Page 209 "genres are sites for the centrifugal and centripetal forces that struggle to maintain and yet renew discourse practices"

Pg. 208 Bazerman defined genre as "a sociopsychological category which we use to recognize and construct typified actions within typified situations. It is a way of creating order in the ever-fluid symbolic world." I find this definition to be interesting and quite accurate because "social actors" want to run wild when it comes to their art because there are so many subcategories they can immerse themselves in but the information that they're dealing with is so important and vital to society that there needs to be a common language or guidelines that allow for easy interpreting of that information.

Page 208, "Miller realized that if genre were conceived as conventional 'ways of acting together' then the concept did not lend itself to taxonomy 'for genres change, evolve, and decay''

I found it contradictory how Miller wanted "to make of rhetorical genre a stable classifying concept" when the definition of genre has this concept of it being a "in the now" and continuously adapting and changing notion. pg. 208

It's interesting how genre is defined as "reoccurring and in the now" when those who are only currently present in the situation can actually interpret it and give it significance. Pg. 207

Pg. 207 "recurrent, significant, and action reflects key insights into the nature of genre"

Page 207, "a genre represents a series of texts sharing features at the levels of content, form, and style"

Page 206, Smith suggested that textual practices {record keeping} remove from the individuals who use them much freedom of action and expression. Records not only constitute organizations but are also constituted by them and function as mechanisms of control. I find her statement to be truthful because the genre of medical record keeping provides rules and guidelines that prevent doctors from going off tangent which can lead to having a miscommunication (i.e. overlooking certain symptoms) that can potentially lead to serious consequences (i.e. misdiagnose).

Page 205, Record keeping according to Smith "the forms that externalize social consciousness in social practices, objectify reasoning, knowledge, memory, decision-making, judgement, evaluation..." From this I can infer that record keeping is a mode of communication between doctors that has turned into a language of its own.

Physicians and researchers use multimodal modes of communication when studying doctor and patient interactions, such as studying videotaping of these interactions rather than just reviewing the medical records taken during the interactions.

Page 205-206, according to Pettinari, medical records, besides providing a means of communication and planning, actually come to represent patients themselves. I found this statement very interesting and accurate because most doctors review your medical records and identify you by your previous diagnoses, even before they actually meet you face to face. The future of your health essentially depends on how well your doctor comprehends the genre of your medical record.

"the concept of genre, when viewed from rhetorical, dialectical, and dialogic perspectives, can illuminate much of the work and ideology of such textual practices (i.e. medical field)" page 204

Psychiatry, social work, and medicine are powerful communities that affect us all, so therefore there record keeping practices/methods are dire to how shaping our society. For example, if a new method of record keeping came to the discovery of a link between depression and lack of socializing, then that can have a huge impact on diagnosing patients with similar symptoms or even the type of treatments involved.

Page 204, "Why examine record keeping at all? Is the concept of 'genre' an accurate or useful way to theorize about these texts? Is genre a useful way to talk about the ways of speaking and writing characteristic of discourse communities?" When discussing genre, the main purpose is trying to figure out what will work according to certain conventions that you look for to identify what type of document it is. Genre is always in the now, continuously moving. Record keeping is a form of genre that continues to adapt and change according to its purpose or the type of information that is gathered. Especially medical records, because information from patients is constantly updating and being analyzed differently which involves proper organization.

On page 204, Schryer realizes that 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. But yet, Dr. L nor other members of the college really knew how much writing their students did. I find this contradictory because how can you claim that your students lack literacy skills when perhaps it's your own fault that they're aren't practicing their writing skills. What if the professors are assigning assignments that don't involve a lot of writing? Dr. L did state that he prefers short answer exams. If the assignments don't involve a lot of writing, then how can professors blame students for their lack of writing? Ironic.

On page 202, Schryer begins to organize his notes using "traditional ethnographic style" while also distinguishing observational ( more fact based) from analytical (more opinionated based) notes. From then he was able to subcategorize those notes (according to specific comments and documents) from which he realized how important medical record keeping was. I found this interesting because there are so many ways a note about a patient can be organized, with each category giving the information a distinctive meaning. So maybe this initial discovery in itself is Schryer expressing or forseshadowing how the organization involved in medical record keeping is related to that of utilizing your literacy skills to compose a report.

According to page 201-202, Dr. L states that he believes his students are lacking literacy skills and that it's especially obvious in their lab reports. He claims that most of their reports lack literacy because they connect key words to each other through drawing arrows instead of actually writing out in sentences how they're connected. I find this notion invalid because learning can be done through multimodal communication which isn't just limited to writing. Using symbols and pictures (like drawing arrows to connect words) are considered to be valid means to communicate a notion.