“Essays in Material Culture” uses a wide array of strange terminology: pedagogic sampler, significant sympathetic vibration, texture of engagement, and plenty more. It wasn’t impossible to gather meaning from it, just slightly challenging. It was tiring to have continually decipher the many phrases several times over in my head as I reread it, which was why I had started rewriting it in my wording. I felt that the general idea behind the essay was simple, but the way that the writer decided to communicate it was anything but. It was the way that the words were ordered and the degree of abstractness that brought me confusion on multiple occasions. This style of writing is simply one that I’m not too familiar with as opposed to the economic essay that we read in class.
“Is there racism in economic research? Research networks and discrimination research” also made use of higher tier diction, but I had little to no difficulty perusing through the text. Though the topic of the essay is also abstract, the researchers were able to produce some solid results. The essay described studies, models, included evidence and analyzed the results that followed. It was just a lot more straightforward. “Essays in Material Culture” purely described a conceptual process while the economics essay utilized a mix of conceptual ideas and scientific research, characteristics that are common in my typical readings.