Ali Lantz

9 December 2019

Chemistry and History: Two Views on the Analysis of Cheesemaking

When writing an article outlining a specific topic in a specific discipline, a writer must hit

several points to ensure that the writing itself fits the specific genre conventions for the discipline

and reaches the right audience, or discourse community, it is looking for. The article “Rennet

Coagulation and Cheesemaking Properties of Thermally Processed Milk: Overview and Recent

Developments,” showcases the process of cheesemaking through the view of somebody studying

chemistry. On the other hand, the article “A Brief History of Innovation in New Zealand

Cheesemaking” shows a historical take on the process of cheesemaking. These two articles

provide an in depth look at the process of cheesemaking through the use of argument made,

analysis of sources, audience in mind, and organization of information. Using the point of view

of two separate discourse communities highlights the differences between scholarly communities

and how those differences are created.

While writing the article, two very different aspects are looked at in regard to what

exactly is being examined, which provides additional insight into how the discourse communities

differ. Kethireddipalli and Hill analyze the cheesemaking properties of thermodynamically

processed milk and the chemistry and rennet coagulation that goes along with it.1 In the

introduction the authors state the main purpose of the article which shows that they will be

diving into the chemical aspects of cheesemaking. While they are attempting to give an overview

1
Prashanti Kethireddipalli and Arthur R Hill, "Rennet Coagulation and Cheesemaking Properties of Thermally
Processed Milk: Overview and Recent Developments,"​ Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry​ 63, no. 43
(2015): 9389.
of these processes, the audience can see that the article is going to be very technical. This

technicality reveals that the questions discussed will involve more data to support theories rather

than straight facts which shows preciseness and its intent for an audience in the field of

chemistry. In contrast, Johnston, Barclay, and Honoré are interested in looking at the actual

process of cheesemaking in New Zealand and how this production has changed over the years.

They want to show their audience that “cheese manufacturing has undergone continuous change

in process and types of cheese produced.”2 Since the article is looking more towards a historical

view, the author's simple statement shows that anyone can read and get a better understanding of

this topic. The analysis in the history paper is going to be revealed in a way that the average

person could grasp the main point of the article and learn something new without the need to

understand complex questions or ideas. While Kethireddipalli and Hill have a very specific and

wordy research topic to let readers know that the analysis is going to be deep and intellectual,

Johnston has a more light question to let the audience know that the reading is within the scope

of most people's intellectual ability. This difference between the argument made and the

accompanying analysis shows how the discourse community in the field of chemistry is more

consolidated, objective, and high-strung while the historical discourse community is more open

and inviting towards new learners which highlights the unique ways that the two academic

communities differ in their way of delivering information through writing.

For the two scholarly articles, the way sources are incorporated into the article itself is

very different for each of the disciplines. Kethireddipalli and Hill make use of direct numbers

and statistics to convey their findings. The authors include statistics such as when talking about

2
​Keith Johnston, Alister Barclay, and Craig Honoré, "A Brief History of Innovation in New Zealand
Cheesemaking," ​Australian Journal of Dairy Technology ​65, no. 3 (2010): 122.
the correlation between gel strength and content of soluble calcium saying “the lower gel

strength was found to be correlated with a lower content of soluble calcium and rennet

coagulation was prevented when [Ca2+] was reduced by about 40%.” They also use data tables

throughout the article to organize their information into one place for others in the field to look

over and draw their own conclusion.3 ​The specifics of the evidence included infers that the

article was written for someone in the same field. While writing for others in the same field, the

discourse community remains closed off and very complicated.​ ​The historical article takes a

different approach to analyzing the evidence they are providing. Johnston takes a look at the

historical figures and facts of the cheesemaking industry throughout the years. The authors

examine where certain processes originated and who was a part of the adoption of these

processes. This can be observed when the authors note that “New Zealand was the first country

to ‘officially’ adopt the Babcock test, developed at the University of Wisconsin, US, in 1890 by

Dr Stephen Babcock.”4 The authors included this information as a fact that was discovered

during the research process of this article and is written as simple and straightforward

information. It was included to highlight specific information on the history of different

processes of cheesemaking. The scientific article uses direct numbers and statistics to show facts

and explain processes whereas the historical article uses facts that were researched to push the

purpose of the article across. Although both of them are using what could be considered facts,

the nature of the facts provided is what sets them apart. The difference in the content changes

how the authors analyze and present the information and form it into an argument. Reading an

argument based on statistics sends a different message than reading an article based on historical

3
​Kethireddipalli and Hill, “Rennet Coagulation,” 9391.
4
​Johnston, Barclay, and Honoré, “A Brief History,” 123.
information and further provides insight into the different writing styles of the discourse

communities and how the communities differ as a whole. Where the historians wants to spread

information they gathered to the public to gain more knowledge, the chemists intend to keep

their writing within the specified discourse community.

