Final QRG

I can't believe it's all done. Here's a link to the final draft of my Quick Reference Guide on the fracking controversy.

Ritt, Stefan. "Canada's fireworks at the 2013 Celebration of Light in Vancouver, BC"
7/31/2013 via Google Images. Public Domain License.

Draft of Quick Reference Guide

Here lies the guide to everything you ever wanted to know about fracking. Yes, this blog post contains the first draft of my controversy's quick reference guide.

Heath, Terrance. "typos" 6/19/2013 via Flickr. Attribution-Non Commercial License.

To the peer reviewers: I hope I didn't do this completely wrong, but if I did, let me know in a nice way. I worked way harder than I should have on this first draft but I don't think that's a bad thing at all. The main thing I'm concerned with is that I might be going into too much depth for a QRG, so if you feel that way, make it apparent and maybe give me some hints. Also, I'd like to know if I'm being too formal or informal. Just tell me something as I want to know if I wasted time putting my heart and soul into this draft.

Oh yeah, here's the link.

Practicing Quoting

Using another person's idea within your own writing requires a proper citation so that person can receive the credit they deserve. This blog post includes a screenshot of a paragraph where I introduce two quotes with differing claims in a proper format.

Wieder, Tobin "Screenshot for 'Practicing Quoting' Blog Post" 9/19/2015 via GoogleDocs.

The following key explains the meaning of each color highlighted:

Signal phrases

Establishing authority

Putting source in effective context

Ellipses and brackets

QRGs: the Genre

Stefan "The droids we're googling for" 7/23/2009 via Flickr. Attribution-Non Commercial License.

Writing in a specific genre requires an understanding of this genre's conventions so that the work can best match its intent. In this blog post I will analyze the conventions of the Quick Reference Guide through responses to specific questions.

What do the conventions of this genre - the Quick Reference Guide - seem to be?

The convention that stood out to me the most was its similarity to a blog post. Although the articles are longer than blogs, there is a lot of white space so ideas can be organized and readable. Graphics and images are prevalent as well. Another main convention is the use of headings in different fonts to separate ideas and guide the reader. Hyperlinks are also frequent throughout the articles.

How are those conventions defined by the author's formatting and design choices?

The subject of the article guides how the author uses these conventions in their design. Articles about a specific event included more quotes, images, and texts with different font, where articles with a more professional topic provided more charts and hyperlinks to display and cite the information given. All authors of QRGs leave blank space through the frequent use of paragraphs so that the article is more visually appealing and readable.

What does the purpose of these QRGs seem to be?

Quick Reference Guides seem to be a way for a reader to understand the what is going on with respect to a certain topic. QRGs are organized so anyone can browse the article and learn about the subject or find an answer to a question they might already have, easily.

Who is the intended audience for these QRGs? Are they all intended for similar audiences? Or different? How and why?

The intended audience of a QRG is anyone who wants to learn about a certain topic. They target anyone who comes across the article and finds the information interesting and worth reading about, so no prior knowledge is required to understand its content. All QRGs address different topics so its audience will vary based on who is interested in the subject and what they want to learn about.

How do the QRGs use imagery or visuals? Why do you think they use them in this way?

QRGs about events usually use images to portray what the article is talking about in a different perspective than just words. QRGs with a more professional topic, whether it be the economy or scientific finding, tend to use graphics like charts and graphs to represent the data and information being discussed in the guide. Visuals are mostly used to make the text more interesting to read as they provide a new perspective on the information given in the article.


Reflection: After reading Ayra, Savannah, and Brandon's posts, I'm again reminded that this is a blog that I'm running and everything doesn't have to be in strictly paragraphs. Savannah and Brandon used lists which made the post much easier to read and left little room for questioning what they meant. I think I could have definitely been more concise in my answers so I plan on changing my formatting accordingly in the future.

Cluster of My Controversy

Controversies that exist on such a public scale have countless layers of arguments, supporters, and evidence that can be hard to organize. This blog post includes my attempt at making a cluster map of the fracking controversy using Coggle.

kurtxio. "Web" 12/24/2007 via Flickr. Attribution License.

