This article analyzes a proposal submitted to a funding unit in Michigan Technological University by a PhD Forestry student. A rhetorical-cultural approach of the text provides evidence to argue that scientific writing is rooted in a cultural practice that valorizes certain kinds of thought, practices, rituals, and symbols; that a scientist’s work is grounded and shaped by an ideological paradigm; hence, scientific texts have material existence. We find out that science writing is kairotic, selective, and persuasive. The results of the analysis provide enough insights for technical communicators to think about the role that institutions and disciplines play in knowledge production. Thus, technical communicators will not only think about rhetorical moves when they are composing, they will also think about the articulations between contexts and ideological practices and how they shape the identity of writers and communicators.
Althusser, L. (1971). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (notes Towards an Investigation) (B. Brewster, Trans.). In Lenin and philosophy and other essays (p. 127). New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.
2.
Bazerman, C. (1983). Scientific writing as a social act: A review of the literature of the sociology of science. In P. V. Anderson, R. J. Brockman, & C. R. Miller (Eds.), New essays in technical and scientific communication: Research, theory, practice (pp. 156–184). Farmingdale, NY: Baywood Publishing Co.
3.
BergerP.LuckmannT. (1966) The social construction of knowledge: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge, Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
4.
BrantlingerP. (1990) Crusoe's footprints: Cultural studies in Britain and America, New York, NY: Routledge, Chapman and Hall Inc.
5.
BruffeeK. A. (1986) Social construction, language, and the authority of knowledge: A bibliographical essay. College English48: 773–790.
6.
CeccarelliL. (2001) Rhetorical criticism and the rhetoric of science. Western Journal of Communication (includes Communication Reports)65: 314–329.
7.
CodeL. (1991) What can she know?: Feminist theory and the construction of knowledge, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
8.
DingD. (1998) Rationality reborn: Historical roots of the passive voice in scientific discourse. In: BattalioJ. T. (ed.) Essays in the study of scientific discourse: Methods, practice, and pedagogy, Stamford, CT: Ablex Publishing, pp. 117–135.
9.
FahnestockJ. (1986) Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. Written Communication3: 275–296.
10.
GravesH. B. (1995) Rhetoric and reality in the process of scientific inquiry. Rhetoric Review14: 106–125.
11.
GrossA. G. (1990) The rhetoric of science, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12.
HarawayD. J. (1998) Simians, Cyborgs, and women the reinvention of nature, London: Free Association Books.
13.
HardingS. (1986) The science question in science, New York, NY: Cornell University Press.
14.
HardingS. (1991) Whose science? Whose knowledge?: Thinking from women's lives, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
15.
HerndlC. G. (1993) Cultural studies and the critical science. In: SelzerJ. (ed.) Understanding scientific prose, Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, pp. 61–81.
16.
KarenA.MumbyD. K. (2004) Reworking gender: A feminist communicology of organization, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
KellerE. F. (1985) Reflections on gender and science, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
18.
KuhnT. S. (2012) The structure of scientific revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
19.
LatourB. W. S. (1986) Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
20.
Longo, B. (2007). An approach for applying cultural study theory to technical writing research. In J. B. Scott, B. Longo, & K. V. Wills (Eds.), Critical power tools technical communication and cultural studies (pp. 111–131). State University of New York Press.
21.
MerchantC. (2006) The scientific revolution and the death of nature. History of Science Society97: 513–532.
22.
MonbergJ. (2002) Science and technology studies as a research method. In: GurakL. J.LayM. M. (eds) Research in technical communication, Westport, CT: Praeger, pp. 211–227.
23.
MyersG. (1985) The social construction of two biologists' proposals. Written Communication2: 219–245.
24.
PenroseA. M.KatzS. B. (2010) Writing in the sciences: Exploring conventions of scientific discourse, New York, NY: Pearson Longman.
25.
RosnerM.RhoadesG. (1993) Science, gender, and “the spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm”. In: SelzerJ. (ed.) Understanding scientific prose, Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, pp. 82–105.
26.
RosteckT. (1995) Review essay: Cultural studies and rhetorical studies. Quarterly Journal of Speech81: 386–403.
27.
RudeC. D. (2009) Mapping the research questions in technical communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication23: 174–215.
28.
ScottJ. B. (2003a) Risky rhetoric, Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
29.
ScottJ. B. (2003b) Risky rhetoric: AIDS and the cultural practices of HIV testing, Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
30.
SelzerJ. (1993) Understanding scientific prose, Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
31.
SidlerM. (2006) The rhetoric of cells: Understanding molecular biology in the twenty-first century. Rhetoric Review25: 58–75.
32.
SlackJ. D. (1997) The theory and method of articulation in cultural studies. In: MorleyD. (ed.) Stuart Hall: Critical dialogues in cultural studies, London: Routledge, pp. 113–130.
33.
StuartH. (1980) Cultural studies: Two paradigms. Media, Culture and Society2: 57–72.
34.
SullivanD. L. (1991) The epideictic rhetoric of science. Journal of Business and Technical Communication5: 229–245.
35.
WajcmanJ. (1991) Feminism confronts technology, Pennsylvania: The Pennslyvania State University Press.
36.
WickmanC. (2012) Rhetoric, techne, and the art of scientific inquiry. Rhetoric Review31: 21–40.
