Alexandra Levitsky, Jessica McElroy, Rachel Rha

Professor Anna Szczepaniec-Bialas

ENGL-297-0101

November, 2017

Ethnographic Report

Introduction

This ethnographic research project studies science journalist and astrobiologist Dr.

Jeffrey Marlow in order to differentiate the demands and requirements of journalistic and

academic science writing. Jeffrey Marlow is an accomplished science writer, a geo/astrobiologist

with a graduate degree from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), and a post-doctoral

fellow at Harvard University. He writes academic papers for scholarly journals such as The

Journal of Geophysical Research, The Geomicrobiology Journal, International Journal of

Astrobiology, Nature Communications, and Frontiers in Microbiology; Marlow also writes as for

Wired and National Geographic, and served as a TEDxCalTech speaker on scientific

exploration. He even wrote and directed a short film about NASAs Mars rover Curiosity and

hes started an educational outreach project, Mars Academy. His writing centers around

molecular biology and DNA synthesis. The information he presents relates to environmental

practices and how we can turn methane emissions into biofuels by studying microbial

metabolisms in the deep sea.

Marlows writings are highly credible, many of the articles he publishes are based on his

original research. He is respected in the scientific community and able to capably communicate
his findings at a highly technical level, appropriate for fellow experts in his field. The fact that

Marlow is such a foremost expert and that he conducts his own research makes his publications

primary or secondary documents - depending on if he cross references external sources. The

prestige of Marlows academic background and the scientific origins of Marlows academic

works mean that Marlow writes an objectively higher quality document than some of his peers in

science journalism. Marlows scientific background and body of work identify Marlow as an

excellent candidate for our research.

Through interviews with Jeffrey Marlow and analysis of his academic and journalistic

writings, this ethnographic research report seeks to ask how academic and journalistic writings

differ in their ability to convey research. It also seeks to explain how these writings have been

tailored to fit the needs of their audiences. To complete the analysis we compared artifacts (the

physical articles of writing) from both fields, organized information using heuristics from

Chapter 11 of Solving Problems in Technical Communications, and interviewed Marlow to gain

better insight into his thought processes. It will exemplify how to successfully integrate and

translate scientific fact into a digestible medium - a skill which is highly beneficial for science

careers. Since we, the authors and researchers of this report, all have interests in science and

writing it is likely this report will help us prepare for our future careers.

Data Collection

In order to complete our report, we gathered artifacts to analyse and conducted an

interview with Marlow to collect the necessary data for out report. This data will focus around

the needs of the audience, diction usage, sentence structure, and idea organization. We analyzed

Marlows writing in 3 sets of academic and journalistic articles on comparable topics (e.g. both a

journalistic and academic piece on autoendoliths), and conducted a video interview with Marlow
discussing his methods and processes when it comes to the writing process of each publication.

The specifics of collected data are detailed below.

Comparable published works: academic and journalistic

Autoendoliths
Academic: Autoendoliths: A Distinct Class of Rock-Hosted
Microbial Life
Journalistic: Autoendoliths: The Architects of the Deep
Journalistic: Super brief article in Wired that he attached photo of
to email

Methane seeps
Academic: Microbial abundance and diversity patterns associated
with sediments and carbonates from the methane seep
environments of Hydrate Ridge, OR
Journalistic: Deep Sea Methane Vents at Hydrate Ridge

Isotope probing metaproteomics

Academic: Proteomic Stable Isotope Probing Reveals
Biosynthesis Dynamics of Slow Growing Methane Based
Microbial Communities
Journalistic: How Atomic Tracers Illuminate Microbial Dark
Matter in the Deep Sea

Video interview with subject

Observational notes on setting and body language

Scripted questions
Follow up questions

Data Analysis:

Autoendoliths

Published by the journal of Geobiology, the academic paper, Autoendoliths: A Distinct

Class of Rock-Hosted Microbial Life, focuses on the background, the definition, the function,

and classification of organisms considered to be autoendoliths. Marlow begins with a short, basic
introduction to this topic and then continues to dive into more complex concepts, using diagrams

and photos to describe his work. Although in this academic paper he does not have a typical

abstract, introduction, methods, results, conclusion, and discussion format, it still follows a clear

direction utilizing more of an essay format. Contrary to this format, Marlow wrote for the blog,