Creating this cluster was difficult for me as I'm not very tech savvy, but Coggle made it pretty simple.

First, I separated the two sides of the argument where I then mentioned their major supporters and where/how they have promoted their ideals. The most important aspect of a controversy are both sides' main points, so I made branches for each argument and elaborated a bit so their meaning in the fracking debate is clear.


Reflection: After seeing Nick and Mika's cluster maps, I realized that I could have put more detail into the branches in my own cluster. Nick's map was different because it separated branches based on pieces of evidence and then connected it to the argument, so that mad me rethink how a mind map could be organized. Mika's map was made through Coggle like mine, however his also included quotes and elaborated pieces of evidence on each branch. I like that my cluster map was organized so I know what each branch is leading to, however I know now that I could have put a little more effort in elaborating on each main point so I could use it later in the final project of this research on fracking. I learned that mind mapping can be very useful in outlining an idea so more effort should be put into explanations on each branch so less work needs to be done when making the final writing product.

Annotated Bibliography in MLA Style

Bull3t Hughes "World Wide Web" 8/3/2007 via Flickr. Attribution License.

The following blog post includes an annotated bibliography for the six sources I've found in three of my previous blog posts that pertain to the controversy within my discipline which is the debate on fracking. Each source is cited in MLA format with a paragraph summary to go along with it.

Source I:

AmSciMag. "#WaterQuality Issues From #Fracking incl. Water Footprint + Water Contamination - Avner Vengosh: bit.ly/1WJN2DX." 29 Aug. 2015, 10:31 a.m. Tweet.

American Science Magazine tweeted this so they could inform their followers of a recent interview with fracking expert, Avner Vengosh, about the safety hazards that result from this process (mostly water-related). The tweet includes a link to the full interview where Vengosh discusses the environmental impact that fracking has while also touching on the EPA's role in the regulation on the process and what needs to be done to ensure its safety. This source provides a political and environmental platform for the opposition to fracking that I can use to show what the controversy is based on. 

Source II:

Fuller, Dawn. "UC Doctoral Student's Research Digs Deep into the Fracking Controversy." University of Cincinnati. University of Cincinnati, 4/11/2011. Web. 10 Sept. 2015.

This article seeks to inform of the research that Deborah Kittner, a doctoral student at the University of Cincinnati, did on fracking. The article introduces the fracking process and the concerns that people have with its possible correlation with ground water contamination that makes it a controversy. The article also discusses the fracking industry's collaboration with the EPA to evaluate the system and make it environmentally safe. This article will be used to format how I first introduce the fracking controversy and the concerns with both sides.

Source III:

Jackson, Robert B., Avner Vengosh, J. William Carey, Richard J. Davies, Thomas H. Darrah, Francis O'sullivan, and Gabrielle Pétron. "The Environmental Costs and Benefits of Fracking." Annual Review of Environment and Resources 39.1 (2014): 327-62. Web. 11 Sept. 2015.

The purpose of this article is to lay out the environmental advantages and disadvantages of fracking. The article mentions the costs and benefits in cases of both safe and unsafe practices of the energy extraction process while discussing the regulations that need to be made to ensure its proper output and reduce environmental damages. A major point in the article is that fracking does output greenhouse gases and other toxins into the air, however a switch from oil to natural gas would reduce that output already. This article will be used as a foundation for the environmental aspect of the debate, so I can bring about concerns and potential benefits that come with fracking.


Source IV:

Maxwell-Gaines, Chris (waterthrift). "EPA Study: No evidence that hydraulic fracturing (fracking) has led to widespread pollution of drinking water - http://ht.ly/Q6Kww." 19 Aug. 2015, 12:04 p.m. Tweet.

