Connecting back to the ideas of audience and genre, on page 212, Schryer, while referencing "Bakhtin's most important insight" says "The change in speaking subjects determines the boundaries of the genre."

Here he is speaking about audiences and their direct connection to genre. I too find this an interesting point in that genre is created by humans and that the humans that a piece of writing is intended for can dictate "the boundaries" of that genre. The audience determines the writing. Democracy in action.

This to me is the central issue of this study. One of the problems that this article is seeking to address is that the students of this college were not communicating their own records very well. Their notes and writing were written for an audience of one (themselves) with no real thought as to who may need to read this information in the future.

Their records and research which when presented for multiple audiences could be a part of a larger discussion, much like this one, are instead left out. To me this is a great disservice to the researchers in any field.

An interesting part of genre is brought up by Schryer when he quotes Bakhtin who on page 224 says, "Addressivity is a genre's quality of being directed at someone."

Genre is a created not only by the writer but by the audience. The information that is being gathered is being gathered with an end user in mind. This ties in with the article, "Beyond a Narrow Conception of Usability Testing" by Patricia Sullivan. The usability of the information creates value. The genre of record keeping is being directed at multiple audiences who need to be able to process the data quickly and clearly.

The veterinary student taking notes about a wounded horse knows that his information, as a part of this genre, must be written in a way that can be understood and usable by multiple audiences. So by sticking to the guidelines of the genre, the data will be presented in a way that others will be able to easily understand.

An interesting aspect of record keeping is that by creating the record, it becomes real. Schryer quotes Catherine Pettinari on pg. 204-205 when she writes, "medical records, besides providing means of communication and planning, actually come to represent the patients themselves."

I found this so interesting because in the medical field, the patient is the record and vice versa. By creating a record of not only a patient's visit, but their problems or symptoms, those problems become real as well. They are now a matter of record. They can be searched for and found.

This also connected to a larger theme of the study which is that if the record represents the patient than the record must be thorough and written not only for the use of the medical professional who is creating the record, but everyone who may read it afterwards, including the patient themselves.

All the way back on page 202, Schryer makes an interesting point about observational notes. She writes, "Observational notes contained detailed descriptions of what I observed and detailed reconstructions of conversations that used as much of the "original" language of participants as possible."

While interviewing countless students and faculty she seems to take note of her own note taking. Many were observational while others more analytical. I think in regards to technical communication, observational notes can be extremely important as they can combine multiple modes of communication. Through observation one can note the sights, sounds and even feeling of an environment.

In the field for example, she can record not only what she sees, but what she hears and can physically touch. These notes have the potential to be viewed by multiple audiences, just like these annotations. By recording her observations linguistically she is able to combine the visual, aural, spatial and gestural modes of communication to create a clear record for not only her use, but other audiences in the future.

Through strong note taking that combines as many modes as possible, the author is then able to create a clear understanding of the problem and thus and strong diagnosis.

A big question I have is how is Genre monitored? After reading, genre is created humans as a set of loose-ish standards. Is it up to the individual writer to choose a genre and define their own parameters within it? Does that really matter in the real world or is this an academic specific issue? What I got from the article is that genre creates a set of rules to operate within, but are purposefully left open ended as not to stifle creativity.

At the bottom of page 201 and top of page 202, Schryer explains her methods of note taking during her study. Based on the lecture on Tuesday I found it interesting that the author references "triangulation" and using "a variety of methods" (interviews, observation, doc collection) combined with varied sources creates the best data just like the combination of modes can create the best written product. I find the aspect of triangulation interesting since she is using multiple methods that on their own are not as useful but when combined with her other research help paint a vivid picture of the study she was apart of. The clearer the picture the better the result. In this case this means a better diagnosis.

"The addressee in the case of the exam, and I would argue in the case of medical records, is a reader who is prepared to "read" a great deal of tacit information into these accounts."

Addressivity can define genre in that who the information is being prepared for will influence the style and delivery. As we discussed in class today (9/6/16), who the work is intended for will heavily influence not only genre but the style and language that are used as well. As technical writers, I believe there should always be an effort to communicate in as broad a manner as the subject matter will allow. The more audiences that can be reached the more impactful the writing or "deliverable".

On page 202, Schryer writes that "Traditional ethnographic research often includes a map in order to help locate readers."