Small Things Considered, and followed a drastically different format. The difference between the

academic paper and his journalistic post, Autoendoliths: The Architects of the Deep, was

clearly seen as the journalistic article had more of a casual approach. Beginning with an

anecdote, Marlow described his own experience on investigating a rock called Hydrate Ridge

and then connected this to the concept of autoendoliths. In the beginning of the article, he

includes a cartoon of a stone louse to intrigue the reader and provide a fun fact that relates to

the main study. With this approach, he is able to address and relate to a more general audience

by easing them into the main purpose of this study.

The language between the academic source and the definition of autoendoliths were very

similar. Both artifacts were concise with their diction, language, and format. The language in

these two artifacts were quite formal as they clearly stated the purpose with technical language. It

was noted that since the Wired article was a few sentence definition so the language had to be

quite concise. Especially with the academic paper, the diction was straight to the point and

added details describing findings when necessary. However, comparing the journalistic blog

post, the language and diction were more casual and easier to read. There were details and

descriptive language used throughout to describe Marlows research experience to the study of

autoendoliths.

Analyzing the various audiences between the artifacts, there were noticeable differences

as we researched each source. Published by the journal of Geobiology, the academic paper
caters towards readers with a background in biology or readers with a general understanding of

simple biological and scientific terms. The blog, Small Things Considered, welcomes a wider

range of people and specifically microbiologists to discuss, share, and answer questions

throughout the website. Wired magazine addresses an even larger audience as they center their

focus on not only science, but business, culture, design, transportation, and security.

Methane seeps

Jeffrey Marlow was kind enough to point us in the direction of his works on the topic of

methane oxidation rates within carbonate rocks at seafloor methane seeps. He wrote quite a few

works on this topic but it was decided that the two most comparable writings were two

concerning methane seeps at Hydrate Ridge, OR. The academic article is titled Microbial

abundance and diversity patterns associated with sediments and carbonates from the methane

seep environments of Hydrate Ridge, OR and was published in the journal Frontiers in Marine

Science. According to the journals official webpage it publishes rigorously peer-reviewed

research that advances our understanding of all aspects of the environment, biology, ecosystem

functioning and human interactions with the oceans. The academic writings comparable

journalistic counterpart, titled Deep Sea Methane Vents at Hydrate Ridge, was published on

The New York Times website. The New York Times is an internationally known media source

read by a broad audience of individuals.

The differences in the articles are evident immediately, from the format to the language

style the dissimilarities are striking. The academic article is formatted similarly to most, with

sections such as keywords, methods, and results and discussion while the journalistic article is

not divided into sections at all. The journalistic article begins with a photo and then an intro
about the history of the region of Oregon in which Marlow and others conducted their scientific

assault, as he put it in his article. The academic article on the other hand begins with an abstract

of the whole document and uses many technical terms and concepts that the layman would likely

have trouble deciphering. The introduction to the academic article is much the same as the

abstract in the use of technical language and unlike the journalistic article does not mention the

history of the region from which the samples were collected. The journalistic article uses

language this is more simple and playful, like metaphors, such as when he says that methane

has a P.R. problem, and images that are more visually enticing to most. The academic article

does have some visuals but they are mostly graphs and tables which are not as attention grabbing

as the images used in the journalistic article.

The academic article uses technical language and jumps straight to the point without

trying to add fluff, unnecessary visuals, or an attention grabbing opening. It is basically

guaranteed to be read by researchers and other individuals holding an interest in the topic and

having a high level of understanding for it, it does not need its introduction to grab their attention

it just needs to draw them in by proving that the article concerns research and data on the topic

they care about. The journalistic article on the other hand does focus on catching the attention of

the audience by offering visually stimulating images and mentioning other relevant topics that

may capture the interest of an individual that may not necessarily have an interest in methane

seeps. The journalistic article also focuses on keeping the readers attention by using simple and

even playful language. The academic article uses highly technical language because that is what

those reading it expect and that language proves to them that the article is written by someone

credible with a comprehensive and technical understanding of the topic. The approaches to the

two types of articles on very similar topics is fascinating, upon analyzing the choices that were
made for each article it seems they were extremely appropriate and wise for the specific audience

for which each article was intended.

