1. The following extracts in Box 28.10 show writing in different styles by the sociologist Kathy Charmaz. The first comes from an article in which she demonstrates that placement in a moral hierarchy of suffering affects whether and how an ill person's stories will be heard. The second is for an academic journal article about the experience of chronic illness.

Compare and contrast the narrative voice, textual quality and 'empirical facts' in these two extracts. How, in each case, does the writer achieve authority and persuasiveness? What are the rhetorical aspects of each extract? How does the writer appeal to the reader and how much emotion does she evoke in each piece. Why might she have done this?

Box 28.10. Two contrasting styles of reporting Style 1 Imagine Christine walking slowly and determinedly up the short sidewalk to my house. See her bent knees and lowered head as she takes deliberate steps. Christine looks weary and sad, her face as burdened with care as her body is encumbered by pain and pounds. Always large, she is heavier than I have ever seen her, startlingly so. Christine has a limited education; she can hardly read. Think of her trying to make her case for immediate treatment – without an advocate. Christine can voice righteous indignation, despite the fatigue and pain that saps her spirit and drains her energy. She can barely get through her stressful workday, yet she must work as many hours as possible because she earns so little. (Charmaz, 1999: 363) Style 2 A rhetoric of self claims certain attributes, values, and beliefs about past and/or present self as defining it (see also Riessman, 1990). This rhetoric makes truth claims, posits a specific logic, and aims to sway views. Serious illness raises questions about self and identity. People who once could take their personal and social identities as givens now may need to reclaim or revise them. The identity claims embedded in illness stories form the basis for a rhetoric of self. (Charmaz, 2002: 302)

2. Choose articles reporting two research studies, one largely quantitative, the other largely qualitative. If possible, they should be on similar subjects. How do they compare in terms of structure (look at the subheadings) and rhetorical devices to persuade the reader of the author's point of view? How are data and theory used in each one?