Maxwell-Gaines composed this tweet to inform and persuade his followers that fracking is safe in its effects on drinking water, revoking the claim by most anti-frackers that it does cause contamination. He uses the EPA's study as a means of securing his claim and supporting the use of fracking. The EPA study in the link provided in the tweet claims that there is no systematic contamination to the drinking water nearby fracking operations, however the study's reliability is still in question by several environmental organizations and remains to be published officially. This tweet and linked source will be used to show public view on the process and any given individual's willingness to site a source that supports their side of the debate, whether it be completely reliable or not.

Source V:

Morrison, Jessica. "Uneven State Rules And Trade Secrets Fuel Fracking Debate." Chemical and Engineering News. American Chemical Society, 16 Mar. 2015. Web. 10 Sept. 2015.

The purpose of this article is to inform the reader of the fracking industries' reluctance to reveal the chemical composition of the fluid used in their process and how this obscurity is fueling the debate over the process. The article mentions new state laws that are forcing the companies to reveal this information however they seem to find a way around them. The article discusses how the secrets being kept by the companies have made it harder for people to have faith in the process. This source will be used as a major example of what the fracking industry is doing to propel the controversy.

Source VI: 

Osborn, S. G., A. Vengosh, N. R. Warner, and R. B. Jackson. "Methane Contamination of Drinking Water Accompanying Gas-well Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108.20 (2011): 8172-176. Web. 11 Sept. 2015.

The purpose of this article is to convey the results of a study done by the authors on the methane contamination in wells near fracking operations. The researchers took samples from 68 drinking water aquifers in Pennsylvania and New York near natural gas extraction plants and tested them for their pH and chemical content. They found that there was a systematic increase in methane concentration as proximity to fracking sites increased. The article has no bias, as it is a scholarly research study, however it communicates fracking as being dangerous in its contamination of drinking water. This source will be used as an example for the anti-fracking position's main argument against the process.


Source VII:

Channel 4 News. "Fracking debate: 'How dare you lie on national TV?'" YouTube. YouTube, 26 Jan. 2014. Web. 16 Sept. 2015.

The purpose of the video is to show two leaders in the debate over fracking in the UK and their argument for their side. Chris Lilley and Vanessa Vine go back and forth over the health/environmental impacts of fracking and no agreement is reached, however Lilley does bring about a strong argument on the economic benefits of the process. This video can definitely be used to portray the debate over fracking as exactly that: a debate.


Source VIII:

Coleman, Jesse. "Documents Reveal EPA's National Fracking Study Halted by Industry Pressure." HuffingtonPost.com. The Huffington Post, 5 Mar 2015. Web. 17 Sept. 2015.

The purpose of the article is to show the controversy and the progress, or lack there of, of coming to a resolution to the debate. It is meant to show the fracking industry's influence in government studies and how it is preventing a conclusion to the water safety aspect of the argument. Major findings of the article show industries' limiting and completely shutting down some studies by the EPA, showing their intentions in hiding results that could shut them down. This article will be used to show the little progress that this controversy is making and what is exactly propelling the debate.


Source IX:

Osterman, Cynthia. "Documentary 'Gasland' Pivotal to Anti-Fracking Movement: Study" nytimes.com. The New York Times, 2 Sept. 2015. Web. 17 Sept. 2015.

The purpose of the article is to summarize studies done nationwide about the documentary, "Gasland", and its impact in mobilizing the anti-fracking movement across the US and other countries. The article says that posts and their amount of views were monitored before and after the release of the movie and determined that support increased dramatically for the side of the debate against fracking. This article will be used to show the means by which the controversy is being aggravated and how it has brought attention to the risks of fracking.


Source X:

Martin, Rachel. "Both Sides Claim Victory Over EPA Fracking Study." National Public Radio. National Public Radio, 7 Jun. 2015. Web. 17 Sept. 2015.

The purpose of the article is to provide a transcript to a discussion by NPR on the EPA's study on fracking's environmental effects and to what extent it has brought support to either side of the debate. The participants in the discussion talk about the study's results in finding that there is no widespread pollution in water as a result of fracking, yet it mentions there have been cases where this has happened. They discuss that the uncertainty and lack of depth in the results has failed to change minds for or against fracking. This article will be used to show the debate's improbability of coming to a conclusion any time soon unless more in depth research is done.


