Myers and Selzer Analysis

Generally speaking, both articles focus on the importance of audience analysis, diction, and tone in proposal writing. Selzer's article details engineer Kenneth Nelson's composing process (planning, arranging, writing, and revising) while the Myers text shows the specific changes the two biologists, Bloch and Crews, made in their documents.

One major differences between the two articles was the revision process. Nelson's writing process is linear because he essentially moves from one writing step to another in a one-directional method. Specifically, any changes made are few in number and minor in detail because of this process. Nelson admits to writing with his audience in mind, but seems to combine the revising phase with the planning and outlining. It is quite possible that in some of his writing, he could possibly use the outline almost verbatim for the final draft. Yet, as revealed in the Myers text, even seemingly unassuming words and word combinations carry alternate meanings and can drastically alter a document's voice or tone.

The two scientists' writing processes were obviously recursive. Not only did their peers evaluate these proposals, but they had to scrutinize every aspect of their writing if they intended on getting the leaders to even read their documents, receiving funding for the research, and/or earning a respectable place within the scientific community.

On the other hand, the engineers were both faced with other composition challenges. Dr. Bloch had an interesting research topic and a successful laboratory, but was unknown amongst his peers in the scientific community. This factor directly impacted the design and format of his proposal in one major way: he was a newcomer to the community and his writing had to reflect a humble, yet confident tone so that the community leaders would even entertain reading his proposal. Too much bold, assertive language would have made him appear arrogant and dispectful towards any work that had preceeded his research. Yet, he couldn't sound too humble or the leaders would have simply ignored his proposal altogether. One way he achieved this goal was by backing off some of his claims.

Crews' name was known throughout the scientific community, but his proposal was at risk for not receiving any funding. Unlike Bloch, Crews had the advantage of being better known by the leaders and had the liberty of using stronger, more assertive language at his discretion. As Myers points out, Crews had to make his research interesting enough to catch the reader's attention because he needed financial backing. Hence, it was much more acceptable for him to make stronger claims because of the ethos he had already established and the urgency of needing the money.