Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Antimicrobial Resistance (Sources (Sources that provide Ethos i.e doctors…
Antimicrobial Resistance
Initial Stakehold
A microbiologist, a student, a researcher. While this stake hold is well informed, it is cold and inhuman. Not everyone can relate to studying in my field, so this strategy is not ideal.
Evolved stakehold
An individual whose longevity and well being depends on AMR being address and new antibiotics to be created. I can use this new stakehold to connect with my audience (Rogerian) this common ground of both wanting to survive and be healthy allows them to have an emotional stake in my argument
Sources
-
Scientific Journals
These sources offered new information to me, specifically the sources by Wenner and van der Honert. After reading these I realized that AMR is extremely multi-causal, leading me to new avenues of research into the many different causes
I chose to use scientific journals because they offered new information to me, mostly statistics and graphs to cite
I wanted to use scientific journals because they are peer reviewed and published, making them reputable scientific sources
Websites
My website sources changed my perspective on how AMR should be treated, and perhaps if AMR is not as urgent as previously thought. Sources by Waglechner and Skwarecki led me to the alteration of my perspective on how AMR should be solved, and if we are currently doing what's best to fight AMR, specifically Waglechner's work contradicted my other findings
I chose these sources to be lumped together because they all had opinions or information that challenged my perception of AMR
Audience Evolved
Primarily, I thought my audience to be any person who would be affected by AMR
Seeing as the scope would be too large, I've shrunken my audience to people who are very ill, or require functioning antibiotics regularly, e.g. cancer patients.
However, I felt like there wasn't enough information available on immunocompromised cancer patients for me to reach out to them specifically. Additionally, I don't want to frighten someone who is very ill.
I decided that my best chance of reaching an audience who I can relate to, and who is also directly affected by AMR though not as seriously as a cancer or AIDS patient would is my peers and fellow college students
college students are at risk for sexually transmitted diseases, and gonorrhea has now reached urgent resistant levels, leaving just one class of drugs left to treat it (Antimicrobial).
-
-
I decided to alter my stakehold after realizing that it would be hard to develop an emotional connection with my audience. I want to seem as similar to my intended audience as possible, and because my audience shifted to students who use the CSU medical health center, I felt like coming to them as a fellow student is a smarter stratedgy and more compassionate.
My research is linked to both my evolved stakehold & thesis in that it made me realize that my supplemental information is very clinical & in order for my argument to be more effective I needed to develop my thesis and stakehold on a more personal level
My research and investigation motivated me to alter my direct audience in that the more I tried to find info on immuno-compromised individuals of NOCO the less feasible reaching that audience felt. College students are responsible for their own health and the future of medicine, so I feel like this issue has exigence for them just as much as any other group of people.
My thesis statement was directly altered by the changing of my audience and my research. I felt my new thesis statement targets college students better and holds them more responsible for AMR. My research allowed my thesis statement to be more direct and informed.