Reflection: First can I say that finding a citation style used that strayed from an MLA-like format was difficult because just about everyone is a science major. I read Jessica and Isabel's annotated bibliographies and the main thing I learned is that I can be more precise. Jessica also used MLA and her explanation of the purpose and context of the source was very well done. Isabel explained the findings of the source in a very detailed, yet concise manner. I think that shortening the annotations can make sifting through the sources much easier when I start citing them in my paper.

Ideology in My Controversy

Through research done and the sources found in my previous three blog posts, I will lay out the foundation of the controversy on fracking in this blog post with guidance from specific questions.

The Weekly Bull "No Fracking-London Protest" 1/26/2015 via Flickr. Attribution-Non Commercial License.

Who is involved in the controversy?

There aren't any specific groups of people that make up either side to the debate. One side favors the use of hydraulic fracturing for its use in energy production and consumption where one side opposes fracking because of its alleged health risks to drinking water and other environmental factors.

Who are some of the major speakers/writers for each group?

Americans Against Fracking is the largest organization against hydraulic fracturing.Vivienne Westwood is also a very high profile anti-fracking spokesperson from the UK. 

Brooke Alexander, a former FOXNews correspondant, is a notable spokesperson and lobbyist for the use of fracking, but besides her, there aren't many public speakers for the system. Marcellus Shale Coalition, American Petroleum Institute, and several other gas/oil organizations are the biggest supporters due to their obvious investment in the use of fracking.

What kind of social/economic/political/cultural power does each side have?

Supporters of fracking tend to be mostly right-wing and are often tied to the organizations that profit from fracking such as the ones stated above. Anti-frackers are mostly either liberal or are locally affected by fracking and its dangerous effect on their water supply. 

Both sides of the argument have a great amount of support so any given person could favor either side. It depends on their ideology.

What resources are available to the different positions?

Both sides use research studies to support their side or counter their opposition. Pro-frackers use economic studies to show the benefits of fracking to the economy, as well as scientific studies to contradict the claims of environmental damage as a result. Those against fracking mostly use scientific research to show the unsafe water and alleged atmospheric decay that comes with the energy extraction process. With the exception of scholarly research journals, almost every source has bias because its intent is to support or counter the claims of one side.

What does each group value?

Those against fracking value the safety of the population that is affected locally by fracking where those that support fracking mostly value the economic benefits of the process and the advantages of using energy other than imported oil which causes damage to the atmosphere.

What counts as evidence for the different positions?

Both sides will mostly cite any "research study" from any organization to support their position, however most of these sources are biased. Anti-frackers who are close to fracking operations use their sinks with dirty water as a claim that the process indeed contaminates their drinking supply.

Is there a power differential between the groups?

The power can be associated with those in support of fracking because at the system is still being used, it can be concluded that their opposition's influence isn't strong enough to ban the process as of now.

Is there any acknowledged common ground between the groups?

Both sides can mostly agree that their is some correlation with unsafe practices of hydraulic fracturing that can cause some degree of contamination to drinking water. Another place of common ground is that both positions agree that the production of energy domestically is a great economic benefit, no matter which country they reside in.

Is there any unacknowledged common ground?

The obvious lack of common ground exists in the question of the extent to which the process of fracking contaminates the water supply and if the economic and other environmental benefits can outweigh it.

Do the various groups listen to each other?

The professionals involved in this controversy such as the scientists conducting research, are very open to communicate and collaborate so that they can find the effects of fracking and work to develop a system that is more safe. The average person or politician will stick to their side very forcefully and often not listen to their opposition due ti their strong commitment to whichever side of the debate they support.

Evaluation of Social Media Sources

This blog post includes an evaluation of two social media sources relating to the fracking controversy within my discipline of chemical engineering. Both sources come from Twitter and I will be analyzing their credibility based on a set of specific questions.


Source I:

Wieder, Tobin. Screenshot taken 9/11/2015.

