The health of children is among the primary concerns when addressing nutrition in many conversations. The concern is always about how the food is given to 'the future generations' to affect their lives in the future. Lack of food is noted by many professionals and paraprofessionals and every common joe, to cause malnutrition, and in severe cases, lead to death. On the other hand, access to plenty of foods is commended, but the question is thence on the quality and efficacy of promoting healthy living. This analysis aims to explore the differences and similarities in two articles written about the subject of nutrition in children. One source is academic, while the other is non-academic, a reaction paper from a concerned individual. In this analysis, the objective is to understand both writings styles, language, and rhetoric styles. As stated, the two papers explore the subject of child nutrition in varying depths, with various similarities and stark differences.
A Comparative Analysis of Two Article on Child Nutrition
Introduction
Child health is linked to many developmental factors, but the most important is nutrition that meets all the dietary requirements. This analysis will dwell on understanding the scope, style, language, and thesis of two arguments, made on different platforms: one a magazine, the other a journal. The two articles are: "Kids and nutrition: Healthy caution needed," written by The Austin American-Statesman, Texas, on December 31, 1998, as a New Year resolution. It appeared in their magazine on the same date. The second article is "Scaling up international food aid: food delivery alone cannot solve the malnutrition crisis," written by Virginia Barbour and her colleagues. It is a journal article, appearing in PLoS Medicine Journal in November 2008. This analysis will follow the Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion (IMRaD) model. The citation used will be the CSE format. I will use simple jargon, an analytic language approach for both texts. I will ensure that the language is simple to understand, formal, and in an active voice. All my references will be from the two articles. In the case that I have a direct quotation, credits will be given alongside the respective page number for ease of reading and reference for other readers.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Method
As noted, the two articles: Kids and Nutrition: Healthy caution needed by Austin American-Statesman editorial team and Scaling up international food aid: food delivery alone cannot solve the malnutrition crisis by Barbour et al. were selected for this analysis. The articles were obtained from Durham Technical Community College online databases, Gale In Contexts, Global Issues section. The research was done using the Google Chrome search engine. The search term used to obtain the two articles was "child nutrition." Thence, the search period was narrowed from 1998 to 2008, a period of ten years. Since the focus was on child nutrition, the same term was used to find the magazine article and the journal article. Both articles were then read, focusing on identifying their similarity in context, message, similarities, and differences.
Results
The article by Barbour et al. (2008) was first analyzed. The paper was a response paper, with a qualitative approach in the analysis of the meeting about child health in developing countries, held in New York by Columbia University's Institute of Human Nutrition and the humanitarian organization Médecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) (Barbour et al. 2008, pg. 1). The article was divided into two sections, the first discussing the factors related to child nutrition and the prevailing approach by donors and the international organizations in combating the problem. The focus was on the quality, not the quantity of the food. Barbour et al. 's main argument in the first section was that food was important in determining children's health in poor and developing countries with evidence of child hunger, and quality had to be maintained and efficacy, sustainability, and cost. They argued for seeking long-term solutions to the problem in the mid-section of the paper. They then concluded by reinstating their thesis and asking the humanitarian and nongovernmental organizations to continue and increase the quantity of their support to combat the issue while seeking long-term alternatives.
The paper was qualitative in approach, a content analysis of the ideas discussed during the conference above. The active voice and the technicality of the language used in the paper show that the target audience was an informed lot, understanding how child nutrition affects child growth. Their argument also shows that they targeted policymakers and implementers. For example, one statement read: "Addressing the role of food aid in long-term efforts will require answering some difficult questions including which basic determinants of malnutrition should be the major focus and who should coordinate the global response to the malnutrition crisis" (Barbour et al. 2008, pg. 3). The lack of visual aid showed that the paper was objective and specified for a technical audience. A picture was not necessary to stress the severity of the issue in question.
The second article by Austin American-Statesman was analyzed second. It was relatively short and less of a narrative than a summary of the editorial team's major concerns. Like the first paper, the author had a definitive thesis: "Let's quit poisoning the
children." (Austin American-Statesman, 1998, pg. 1). Following his simple language and a simplified summary of some important findings from technical research papers, this paper's audience was the common readers. Also, the length was two-pages, meaning that it was intended to be a fast-read magazine with similar important issues. The jargon used was informal and almost comic, yet critical and serious. For example, they state: "Decisions about what and how children eat are largely made in corporate and ad-agency board rooms, where health isn't always the priority." (Austin American-Statesman, 1998, pg. 1). This statement's informal nature shows that the author wanted to summarize a larger point (the fact that marketing of products is made under the topic of business of profits and losses, and not upon the analysis of the health concerns of these products). Also, there are no specific references to support the points, and they state that the statements presented are "sampling from a buffet of recent unhappy nutrition bulletins" (Austin American-Statesman, 1998, pg. 1).
Discussion
The major differences in these articles include the depth of their analyses, their intended audience, their mode and language of communication, their chosen style of delivery, the content of their information, and their conclusion. Both articles reference academic sources, with Barbour et al. being specific that Austin American-Statesman. The academic paper was well written, with well-structured arguments. For example, it led its discussion with topic statements that stood as a single paragraph to guide the major discussion. For instance: "The child hunger crisis includes a knowledge crisis" and "Donor-supported food programs are not enough as a long-term strategy." (Barbour et al. 2008, pg. 1-2). These statements are complete in themselves, and they include a clear point of argument supported in the subsequent analysis. The magazine article was simple, with a simplified summary of academic findings and written with a common audience's intentions. I noted that they both used active voices and no pictures. I was satisfied with their analysis of qualitative content. I think their similarities are more than their differences. In a way, the argument by Barbour et al. 2008 can be considered an expansion of the article by the Austin American-Statesman. Both articles serve to inform and call to action, which is important for everyone, whether in the common population or within the scientific fraternity.
Another difference is in the scope of inference for both papers. The magazine article summarizes most points instead of explaining them in greater details. This short explanation and analysis mean that the writer intends the paper to be read with an open mind for further inquisition. The article is also reflective of a single state: Texas, and its health condition. On the other hand, the paper by Barbour et al. covers a global scope, with references drawn from research articles from countries like Ethiopia, Tanzania, among others. The language is also different, though all written in active voice. Barbour et al. uses a simple yet specific and convincing formal tone, with jargons such as ‘can’t’ and ‘isn’t’ not appearing anywhere to reflect its academic nature and informed audience. On the other hand, the magazine article used a language of informality, mixed with formal statements to appeal to the common reader. The fact that Austin American-Statesman writers summarize their points in bullet form mean that they expect the readers to have a glance of their argument, and tie a quick conclusion with limited analysis of the prevailing facts. This is characteristic of magazine articles written for a quick-read. On the other hand, Barbour et al. ensures that their paper meets the academic standards, and references are numbers, and placed strategically as required in academic styles.
References
Barbour, Virginia, et al. "Scaling up international food aid: food delivery alone cannot solve themalnutrition crisis." PLoS Medicine, vol. 5, no. 11, 2008, p. 1525+. Gale In Context: Global Issues, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A202254700/GIC?u=durham_tccl&sid=GIC&xid=da901971.Accessed 20 Oct. 2020.
"Kids and nutrition: Healthy caution needed." Austin American-Statesman [TX], 31 Dec. 1998, p. A12. Gale In Context: Global Issues, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A67182155/GIC?u=durham_tccl&sid=GIC&xid=630ffe76. Accessed 20 Oct. 2020.
