Analyzing a Document's Situation

This assignment was done for module #7 for the discussion Writing, Editing, and Thinking Critically. 

​

We were tasked with thinking critically about rhetorical aims of texts and how we as writers and editors navigate and respond to those aims.

I analyzed the situation of a document entitled, "What is Open Heart Surgery?", along with providing possible revisions. The original document is pictured below. 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Origin:

The origin of the document is to provide the answer to a common question asked of heart surgeons, which is “what is open heart surgery?” The document is intended to target both patients and families. The origin is to bridge a gap, and like other technical documents essentially solve a problem. The problem in this case would be lack of knowledge about the surgery.

​

Impact:

The impact of this document should be fairly substantial. This is because it is helping to clarify on a topic that could result in further harm or death. It is not meant to scare readers, but neutrally inform them of the reality of the situation. While open heart surgery has many benefits, there are equal if not more risks.

​

Readers/Previous Knowledge/Emotional State:

The main readers of this document are both the patients undergoing heart surgery and their families. While each party may be looking for different types of knowledge, they are all working towards the same overall goal of becoming informed. The levels of previous knowledge may range, but the readers will most likely have a very limited foundational understanding. The most common reaction when hearing the term “open heart surgery” is dread and fear, so this document should try to balance that by educating about both the good and bad. The emotional states of the readers will also vary, as patients may oftentimes be more fearful than families. Regardless, all readers will be filled with some amount of negativity while reading the document just because of the gravity of the topic.

​

Document Usability:

As previously stated, the readers are looking to become more enlightened and bridge the gap of knowledge. The document is sort of a mix between a technical report and a newsletter. That is actually good because it is important to maintain a serious and also upbeat tone for neutrality. Readers may use the document to skim quickly or read from start to finish. For this reason, diction and syntax should be direct and concise. Any technical terms should be briefly defined, and unnecessary information should be cut out so the reader does not become distracted.

Reader Cultures:

This document is meant to be given out in the surgeon’s office, which means that people of various cultures and backgrounds will have access to it. Another reason for the document’s language to be simple is so that it can be easily translated into another language if needed. It would be difficult to predict all reader cultures, so it is vital for the writer to avoid any opinion-based information. Keeping the material factual will deter from creating nuances of meaning or the readers becoming offended.

​

Accessibility Issues:

It is possible that a large subgroup of the targeted audience would be elderly because open heart surgery is more common among them. For this reason, the document should be printed in font that is easily discernible in both size and color. The document should strive to be as inclusive as possible, but it is also important to take into consideration what the majority of the audience would require.

​

Constraints on Development and Production:

Since this document will be printed on 8.5x11 paper, it will be important to establish budget on printing and materials. If there are any other similar documents that are released to patients, it is important to mirror that format for consistency. I have seen a wall of pamphlets in a lot of doctor’s offices, so if there is more than one document, cohesion is key.

Possible Revisions:

There are quite a few revisions that I think would benefit this document, which are listed below.

• Section headings could help structure and organize the information better. It would also help with the wordiness since the reader can get lost at times.

• The first two paragraphs can be cut way down to reduce the amount of fluff information. Some history is important, but just a few sentence’s worth.

• The information could be sorted in a way that includes information in both paragraph and list form. The paragraphs would provide detailed information, and the list would provide a better visual of steps of the surgery, risks, treatment options, etc.

• The document is intended to be printed on 8.5x11” paper and folded in half, however I do not see how that would be logical. If the document is folded vertically (hot-dog style), then the information should be presented in two columns to fit this aesthetic. If the document is folded horizontally (hamburger style), then the document should be structured in a way that situates the fold in between sections so no information gets cut off.

• Overall, I think the author’s choices on diction and syntax were poor. Sentences had too many conjunctions and prepositions at times, and the sentences became run-on. I don’t think the document could be cut down to one sentence, but it definitely could be reworded to be more straightforward.