Credibility: This tweet comes from the American Scientist Magazine, an accredited scientific journal. The scientist that appears in the tweet, Avner Vengosh, was also one of the authors of the two scholarly sources I evaluated in my last blog post. His input in several scholarly sources and his doctoral credentials show his and this tweet's credibility pertaining to the fracking controversy.

Location: Avner Vengosh and the American Scientist Magazine reside in the US where this debate is centralized so they have access to the most up to date information and studies done on fracking in the US.

Network: The magazine's twitter account is followed by thousands of people who keep up with science news. Avner Vengosh does not have a twitter however the magazine's account follows several other scientists with credentials that vary across all sorts of different fields in science.

Content: The information in this tweet aligns with claims made in other scholarly sources I have encountered. There is also a direct link that details and cites the sources that support the brief claim made in the tweet by Avner Vengosh and the magazine.

Contextual Updates: The account tweets about hundreds of different scientific news pieces, not just ones about fracking.

Age: The magazine has been active on Twitter since 2010 so it is an established account with a solid following base of 15,000 followers.

Reliability: I believe that this source is reliable because it was posted by an accredited, widely established scientific magazine and the information it is based on comes from an accredited chemist and specialist in fracking who has written several other scholarly journals about the topic.

Source II:

Wieder, Tobin. Screenshot on 9/11/2015

Credibility: This tweet comes from a civil engineer who focuses on creating sustainable projects for water conservation as an employee of Innovative Water Solutions. He works for water conservation so he is somewhat credible on this topic of possible water contamination, however he lacks credentials that would make him an accredited figure on the controversy of fracking, like a doctorate degree or a position in an academic research institution.

Location: He lives in Austin, Texas and a lot of fracking occurs in Texas, however I don't believe that he is close to or works on any fracking site.

Network: He doesn't have very many followers so his lack of a substantial online network makes this source seem a little less reliable because he isn't well known in the scientific community or in the field of fracking.

Content: The tweet references a study by the Environmental Protection Agency, so the claim can easily be corroborated with an article on the EPA's specific study and one is, in fact, included. There have also been other sources through other medias, including scholarly articles, that I have seen that have made the same claim about the lack of widespread contamination of drinking water as a result of fracking.

Contextual Updates: This account tweets frequently about water conservation issues like drought and waste water in general, however there aren't many more tweets discussing fracking on the contamination of drinking water.

Age: The account was made in 2009 but most tweets have been made in the last two years, but this is no indicator of a source that would lack credibility.

Reliability: This source is somewhat reliable because it is based on an article published by NPR about a study done by a government association (the EPA). Also, someone who puts importance towards water safety/conservation is not likely one who would falsely tweet about the safety of water after fracking if the study weren't likely valid. The lack of credentials and network, however, takes away from the overall reliability of the source, but I would say that it could generally be considered reliable. 

Evaluation of Scholarly Sources

This blog post contains an analysis of two scholarly sources based on certain questions pertaining to their purpose and credibility. Both sources relate to the fracking controversy that exists within the field of chemical engineering, my selected major.

Rodriguez, Jared "Frak / Dissolve" 9/27/2013 via Flickr. Attribution-Non Commercial License.

Source I: "Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing"

What is its purpose?

Its purpose is to inform the reader of the contamination of methane in the drinking water of areas where hydraulic fracturing is occurring. The article provides information on the extent and composition of the drinking water's contaminants so the reader knows the impact that fracking has on local drinking water.

How and where is it published?

This article was first published on the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America's journal web page after an extensive peer review process. 

What kinds of sources does it cite?

There are 35 citations included in this source, all of which are from the same journal or other scientific institutions. These sources are cited internally and in the bibliography.

Who is the author?

There are four authors for this source: Stephen G. Osborn, Avner Vengosh, Nathaniel R. Warner, and Robert B. Jackson, all affiliated with the Center of Global Change and the Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the Nicholas School of the Environment. Each has their own profile on the journal's website where their doctoral credentials are listed.

Who is the intended audience?

This article is targeted for people who have some foundation of knowledge about the concept of fracking and want to know more about the specific implications of this process on the cleanliness of drinking water as a result.

