Post 3

The following is based on the readings of Stuart Greene's "Argument as Conversation" and Michael Kleine's "What is it we do when we write articles like this."

Greene and Kleine speak of two different modes in regards to doing research. Greene focuses on a concept of research that is based on an argumentative approach. The individual conducting this research is aiming to find reason and meaning behind their stance in the argument, putting themselves in the argument in one side or the other. Kleine on the other hand focuses on a concept of research that is based on information and facts. Instead of choosing a side, the individual conducting this research is looking at the big picture, trying to figure out the most useful and valuable information.

I feel like each author prefers/recommends their own mode of research. Although they seem to be writing to individuals conducting research at all levels, Greene's writing seems to appeal more so to the average college student. While Kleine's writing comes across as appealing to individuals such as professors. These audiences vary and change the content of the writing just based on the structure that both Greene and Kleine have in getting their points across. Greene's structure is very opinionated and confrontational, which parallels the mindset of most college students. While Kleine's structure is more straight-forward yet open-minded to the big picture.

Personally, I enjoyed reading Greene's mode of research more so than Kleine's. I felt that his writing appealed more to me and honestly I could relate to his concept of seeing research as an argumentative conversation. Both articles were interesting and informative.