Stable isotope probing metaproteomics

Jeffrey Marlow also pointed us in the direction of his works on Stable isotope probing

metaproteomics. The differences between Marlows academic and journalistic works on the topic

of microbial deep sea colonies, as presented in the peer reviewed paper Proteomic Stable

Isotope Probing Reveals Biosynthesis Dynamics of Slow Growing Methane Based Microbial

Communities and in Discover Magazine: The magazine of science, technology, and the future's

How Atomic Tracers Illuminate Microbial Dark Matter in the Deep Sea, can be roughly

categorized into 3 main areas - formatting, content, and rhetoric.

The format of a paper is the first thing a viewership sees, it shapes the way an audience

interprets the rest of the paper. Accepted conventions exist in both academic and journalistic

writing but differ between the two genre because each has a different intent and audience.

Generally, academic papers exist to provide the most information possible on a single area of a

larger topic; academic papers often are sourced from large databases that operate through search

criteria so the viewership of an article is likely specifically looking for the paper before they read

it. On the other hand, journalistic papers look to entice the layman reader of a magazine to read

about a specific topic they otherwise may not have been interested in. Journalistic papers provide

a contextualized view of a large topic so to best inform the general public and remain accessible

to the most people.

In formulating his two papers, Marlows respect to these conventions can be seen in his

choice of titles, visuals, and citation methods. When looking at How Atomic Tracers Illuminate
Microbial Dark Matter in the Deep Sea and Proteomic Stable Isotope Probing Reveals

Biosynthesis Dynamics of Slow Growing Methane Based Microbial Communities, there are clear

differences between the two titles. The journalistic article title is 57 letters while the academic

papers title is 101, nearly twice the length. The journalistic title averages around a 8th grade

reading level while the academic paper is collegiate. Length and complexity determine the

readability of the title, how easy the title is to understand for the average person. Given that the

average reading level of US Adults is around 7th-8th grade and that people are more likely to

read shorter titles than long titles, it must be concluded that the journalistic paper is more

readable. In the context of the conventions discussed before these differences in format make

clear sense. A journalistic article needs to be brief, readable, and attention-grabbing to the people

who are buying the media source. An academic paper sacrifices brevity for clarity, the audience

in case of an academic paper would be looking for specific information and generally

understands the concept a paper presents already. The audience in this case benefits more from

specific jargon which allows them to understand the synopsis of the paper quickly and with

greater specificity.

After opening each article, the visual impact of each paper continues to differ in picture

choice and text shape. How Atomic Tracers Illuminate Microbial Dark Matter in the Deep Sea

is prefixed by a large image, a picture taken by a deep sea submarine of methane seeps on

Hydrate Ridge - the area of Marlows research. This picture spans the breadth of the text,

separating the title from the body paragraphs. This single image does not advance the readers

understanding of the topic but exists to intrigue the reader and provide a text-free block to ease

the readers eye. In contrast, the images in Proteomic Stable Isotope Probing Reveals
Biosynthesis Dynamics of Slow Growing Methane Based Microbial Communities are mostly

pragmatic diagrams or data tables designed to clarify the information discussed in the text.

The visual representations of the textual content differ in terms of paragraph length and

headers as well. The journalistic article uses short paragraphs in a single article subsection while

the academic uses long paragraphs organized into many subsections. Having a single subsection

within the journalistic piece requires the audience to read the entirety of the article in order find

the information they are looking for, ensuring that they read about all aspects of the topic and so

can contextualize their information. In academic writing, this format is not needed and is more

labor intensive than necessary. Academics can reasonably be assumed to have a diverse

background of knowledge in order to contextualize information, this makes extensive

background redundant. Marlow can then remove these filler pieces and focus on the meat of the

research, however the research is dense and the writing must be long to include all data. To aid in

clarity, subsections divide the paper. These provide benchmarks to mark the readers place and to

help direct the reader to the information they are looking for.