In the two articles on cheesemaking, the different discourse communities have different

audiences in mind which outlines the differences in the communities as a whole. When writing

the article, Kethireddipalli and Hill assume a prior knowledge of chemistry for their audience.

Throughout the article, words are continually used that would make no sense to someone who is

not averse to chemistry, or someone who has had no training relating to the matter. They

continue with the use of words such as “precipitate,” “pH,” and “ultrafiltration,” which, to the

average person, would mean nothing.5 Someone who has had some training in chemistry, or

someone who has taken a few introductory courses, may be able to understand these words,

making the article more directed towards them. Johnson, Barclay, and Honoré take their article

in a different direction. The article is written for anyone who wants to learn more about the

history aspect of cheesemaking and therefore defines any words or phrases that could be

confusing to non-historians. These are typically defined within the same sentence they appear for

the first time so the audience does not have to guess and can understand the concepts as they are

being introduced. After introducing two areas that might not be common knowledge, they are

immediately defined. When trying to explain that there are two main areas that cheese comes

from, they note that there is “Taranaki, in the west of the North Island, and Banks Peninsula, in

the east of the South Island.”6 These distinctions throughout the article make it easier for a less

5
​Kethireddipalli and Hill, “Rennet Coagulation,” 9390-91
6
​Johnston, Barclay, and Honoré, “A Brief History,” 123.
informed audience to follow along. The different ways of approaching foreign concepts is

another way that the two discourse communities differ in the style of writing and writing

produced that relates to a specific topic. This difference shows that the discourse community of

chemistry writers only looks to inform others in the group and remain closed off to other readers

while the historical discourse community is more open to spreading knowledge to those who

want to learn.

The organization of information is one of the most similar aspects of these two articles.

Both use subheadings to organize their thoughts into different sections, however, the way that

these subheadings are used for organization and how the authors go about this organization are

quite different. Kethireddipalli and Hill use subheadings for each specific purpose that relates to

the topic of the writing. Some of these subheadings include “Chemistry of Milk Heated at

temperatures up to 100 degrees C” and “Impaired Rennet Coagulation Properties of Thermally

Treated Milk” which keeps up with the articles reputation of being technical and scientific.7 The

specific subheadings help the audience know what each section is talking about specifically, but

would be no help to someone without prior knowledge. The subheadings divide the paper very

literally and are meant mostly to keep track of where concepts are being brought up. Johnston,

Barclay, and Honoré use subheadings slightly differently. They organize the article into four

sections: early years, middle years, later years and future years.8 This allows readers to

understand the flow of their writing better and see the connections they make between the time

periods. Where the article detailing the scientific aspects of cheesemaking focuses on breaking

down the different chemical processes, the article focusing on the history breaks down the

7
​Kethireddipalli and Hill, “Rennet Coagulation,” 9390-91.
8
​Johnston, Barclay, and Honoré, “A Brief History,” 123-27.
different time periods relating to the production of cheese. Because the two articles focus on

different disciplines, the subheadings will also break down in relation to those disciplines. This

difference sheds light on the true difference between what is being broken down throughout the

articles and what the author's main focus is depending on the area of study. The subheadings are

another example of how the different discourse communities use different styles and content of

writing to share their findings with readers.

All in all, different disciplines write articles for their specified topics using different

points of view in relation to the argument made, analysis of sources, audience in mind, and

organization of information. Even though articles may be examining the same topic, the

information within and the style of writing it is portrayed in greatly depends on the discourse

community the writing is meant for. An article written for the discipline of chemistry may focus

on the data found through experiments and use words meant for other people with background

knowledge of chemistry while an article written for the discipline of history will focus more on

dates and people that influence the topic they are writing about with language that can be

comprehended by anyone who is looking to gather more knowledge on the subject.

 Bibliography

Johnston, Keith, Alister Barclay, and Craig Honoré. "A Brief History of Innovation in New

Zealand Cheesemaking." ​Australian Journal of Dairy Technology​ 65, no. 3 (2010):

122-27.

Kethireddipalli, Prashanti, and Arthur R Hill. "Rennet Coagulation and Cheesemaking Properties

of Thermally Processed Milk: Overview and Recent Developments."​ Journal of

Agricultural and Food Chemistry​ 63, no. 43 (2015): 9389-9403.