5678 Campbell Rd.

, UCSB
samantharamirez@ucsb.edu

March 16, 2020

Writing 2 Publishing House, Inc.
1234 Gaucho Rd., UCSB

Dear Mrs. Rachel Feldman:

The title of my paper is “Different Fields, Different Audiences: How One Discourse Community
Allows for Integration of New Members”. Your peer review journal should publish my paper
because the focus of your journal is to analyze writing and why the authors make the choices that
they do. My paper does just that. My topic is immigrant assimilation, but instead of writing about
that, I focused on how Sociologists and Psychologists approached the topic. I analyzed the
authors’ choices, their credibility and how their writing affected the scholarly communities they
were writing for. After analyzing each paper separately, I wrote about how I thought the
Sociology approach was more effective because the choice the author made allowed more
readers to comprehend the paper.

I chose my topic because I come from a family of immigrants who had to assimilate. Seeing how
the world views people like me inspired me to pursue sociology, and I have already learned skills
that allow me to create papers like this one. I have learned to conduct appropriate research to find
reliable sources through a library, which many students don’t use anymore, and an online
academic database. The approach I take to writing is different than the ones other scholars take
today, where they just search their question and select the first sources that come up. I have
written various papers on drastically different topics, but my major also focuses on reading. A
huge aspect of being able to write well is to read and to analyze the writing as you read, which I
do. Like I said, students do not do that anymore, but I do.

I have investigated what it takes to get published in your journal. I know that multiple editors
will critique my work to ensure that my article is accurate, limited to bias and grammatically
correct.

I would appreciate it if you could take the time to interview me to further discuss this
opportunity. I will follow up with a telephone call on Friday at 2 pm. I have attached my paper
and have other documents, like my annotated bibliographies with two other sources, on hand as
well in case you need them. Thank you for your time and I hope to be in contact soon.

Sincerely,

Samantha Ramirez
Enclosure: Different Fields, Different Audiences: How One Discourse Community Allows for
Integration of New Members
 Ramirez 1

Different Fields, Different Audiences:

How One Discourse Community Allows for Integration of New Members

Samantha Ramirez

Rachel Feldman

Writing 2

March 16, 2020

 Ramirez 2

One of the most pressing issues worldwide is immigration. My family migrated to this

country from Mexico and had to deal with an issue that is often overlooked, immigrant

assimilation. Many experts attempt to understand the overarching concept of immigrant

assimilation by focusing on specific aspects of the topic. This allows for a variety of experts

from different discourse communities and disciplines to study the topic. Discipline can be

thought of as a field while a discourse community is a “group that [has] goals and purposes, and

use[s] communication to achieve their goals” and “influence[s] and [is] influenced by the larger

communities within which they are situated”.1 Although focusing on the same topic, the

sociological text, “Conundrum of an Immigrant: Assimilation versus Cultural Preservation” by

Joanna Caytas and the psychological report, “Beyond Cultural Factors to Understand Immigrant

Mental Health: Neighborhood Ethnic Density and the Moderating Role of Pre-migration and

Post-migration Factors” by Sandra P. Arevalo, Katherine L. Tucker, and Luis M Falcon have

different approaches on immigrant assimilation. The sociology text showcases how that scholarly

community is more accessible than the psychology discourse community by requiring less

previous knowledge from the reader.

Through her sociological source, Joanna Caytas argues that cultures in host countries are

changing because immigrants feel at a disadvantage for receiving better opportunities if they

preserve their own culture.2 Caytas approaches her subject by establishing her credibility from

the beginning. After writing the abstract and keywords, she opens her argument by referencing

the 19th century and explaining historical events that led to immigration throughout different

countries.3 Caytas leaves no gaps in explaining how one idea leads to another, ensuring that even

if the reader has no previous knowledge, they would still know what is being explained. In this

1 Swales, John M. “Reflections on the Concept of Discourse Community.” p.7-9

2 Caytas, Joanna D. “Conundrum of an Immigrant: Assimilation versus Cultural Preservation” p. 36
3 Caytas, Joanna D. p. 36
 Ramirez 3

way, the author is writing for any reader interested on the topic, not just for experts within her

field.

The author does not just rely on her knowledge, but on other experts’ knowledge as well.

Her first citation is in her introduction paragraph, and the author adopts the use of Chicago style

citations.4 This style is common not just in her discipline, but also within the social sciences

discourse community. Her use of this citation style further adds to her credibility of being

experienced within her field seeing as Chicago style is the most common for Sociologists.

Caytas’ credibility is further reinforced through the sources she cites. Instead of using only

sources from her field, she cites sources from other discourse communities, like the formal

sciences. 5 Her ability to integrate different disciplines proves that Caytas is an expert in the field

of sociology; she connects the dots between various aspects to understand why modern day

society is how it is.

Caytas’ choices on how to present her analysis makes her writing more effective. After

she cites her sources, Caytas begins to analyze the evidence by weaving it into her analysis in a

way that makes the paper seem like a story. For example, Caytas introduces the claim that

“confrontations between old and new cultures are more likely to produce irresolvable conflicts

than a peaceful coexistence of both...”. 6 She then cites research that supports her claim while

weaving in her own analysis, like “people grew up to reject the continued pressures to conform

to the culture of their parents, and as a consequence they became fully assimilated...”.7 Her way

of combining her evidence and analysis allows anyone to read the essay and understand it, in part

4 Caytas, Joanna D. p. 36
5 Caytas, Joanna D. p. 42
6 Caytas, Joanna D. p 46
7 Caytas, Joanna D. p 47
 Ramirez 4

because of how clear she connects all her thoughts. Caytas is ensuring her knowledge creates a

larger scholarly community that is able to be understood by scholars not even in the field.

