• Physicians and Psychologists who use the DSM in their work
2. Who are some of the major speakers/writers within these groups?
• The editors of the DSM are an important group of people in defense of the DSM.
3. What kind of social/cultural/economic/political power does each group hold?
• The editors of the DSM hold power over the diagnostic criteria for most mental disorders, giving them immense power in the clinic realm. Those against the newest revision of the DSM are a diverse group of people that don't collectively hold any power other than the power to voice their opinions and concerns.
4. What resources are available to different positions?
• The editors of the DSM can control what content is published in the new DSM. The opponents of the revised DSM have the resources to publish their concerns or opposition to the revisions.
5. What does each group value?
• The opponents of the DSM value a more individualized approach to diagnosing mental disorders, while the editors of the DSM consider the DSM extremely useful to standardize medical diagnoses.
6. What counts as evidence for the different positions?
• Both positions use scientific research to support their claims because this is an academic debate.
7. Is there a power differential between the groups?
• Yes. The editors of the DSM have considerably more power than their opponents because they have control over what is published in each edition of the DSM.
8. Is there any acknowledged common ground between groups?
• Some psychologists in opposition believe that the entire idea of a DSM isn't a good idea for diagnosing something as different between people as mental disorders. But, some psychologists believe that the DSM is a good starting point for diagnoses, but are opposed to individual sections or revisions of the DSM. So, the latter group and the editors of the DSM have an agreed common ground that the idea of having a DSM is beneficial to psychiatry.
9. Is there any unacknowledged common ground?
• No. Because this is an academic debate, all issues are addressed in order to try to better the field of psychiatry.
10. Do the various groups listen to each other? That is, do they respond directly to the claims made by each other? Or do they only talk to people who already hold the same position?
• Yes, the various groups do listen to each other. The editors of the DSM often take into account the concerns of psychologists who are against certain revisions or suggestions. Also, many editors of the DSM have written articles in defense of the recent revisions made by answering questions regarding their choices of what to include. For example, one of my general sources is an article written by one of the editors of the DSM explaining their choice to delete the bereavement exclusion for a diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder.

Evaluation of Social Media Sources

In this post I will be analyzing two social media sources regarding my controversy about the recent revisions made to the DSM-5. The main revision my controversy focuses on is the deletion of the bereavement exclusion to diagnose Major Depressive Disorder. So now, a patient can be diagnosed with clinical depression even if they have recently lost a loved one, which would have previously just have been considered grief.

It was significantly more difficult to find sources about this topic on social media. I imagine this is because the DSM is a manual used only by physicians and those in the Psychology field. Many ordinary people on social media would not have any knowledge about the DSM, much less have any opinions to voice about the recently revised version of it. For this reason, one of my sources is a Psychology Today article shared through the magazine's Facebook page, and the other is a TED Talk discussing the consequences of society's stigma surrounding depression.

Source A: "The NIMH Withdraws Support for DSM-5," Psychology Today

Bergmann, Hannah, "The NIMH Withdraws Support for DSM-5," September 6, 2015 via screenshot, Attribution Generic 2.0 License

1. Credibility - Can you corroborate who the person who posted the social media message is. Can you Google them? Do they belong to an organization or institution that bestows credibility on them (for example, a university, governmental organization, non-profit, company, etc.)?
• The magazine Psychology Today posted this article on their Facebook page. Their account is a verified page on Facebook meaning that their account is the only official account for Psychology Today magazine. This gives the page a large amount of credibility.
2. Location - Are they in the place they are tweeting or posting about? Are they directly involved with any of the events relevant to your controversy?
• Psychology Today magazine was not involved in the revisions of the DSM, their writers are just reporting on the subject. However, they are involved with the controversy because they are a Psychology magazine, dealing with issues in modern Psychology such as this one.
3. Network - Who is in their network and who follows them? Do other individuals with institutional credibility associate with this person on social media?
• Because this Facebook account is a company page, no individual can interact with them and their followers are unavailable to view.
4. Content - Can the information they’re relying on in their tweet or post be corroborated from other sources?
• Yes, the information in the article can be corroborated from other sources and the article sites many other sources through hyperlinks.
5. Contextual updates - Do they usually post or tweet on this topic? If so, what did past or updated posts say? Do they fill in more details?
• Psychology Today has written articles in the past about the DSM, but no other articles specifically address the National Institute of Mental Health withdrawing support for the DSM.
6. Age - What is the age of the account in question? Be wary of recently created accounts.
• This Facebook account was created in 2008
7. Reliability - Is the source of information reliable?
• Yes, Psychology Today is a reputable magazine with reliable information.

Source B: "Why We Need to Talk About Depression," TED Talk by Kevin Breel

Bergmann, Hannah, "Why We Need to Talk About Depression: TED Talk by Kevin Breel," September 6, 2015 via screenshot, Attribution Generic 2.0 License

1. Credibility - Can you corroborate who the person who posted the social media message is. Can you Google them? Do they belong to an organization or institution that bestows credibility on them (for example, a university, governmental organization, non-profit, company, etc.)?
• Kevin Breel is a comedian, author, and mental health activist. He has an official Facebook page and website, and has been featured by the Huffington Post, NBC, MTV, as well as TED.
2. Location - Are they in the place they are tweeting or posting about? Are they directly involved with any of the events relevant to your controversy?
• Kevin Breel's TED Talk was not related to the recent revisions to the DSM. However, Breel explained that he struggles with depression, and the diagnosing of depression has been altered by the recent revision of the DSM.
3. Network - Who is in their network and who follows them? Do other individuals with institutional credibility associate with this person on social media?
• Because this is an official Facebook page, no individual can interact with him and his followers are unavailable to view.
4. Content - Can the information they’re relying on in their tweet or post be corroborated from other sources?
• No, the information he talks about in his TED Talk is mainly based on personal experience.
5. Contextual updates - Do they usually post or tweet on this topic? If so, what did past or updated posts say? Do they fill in more details?
• Kevin Breel is a mental health activist. He has expressed concerns over the stigma surrounding mental illness in the past. He has a book releasing in September with more information about his personal struggle with depression.
6. Age - What is the age of the account in question? Be wary of recently created accounts.
• The TED Talk Youtube account was created in 2006.
7. Reliability - Is the source of information reliable?
• Yes, TED is a reputable organization that carefully considers who they invite to give a TED Talk, so this is a reliable source.