Each audience may seek more information after reading their respective papers. Both

academic and journalistic articles use external sources and so cite their sources in some way. The

journalistic article used hyperlinks which directly lead to other papers; the academic article used

parenthetical citations. The academic article used much more frequent citations than the

journalistic article and the citations were often of other peer-reviewed articles. Journalistic

articles are often more quick news, they get published on a shorter time frame than academic and

so have a lower standard of rigor for publication. Hyperlinks can link to other journalistic articles

or some academic papers available online, the low quantity of sources allows this to be well

integrated into the article. Academic articles are different first because they require a
bibliography, where all sources are listed in full. Parenthetical citations do not directly link to

papers but rather provide a reference to the bibliography where the reader can see all the papers

at once for quick access. But why does the bibliography show citations instead of a master copy

of links? Bibliographies use citations because they have a history in print, links cannot be clicked

when in a paper media. Bibliographies provide all the information one needs to transfer from

electronic to paper to electronic again, and so can be read in any form. Further, many academic

papers are provided through paid services such as journals or paper databases. The quantity of

sources used in an academic paper makes it likely at least one source will be of this type in any

paper. Citations provide information about any external source but since they may be behind a

paywall it is impossible to easily link a viewer to the work.

Next we look at content - though the sets of papers are similar in content, the depth of the

content and the way it is presented differ. Academic papers are clearly longer and much more

content heavy - Proteomic Stable Isotope Probing Reveals Biosynthesis Dynamics of Slow

Growing Methane Based Microbial Communities was 17 pages while journalistic articles

generally only span 2-3 pages. Academic papers go into much more depth regarding any and all

data collected, journalistic only covers those pieces which are particularly interesting. The way

this information is presented changes depending on genre as well. In How Atomic Tracers

Illuminate Microbial Dark Matter in the Deep Sea, Marlow takes great steps to write with

storytelling language. Marlow begins with, Microorganisms are the base of the planets

biological pyramid, shaping the world we know today in innumerable unseen ways. This

develops intrigue in an unknown subject and provides warranting for why the audience should

care. This language is also somewhat fanciful. Marlow uses the first two paragraphs of his

article to provide background information and set up the image of microorganisms as a nebulous
unknown, they persist in the far reaches of the globe (freezing waters, acidic lakes, ocean

depths). The usage of persist creates a feeling of adversity, implying that microbes struggle in

face of difficult climates, their extreme habitats implying that they have taken refuge in areas

beyond human control. This makes the microbes seem mysterious. Marlow then plays off this

mystery by saying that he and his colleagues set out, a phrase readers most often would hear in

reference to heroes setting out on quests and implies a sense of grand adventure. This story

format makes the article exciting and draws the reader in. Conversely, the line Nucleotide-based

meta-omics studies outline community-wide metabolic potential, but expression patterns of

environmentally relevant proteins are poorly characterized inspires little romanticism. Marlow

does not inject himself or his colleagues into the dialogue and speaks about what scientific

processes achieve instead of what he has achieved. This is fairly expected, as prior analysis has

established - academic works focus more on the data than story.

Counterintuitively however, Marlow uses more complex, nontechnical, diction in his

journalistic article. In Proteomic Stable Isotope Probing Reveals Biosynthesis Dynamics of Slow

Growing Methane Based Microbial Communities terms such as ANME-1

methylenetetrahydromethanopterin dehydrogenase are occupational hazards, necessary to the

technical understanding of the subject. Marlow connects these technical terms simply - with

terms all his peers can be reasonably expected to know. In his journalistic article, Marlow

engages his vocabulary more actively. Using words such as precludingand milieus gives

Marlow Ethos, credibility, in absence of the raw data. Readers trust Marlow in academic writing

because he presents all the facts in their complexity, readers trust Marlow in journalistic writing

because his writing style supports his credentials as an academic.

Analysis of Interview:

The dialogue which follows are rough notes taken during the interview. Questions asked

are italicized with their corresponding answers indented. Those questions in indented italics are

follow up questions.