How did I find it?

I found this article through a search of "fracking" on Google Scholar, an academic journal database.

Source II: "The Environmental Costs and Benefits of Fracking"

What is its purpose?

Its purpose is to sum up the body of information on the advantages and disadvantages on fracking so that readers are informed of such. The environmental and energy efficient pros to hydraulic fracturing are discussed while the danger in the contaminated water supply and the possible resulting earthquakes are mentioned as well. Both sides of the controversy are covered in a very balanced manner, indicating that the author's intention is truly to inform the  reader of the debate.

How and where is it published?

This article was first published on the Annual Review of Environmental and Resources journal webpage in August 2014 after a thorough peer review process.

What kinds of sources does it cite?

There are 166 sources cited in this article, all of which are scholarly journals or other public research articles from scientific institutions. These sources exist as internal citations and in the bibliography of this article.

Who is the author?

There are seven credited authors of this source: Robert B. Jackson, Avner Vengosh, J. William Carey, Richard J. Davies, Thomas H. Darrah, Francis O'Sullivan, and Gabrielle Petron, all of whom have doctoral credentials with affiliation to accredited universities and their environmental programs.

Who is its intended audience?

This article targets anyone who has some background knowledge of the debate about hydraulic fracturing and wants to learn more about either "side"'s argument. Most readers will use the article as part of their further research on the topic.

How did I find it?

I found this source through a search on the academic research database, Google Scholar, using the search term "fracking".

Evaluation of General Sources

DES Daughter. "The Fracking Industry Secret Sauce" 7/27/2015 via Flickr. Attribution-Non Commercial License.

In my search for controversies in the field of chemical engineering, the most prevalent topic was the debate on the use of fracking as a means of recovering fossil fuels for energy. This blog post includes an evaluation of two sources I found on fracking, one article from Chemical and Engineering News and another from the University of Cincinnati's website.

"Uneven State Rules And Trade Secrets Fuel Fracking Debate": an article from Chemical and Engineering News

• URL: The URL for this source is http://cen.acs.org/articles/93/i11/Uneven-State-Rules-Trade-Secrets.html which is a ".org" website. The ".org" means that it comes from a non-profit organization which is an indicator of an unbiased and credible source that most likely has the goal of informing whoever is reading. 

• Author: The author of this article is Jessica Morrison. She has a profile on the C&EN website which verify her credentials as having a B.S. and PhD in chemistry with honors from Kaiser Health and the Chicago Tribune as a mass media reporting intern. These credentials support the credibility of this article.

• Last Updated: This article comes from the March 2015 edition of the journal. The website has working links to each new issue of the journal that is published monthly.

• Purpose: The text seeks to inform the reader about the controversy regarding fracking. The article brings points from both sides of the debate by mentioning the fracking companies' refusal to tell what chemicals are used in the process while also discussing the benefits of the energy extraction process. 

• Graphics: The article includes one graphic that depicts a map of the United States, showing each state's current regulations on fracking. This graphic's purpose is to inform rather than show a benefit or disadvantage of fracking which further supports the article's reliability.

• Position on Subject: Stated previously in the 'Purpose' section, the article brings information supporting both sides of the debate. Pros and cons of the fracking process are brought in an informative, non-persuasive manner. C&EN seeks to inform their readers so that they are knowledgeable of the content.

• Links: The article contains several hyperlinks to sources that give further information on fracking. Rather than suggest further places of research, the article includes links to the sources of the information throughout the article. Each source is linked with the individual or organization that brought forth the information, so the reader knows who the information is connected to.

"UC Doctoral Student's Research Digs Deep into the Fracking Controversy": an article from the University of Cincinnati's website 

• URL: The URL of this article is http://www.uc.edu/news/NR.aspx?id=13243. It is a ".edu" source, meaning it comes from a research center from an educational system. This indicates that the information has been checked thoroughly and can be considered credible.

• Author: The author of this article is Dawn Fuller. She has a profile on the university's site. She has been a Public Information Officer at UC for 15 years. Her credentials indicate that the source has been written by a reliable author.