The psychology report written by Sandra P. Arevalo, Katherine L. Tucker, and Luis M

Falcon emphasizes how assimilating into a host country negatively impacts immigrants’ physical

and mental health.8 Before even beginning their report, it is distinctly noted that all authors hold

a PhD.9 That in itself makes the audience know that whoever the authors are, they are educated

in their discipline. The authors define key terms like acculturation10 which demonstrates the

authors wanted to make sure the audience was clear with terms outside of their field. Any

sources the researchers use is cited through APA, which is the citation style normally used in the

sciences.

After setting up any information that the audience will need further into the reading, the

authors discuss their methods11 and list their data. The experts organiz this data in a table that is

simply structured, making it easy to follow. 12 Up until this point, any information can still be

understood, both by people within the field and those who are not, even if it takes them longer to

read. However, further into the “Results” section13, the information begins to become

unclear for anyone reading that is not an expert within a STEM field. The

authors use jargon like “Residing in high ethnic density neighborhoods was

significantly associated with lower depressive symptomatology among

participants in the second quartile of language acculturation (β=−4.21;

8 Arevalo, Sandra P, Tucker, Katherine L., Falcon, Luis M. “Beyond Cultural Factors to Understand
Immigrant Mental Health: Neighborhood Ethnic Density and the Moderating Role of Pre-migration and
Post-migration Factors” p. 91
9 Arevalo, Sandra P, Tucker, Katherine L., Falcon, Luis M. p. 91
10 Arevalo, Sandra P, Tucker, Katherine L., Falcon, Luis M. p. 94
11 Arevalo, Sandra P, Tucker, Katherine L., Falcon, Luis M. p. 94
12 Arevalo, Sandra P, Tucker, Katherine L., Falcon, Luis M. p. 97
13 Arevalo, Sandra P, Tucker, Katherine L., Falcon, Luis M. p. 104
 Ramirez 5

SE=1.27; π=0.001)”.14 Unfortunately, even when the authors begin to explain what the

results mean, the jargon is still not easily understood by someone not in the field. Therefore,

there is an assumption that the intended audience is a member of the STEM field or is familiar

with the discipline. There is no expectation, however, to know terminology from a different

discourse community, like the social sciences, as demonstrated when the authors defined

acculturation.15 The authors defining words not common to those in the formal sciences show

that they are focusing on educating those in the STEM community.

While both sources have mostly differences between them, they do share some

commonalities. For example, both of these articles are peer-reviewed scholarly sources. An

academic source is one where the author(s) creates a new claim through analysis of previous

arguments and introduction of new evidence.16 Furthermore, both of the articles begin with an

abstract and a list of keywords.17 18 Although the texts are different genres–the sociology text is

an analytical essay while the psychology source is a research paper–both disciplines encourage

introducing the topic so that the reader knows what the text will actually cover. As scholarly

articles can oftentimes be lengthy, it is important for readers to be able to ensure the text they

read is the one they need. Since clarity and efficiency is important for the reader, both texts also

include headings throughout their sources.19 20 The use of headings allows for a clear structure to

be set. Not only does the breakdown of sections allow for ease in reading, but it also highlights

how both of these disciplines value organization and clarity.

14 Arevalo, Sandra P, Tucker, Katherine L., Falcon, Luis M. p. 104

15 Arevalo, Sandra P, Tucker, Katherine L., Falcon, Luis M. p. 94
16 Rosenberg, Karen. “Reading Games: Strategies for Reading Scholarly Sources.” p. 214
17 Caytas, Joanna D. p. 36-37
18 Arevalo, Sandra P, Tucker, Katherine L., Falcon, Luis M. p. 91-92
19 Caytas, p. 36-53.
20 Arevalo, Sandra P, Tucker, Katherine L., Falcon, Luis M. p. 91-100
 Ramirez 6

Analyzing two different approaches on immigrant assimilation emphasizes the

differences between the fields of sociology and psychology. In sociology, the terminology,

presentation of evidence and analysis is clear for anyone to follow. In the field of psychology,

the reader has to have some knowledge of STEM terminology. The social sciences create a

scholarly community that is more accessible to those who know little about the issues because

the wording is more familiar. Even if the concepts are new, the probability of an uneducated

reader understanding the new material in a social science discipline is higher than that same

person trying to understand a paper from the field of psychology. The sciences are more closed

off and require a certain level of expertise that is hard to obtain if you did not study a discipline

within that discourse community. More inclusive choices should be taken by authors to ensure

that a larger range of readers can be informed. The issues covered by different disciplines are all

important, and it is crucial that knowledge is spread throughout different communities in order to

create a more educated society.

 Ramirez 7

Bibliography

Arevalo, Sandra P., Tucker, Katherine L., and Falcon, Luis M. "Beyond Cultural Factors to
Understand Immigrant Mental Health: Neighborhood Ethnic Density and the Moderating
Role of Pre-migration and Post-migration Factors." Social Science & Medicine 138
(2015): 91.

Caytas, Joanna. "Conundrum of an Immigrant: Assimilation versus Cultural Preservation."

Journal of Identity and Migration Studies 6, no. 2 (2012): 36-54,125.

Rosenburg, Karen. “Reading Games: Strategies for Reading Scholarly Sources.” Writing
Spaces2 (November 11, 2010): 210–20. https://writingspaces.org/rosenberg--reading-
games.

Swales, John M. “Reflections on the Concept of Discourse Community.” ASp, no. 69 (March 9,
2016): 7–19. https://doi.org/10.4000/asp.4774.