Interview questions & answers:

What factors do you consider when choosing a topic for publication? How do these factors

change in reference to academic and journalistic articles?

Research - Depends on what is found in research - the last part of research pipeline.

Money & samples, then written up. Its deterministic. Question of publishable or not - if

its interesting, enough data, contaminated samples, etc. Find out the story. Is there a new

finding?

Journalistically - New layer, is it able to be shared in interesting way? A ton of academic

papers, most do not get into the public press and they shouldnt be.

We all noticed that, especially between the papers, there were different audiences.

Often you dont assume or care if academic readers are interested in the topic.

Usually knows what topic he wants to write on but does not know the study or situation,

or really the specifics, about which he will write

How would you describe your process for writing academic articles?

You already have figures and graphs, so you center your argumentation and methods

around the data you already have. Thats the scaffold to build up on. Also think - how
 many layers deep to go. What is something new, next question is why and how. Can

address in same paper - makes it more impactful - or it could be. You keep going until

its too much and then you stop.

Important to use all the info that was gathered

Also important to try and disprove the hypothesis (to strengthen it)

How do you decide when to stop (adding information to the writing)?

Often you assume there is a basal knowledge.

Different scientists have different opinions on currency of academia is publication.

Number of papers is more important, though impactful writings are good they take a long

time. You want to keep publishing frequently.

How would you describe your process for writing journalistic articles?

There you have the idea, the subject, and then you do background research or interviews.

Get everything down in one place before sifting through what you want to write.

Usually the story that will be written is not predetermined but needs to be decided and

shaped

How does your writing process differ between academic and journalistic articles?

Just getting the raw material on the page is common, you dont always have all the data

for journalistic. Academic, its counterproductive to leave boring things out.

Passive voice is still a thing in academic writing, time oriented. Journalistically you take

more liberties with that. In science and academic writing you are trying to disprove your
 hypothesis as much as you can, be your own harshest critic. This is less common to do

journalistically.

How do you adjust your writing style between the different publications you have written for?

Depends on what the publication is about and what Ive been hired to do. National

Geographic likes first person, describing the process of being a scientist and doing the

science. Whats hard and fun is the blending of this - where I use my background in

science to contextualize the story Im reporting on. You do need to be clear - see where

youre being a reporter.

In filtering the abundance of information into a digestible format, how do you choose what to

include?

Thats a tough question - thats where having an editor is nice, it's a balance between

importance and what is interesting. I lean more towards what is important - if they learn

nothing then it's pointless.. I have non-expert friends look it over.

Its often that you do hours and hours of interviews - one way to judge the quality is to

judge what you leave out. Quote needs to add something which is personality driven or

that gives you some special insight to the topic.

What considerations do you make of the audience during your writing process? Before you begin

writing a paper or article do you first do some sort of audience analysis?

 No not really, I maybe should. I read a fair amount and I have a vibe on what theyre

about. In academic writing - I sent it to an editor and they didnt comment on the science

but they said the topic wasnt a fit.

You have to give a specific pitch.

Between the two types of articles and audiences, which do you find to be easier/more enjoyable

and why?

Academic writing is easier - its progressive, you move from one point to the next. I find

journalistic more enjoyable - able to reach more readers and be more creative by injecting

his own voice into the text.

What instance led you to dedicate your work to the importance of microbial life within our

ecosystem?

Growing up - a family trip to Yellowstone - knowing that life can exist inside these

environments was very interesting. Something very magical about the biological

experience. Endless questions on the subject.

The other experience is watching a spaceship launch in 6th grade. A lot of the same time

that the mars rovers were doing things. Revelations. Astrobiology. To do that requires

one to know the limits of biology on earth.

So you knew straight out of highschool what you wanted to do and went to college for it?

Yeah I wanted to do it straight out of highschool - but at that time no one knew what to

make of Astrobiology.
Do you find that the concepts of microbial life are difficult to explain to an audience?

Microbes in particular are tough - this comes up specifically with National Geographic.

Emotionally and imagery driven. Anthropomorphization helps a lot.

Keep things human centric - explain things in relations to people.