• Last Updated: The webpage shows when the article was published, which was in 2011. The date alone indicates that the information may be out of date as it was over four years ago. There are no links to any supporting information as the article is based on another woman's research. The lack of working links puts into question where the information was found.

• Purpose: The article seeks to inform of Deborah Kittner's research on the fracking controversy. It appears to be mostly informative on the controversy rather than promoting a certain viewpoint, which further supports the credibility of the article.

• Graphics: The only graphic in this article is a photo of Deborah Kittner, the center of the article. 

• Position on Subject: The article seems to be purely informative, however there is a slight imbalance in the information supporting and disapproving of fracking. Little information is mentioned about the benefits of fracking, while there is more on the potential health risks and negative reactions to the process. There is no clear support for one side, however, so the author can't gain anything from the information posted and all of the details seem to align with other articles on fracking that I've seen, so there is some reliability in this source.

• Links: There are no suggestions of or actual links to other sources. Citations are also lacking, putting major doubt in the reliability of the article.

My Discipline

BlueRidgeKitties. "Molecular Dance Party" 9/11/2009 via Flickr. Attribution-Non Commercial License.

This blog post will provide a discussion on my major at the University of Arizona, Chemical Engineering, through responses to certain questions about major aspects within this field of study. 

What do students in your program learn how to do?

Students majoring in Chemical Engineering are taught the principles of physical sciences and life sciences, with an obvious emphasis in chemistry, so that they are ready to work as chemical engineers after graduation. They also take mathematics and economics courses so that they can learn how to carry out the main goal of chemical engineering which is to design systems to produce and transport chemicals and energy in the most efficient and cost-effective manner.

What do people who get degrees in this field usually go on to do for work?

Chemical Engineering students graduate to become chemical engineers. Within this field, there are several positions to hold, including designers, researchers, and project managers in workplaces from pharmaceutical development firms to energy production companies. As raw materials become more limited and the environment becomes more of a consideration in any major manufacturing industry, chemical engineers are in high demand in areas like food processing, fertilizer production, and numerous other companies that require an energy input and a consumable output. 

What drew you to this field?

I have always had an interest in chemistry since my beginner high school courses. I was originally a chemistry major but the job opportunities out of college are limited for students who haven't gone to graduate school. The prospect of having a well paying job upon my graduation from the University of Arizona with a degree in chemical engineering enticed me to switch my major. This major incorporates science, math, and economics courses which I have always excelled in, so I will be able to pursue education in the most enjoyable way possible. 

Who are the leaders/most exciting people involved in your field right now? Why? These could be individual people or specific companies, organizations, businesses or non-profits.

Chemical engineers are nothing without their team or firm, therefore specific people are not very prevalent in the field. The top chemical firms in the world today are Exxon, Dow, and BASF due to their domination in sales and increased profit margin over the last decade. While Dow and BASF are mainly textile and chemical manufacturers, Exxon is the main producer and transporter of oil, so it continues to grow substantially as the demand for fossil fuels as a means of producing energy increases world wide.

What are the leading academic/scholarly journals in your field? Where are they published?

Chemical engineering journals are plentiful and their rankings vary from site to site. The most cited academic journals in chemical engineering however, are Chemistry of Materials by the American Chemical Society in the US, the Annual Review of Chemical and Bimolecular Engineering by Annual Review Inc. in the US, and Chemical Engineering Science, by Elvesier in the Netherlands.

Reflection: I read Carter and Ayra's blog posts on their academic pursuits and the options they have after college. Both of them discussed pursuing degrees that I have contemplated at one point or another, as both of their majors are science related like mine. I somewhat envy their undecidedness because they still have time to take classes and continue their search in a passion where I have known my focus for years now. Carter wants to go into a heath profession so he can help people which I think is the most genuine thing I've seen in someone's post collegiate goals. Reading these posts made me realize that it's not all about the money and that I should consider doing what I can do to help others rather than following something that I have always excelled in.