This reflection of this paper will be based on my Communications 230 paper which focused on The Social Penetration Theory. This reflection will focus on the areas I believe I executed well and also the areas I could have improved on. In this paper, I will go into detail showing how my research paper was one that was written well and needed improvement.
To begin, the purpose for writing the research paper was to become an expert of the particular theory that I was highly interested in. The thesis of my research was supposed to show why the theory was relevant, and supply the audience with substantial research as prime evidence. In the paper, I gave various sources that proved how my research paper showed that the theory was relevant. For my researcher paper, I only stated my purpose and didn’t going into detail as to what my thesis was. I know that for such paper, I should have included a thesis that was clearly stated in order for my audience to be able to better understand my paper. If I could rewrite the paper, I would include a very strong thesis that clearly portrays the central purpose of my paper and then include ways that I was going to achieve that purpose.
Secondly, the audience for my paper was an academic audience whom I was trying to persuade that the theory was relevant and that I was an expert in that theory. In order to improve that section of my research paper, I could have made it clear that I was writing to this specific audience just to make it more apparent. However, I did do well with in terms of adapting my research paper to my audience. I did this by supplying the academic audience with extensive research relating to the theory. Throughout my paper, I gave examples that expressed the relevance of the theory and further proved them with usage of the researched I used. I wanted to give as much research as I possibly could in order to adapt to the audience that they could understand clearly and sufficiently. For example, in my paper, I stated “This theory is about how the bases of people’s relationships are reflected upon the level of disclosure they reached.” I went on to adapt the tone of the paper to my audience by including the statement “This theory is social scientific because this theory gets as close to the truth as possible due to the predictability of the situation.” These examples prove how I showed my understanding of the theory and also adapting my paper to my academic audience.
Furthermore, the message structure of my research paper was the usage of persuasion. I used a persuasive approach because I thought that it would’ve been more accessible for the audience to be able to believe that the theory was relevant and that I was an expert in the theory. I did this by providing the academic audience research that was from credible sources to make my argument more convincing. For example, I included a credible source’s details about the theory by stating “This disclosure depends on how far the conversation between the two goes and how much information is shared between them. In the book Social Penetration: The Development of Interpersonal Relationships, the authors Irwin Altman and Dalmas A. Taylor stated “ Social penetration refers to (1) overt interpersonal behaviors which take place in social interaction and (2) internal subjective processes which precede, accompany, and follow overt exchange” (Altman & Dalmas 5).” This example shows that credible source included in my paper was evidence as to how I included a source to support the information in my paper. Also, due to the extensive process that writers of the peer reviewed journals have to go through in order to have their articles published, I knew that the articles I used as research were highly credible. In my paper, I analyzed different aspects of theory that showed I not only understood the theory generally, but understood the many parts of theory. Along with expressing my knowledge on the theory and the sections a part of the theory, I gave research that presented proof on the examples and ideas I gave about those topics.
Lastly, I structured my paper to center it on my audience in order for them to be able to understand my theory and research further. I knew that my audience expected research to support my ideas because they’re an academic audience. I gave multiple examples along with various credible sources to appeal to the audience. The structure of my paper was to go through the different aspects of the theory beginning broadly and then becoming more specific. I did this in order for the audience to see how I critically understood the complete theory.