Observational Notes

Notes taken during interview:

At start of the interview he asks more about what we are studying and what we will be

writing in our report - when we further explain the project to him he nods and smiles

constantly

Seems to be in a laboratory or workshop - orange bag in background, stainless steel.

Looks to be high end

Wearing earbuds (to reduce echo from speakers perhaps? Or maybe so he can better hear

us?)

Wearing a grey sweatshirt- casual (No lab coat even though seemingly in what appears to

be a lab-like setting)

Always smiling throughout entire interview - obviously loves what he is talking about

and loves helping others learn

Very calm, relaxed, and friendly

Willing to answer any and all questions to the best of his abilities

When talking about getting data for his writings he called it doing the science while

motioning quotation marks with his fingers

Discussion of the notes:

Right from the start it is obvious that he is not just interested in helping us with our

project but seems happy to do so. He smiles and nods while we talk about what we hope to

achieve through our report and responds positively seemingly very interested in what our

resulting report will be like.He is willing to answer any and all questions to the best of his

abilities, he seems to enjoy helping others find passion in what he is passionate about. His

passion for the topic, and for sharing that passion with others, is obvious in his calm relaxed and

friendly attitude and speech throughout the interview. He says things like doing the science

while motioning quotation marks with his fingers further showing his laid-back, approachable

attitude and how he views this topic as something fun and enjoyable. He is even dressed in a

laid-back, approachable manner by wearing a casual grey sweatshirt even though he is in a lab-

like setting. He wears headphones during the interview - possibly to reduce echo from speakers

perhaps, or maybe so he can better hear us or maybe even to prevent disturbing others too much.

Discussion of results and conclusion:

Through analysis of Marlows journalistic and academic writings, two points of

divergence become evident - process and outcome. The process by which a work is created

includes the considerations made for audience, length of piece, publishing method, and intent.

The outcome includes only the finished media but can be analyzed through diction, specificity of

knowledge, structure, and rhetorical devices such as ethos. Audience, as Chapter 11 of Solving

Problems in Technical Communication explains, is the point on which these diverge. The context

of a paper impacts the way it is written. A communicative event model of academic and

journalistic papers, as presented in Chapter 11, shows that both processes are similar. Both begin
with research. In academic papers this process is much longer, including original research and

study of already existing research papers and spanning possibly many years. In journalistic

papers this process is similar on a much shorter timescale, interviews and basic research

replacing the in depth studies of academic writing. The next step is writing, in academic writing

almost all data is used but in journalistic the data is edited down to the most important. Both

genre are then edited and re-edited to the specifications of their audience and employer, and then

finally published. The main differences between journalistic and academic works are the timeline

of an individual work, depth of information, and formatting, all tailored to the intended audience

of the work

Acknowledgements:

We would like to thank our research subject, Jeffrey Marlow, for his participation and

assistance in our completion of this report.

 Works Cited

Johnson-Eilola, Johndan., and Stuart A. Selber (2013), Solving Problems in Technical

Communication, The University of Chicago Press.

Marlow, J., Peckmann, J., and V. Orphan (2015), Autoendoliths: A Distinct Class of

Rock-Hosted Microbial Life, Geobiology.

Marlow, J. (2015), Autoendoliths: Architects of the Deep, Small Things Considered.

Marlow, J. (2015), Autoendoliths, WIRED Magazine

Marlow, J. (2010), Deep Sea Methane Vents at Hydrate Ridge, The New York Times.

Marlow, J. (2016), How Atomic Tracers Illuminate Microbial Dark Matter in the Deep

Sea, Discover Magazine: The magazine of science, technology, and the future

Marlow, J., Steele, J., Case, D., Levin, L., and V. Orphan, (2014), Microbial Abundance

and Diversity Patterns Associated with Sediments and Carbonates from the

Methane Seep Environments of Hydrate Ridge, OR, Frontiers in Aquatic

Microbiology.

Marlow, J., Skennerton, C., Li, Z., Chourey, K., Hettich, R., Pan, C., and V. Orphan,

(2016), Proteomic Stable Isotope Probing Reveals Biosynthesis Dynamics of

Slow-Growing Methane-Based Microbial Communities, Frontiers in Microbiology.