I think this goes back to what we discussed in class about connecting different modes to bring about further understanding of the subject. Through visual and linguistic modes a map is able to convey more information that can then be comprehended faster. But for the sake of this article, Schryer is creating a metaphorical map linguistically to tie in all the disparate elements of the college together to create context for the study. After reading more about different modes in "Writer/Designer: A Guide to Making Multimodal projects", the map itself intrigues me as it can orientate a reader almost instantly while also visually displaying pertinent information.

After reading about the needs of a thorough system of record keeping, it's interesting to notice on page 215, that even though many within the college recognized that the Problem Oriented Veterinary Medical Record system was a better system for recording data, they were hesitant to switch from the System Oriented Record system.

Dr. Lawrence Weed created the POVMR system to replace the SOR system because the SOR system was not focused enough on problem solving. Schryer writes on page 215, "Weed saw the possibility that records could be redesigned to imitate a specific medical problem solving process."

In my opinion it seems that POVMR is a better record keeping system in the field while SOR is more accepted in academic settings. The POVMR mode of record keeping could also remove students from the staccato rehearsing of terms and definitions by immersing them in real world problem solving scenarios thus hopefully avoiding the symptoms of Green Grad Syndrome. In the end, the POVMR system creates more detailed records that are then easier to share as well as fulfilling the need for students to write with other audiences in mind. More data can only help in the mission of creating a better diagnosis. By using this system the data created by the students can be used as a part of a much larger data pool in which veterinarians from other parts of the world could search for and reference their findings for their own diagnosis. This gets back to the notion that genre is a set of loose guidelines that can help veterinarians and technical communicators figure out what works and doesn't work in regards to audience.

A constant theme in this article is that record keeping and audience should go hand in hand. A prime example of this can be found on page 220. Schryer writes, "A discussion with the record technicians revealed that new veterinarians would sometimes attempt to use the term "a poor doer" to describe an animal that essentially was not thriving. Such records would be returned for clarification because, according to the technicians, the term was too vague."

While Schryer admits that veterinarians should avoid using "vet speech" they should also avoid language that is too broad. Their records should be as clear as possible so that the next person who reads them will not need to second guess what they are reading but will be able to continue where the previous person left off. When creating these records, the audience must be a consideration since that audience itself could also be quite broad.

On page 204, Dr. L., a professor at the college in question and Dr. Schryer disagree fundamentally on what constitutes literacy. Schryer writes, "Dr. L. viewed literacy in terms of writing exams but did not see that the keeping of medical records was also a form of literacy."

Will this opinion be a common one as I search for career in technical communication? By reading the article, I believe that record keeping is indeed a genre as well as a form of literacy. Elements of style and structure are necessary to provide records for a wider audience.

As the needs of technical communicators change with the technology (Pullman, Gu, Albers), I'm wondering if the definitions of what is considered literacy will change with it.

On pg. 211, Schryer notes that Miller as well as Bakhtin "...saw genre as a fusion of content and style." This quote caught me since I myself am trying to decode the "fusion of content and style" that is technical writing. Having graduated as a history major I wrote in order to prove a larger point. In technical writing I'm doing something similar by not necessarily proving my finely worded argument, but still searching the most concise and clear way to frame information for others to digest.

During my undergrad, my audience was my professor. Not a soul on any of the construction sites I worked on after college cared about why I believed the end of the Cold War was one of the major facilitators of political change in South Africa in the early 1990's. But I have always looked for ways of explaining complex historical events in ways that my peers would not only listen to, but be genuinely interested in. This is one aspect of technical writing that has drawn my own attention.

To me, taking complex subjects/information and distilling them into something easy and understandable is like putting a puzzle together. So reading about how Miller, Bakhtin and Schryer look at content and style in regards to Genre and record keeping to me illustrates what it is technical writers are doing. While Pullman, Gu and Albers tell us we are transforming into content manager hybrids, the basic elements of content and style within the genre are still the building blocks on top of which we can add more elements such as new software.

Genre like electricity, like water is always moving. It can inhabit many forms and shapes, but it never stops evolving. Genre is a building block of style and content providing a path, but the path is never walled in. There is still room to navigate ones own path within it without ever losing sight of the destination. In technical communication we have to be exposed to as many modes and genres to further our own cause of communicating information that not only explains something complex, but can create genuine interest in something that was previously deemed too difficult. To me, that's awesome.