Website/Audience Proposal

Paul Lutgen

Jeremy Branstad

English 102

13 March 2011

Audience Proposal

1)    In terms of my ‘ideal’ audience, my writing is for all genders and ages of people above 18 years, more specifically, people interested in science and the role museums play in one’s community.  My writing is based upon my service at the Discovery Center which I use to research my question about the effect an exhibit’s labels have on spectators.  I would not expect web surfers to stumble upon my blog and be totally fascinated and fixated about reading my writing; my writing is geared to speak to those working in a museum or the scientific field.  Typically those who are working in science museums have some sort of collegiate science background, therefore, will most likely find what I am talking about applicable and interesting to their situation and working career.  

2)      As briefly stated above, my target audience are those with an interest in scientific museums and should have some sort of background in the field, either working for a museum or some personal experience visiting museums and understanding each exhibit.  Because my research question is relatable to all interested, it is applicable to those with a simple understanding and those with an in depth understanding.  Readers can read what I am communicating and can either agree or disagree, or they can get as technical as they want about the issue I am talking about, and can go into as much reading and research as they can find.  That is the advantage of my research question, those reading it able to get as serious with the material as they wish.

3)      Generally, I am anticipating many of my readers will not thought about this topic before in a way that I am looking at it.  I believe labels are a majorly overlooked subject in the way information is communicated in a museum setting.  Therefore if readers have not read much or if any information on this subject, I imagine they would be interested as I was when stumbling upon this idea in my research I was doing early this year.  The two responses I expect to receive are…

a.       Wow, I never thought of labels as having such an impact in the way intelligent conversation is carried about in a museum.

b.      Labels do not play as big of a role as you are making it out to be, labels are not that big of a deal and the visual aspects of an exhibit far out-weigh the effect of a well stated label.

I know that there will be skeptics who will not agree with me; however I believe there will be more who do agree based on the evidence I provide.  The types of responses modeled by response “b” are seen in any type of research done and generally come from those uneducated about the topic and do not have experience in museum field.  Therefore, I will make sure I provide enough information so that all people outside of my target audience are able to identify with what I am speaking towards.

4)      The ‘gist’ of my sources relates to my research question in their individual and specific ways, yet all sources are not talking about the same topic.  For example two or three of my sources speak specifically about labels in museums and the role those labels play; however my other sources speak towards the aspect of teaching in museums as a form of student learning.  Stemming off the aspect of student learning, I did research on the ways students with learning disabilities are labeled and how that affects their opportunities in being taught new information.  Primarily I will use the sources which speak directly to my research question, however I think it is important to identify other aspects of a museum that are very beneficial to student learning.  And in that student learning, the ability to reach out and connect with those labeled with a ‘learning disability.’  I believe these sources, which are different, relate to each other creating a balance in my writing more applicable to my readers.

5)      Using a web service as the primary medium of connecting with an audience, I believe the most important thing a writer can do to captivate their viewers, is to create a web page that is 3 things: simple, organized having flow, and unique.  If I can accomplish those 3 things to create a web page that is unlike any other, while being simple and organized, why would a viewer travel to any other site?  I know this personally when I am researching information on the web, if I stumble upon a page that is clogged up and messy, I will not bother reading the material or seek further investigation.  Having a point, and making that point concise without any extra bullshit will communicate that I know what I am talking about and will not waste the readers time.  When people are reading for understanding, they want the main points to be clear and the information to be neat; in this way I can be more successful in connecting with my audience.  

6)      In response to my sources, my stance will be fairly neutral at the beginning of the essay, then more focused and conclusive nearing the end.  In this way, I am not communicating my one sided approach of my research question but instead a more fundamental way of thinking an issue over before drawing conclusions.  I aim to communicate my ideas through the combination of multiple sources to identify how labels influence the way people experience an exhibit; at the same time making those exhibits accessible to learning impaired children.  Defining my role as an informer, my audience will receive lots of evidence supporting my ideas.  What led me to my particular claim would be my curiosity for how one interacts with an exhibit, when I was a child I would often build Legos, carefully following instructions.  I believe the same concepts are used today in how people view exhibits, however there is a twist when instructions do not give plain answers, but thought provoking questions and ideas.  In this way, visitors will be fascinating with the concept of science and its demonstrations.