This report details the second phase of an ongoing research project investigating the visual invention and composition processes of scientific researchers. In this phase, four academic researchers completed think-aloud protocols as they composed graphics for research presentations; they also answered follow-up questions about their visual education, pedagogy, genres of practice, and interactions with publics. Results are presented first as narratives and then as topologies—visualizations of the communal beliefs, values, and norms (topoi) that connect the individual narratives to wider community practices. Results point toward an ecological model of visual invention and composition strategies in the crafting of research graphics. They also suggest that these strategies may be underrepresented in scientists’ education. More explicit attention to them may help improve STEM visual literacy for nonexperts.
BartonB. F.BartonM. S. (1993). Modes of power in technical and professional visuals. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 7(1), 138-162.
2.
BerkenkotterC.HuckinT. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communities. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3.
BrasseurL. E. (2003). Visualizing technical information: A cultural critique. Amityville, NY: Baywood.
4.
BrasseurL. (2005). Florence Nightingale’s visual rhetoric in the rose diagrams. Technical Communication Quarterly, 14(2), 161-182.
5.
CharneyD. (1993). A study in rhetorical reading: How evolutionists read “The Spandrels of San Marco.” In SelzerJ. (Ed.), Understanding scientific prose (pp. 203-231). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
6.
ChilversJ. (2013). Reflexive engagement? Actors, learning, and reflexivity in public dialogue on science and technology. Science Communication, 35(3), 283-310.
7.
ClarkH. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
8.
ClarkH. H. (2005). Coordinating with each other in a material world. Discourse Studies, 7(4-5), 507-525.
9.
DraggaS.VossD. (2001). Cruel pies: The inhumanity of technical illustrations. Technical Communication, 48(3), 265-274.
10.
DünkelV. (2015). Comparing images. In BredekampH.DünkelV.SchneiderB. (Eds.), The technical image. A history of styles in scientific imagery (pp. 14-17). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
11.
EberlyR. A. (2000). Citizen critics: Literary public spheres. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
12.
EricssonK. A.SimonH. A. (1993). Protocol analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13.
FahnestockJ. (1999). Rhetorical figures in science. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
14.
FahnestockJ. (2003). Verbal and visual parallelism. Written Communication, 20(2), 123-152.
15.
FountainT. K. (2014). Rhetoric in the flesh: Trained vision, technical expertise, and the gross anatomy lab. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
16.
GolleyF. B. (1993). A history of the ecosystem concept in ecology: More than the sum of the parts. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
17.
GrahamS. S. (2015). The politics of pain medicine: A rhetorical-ontological inquiry. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
18.
GrossA. G. (2009). Toward a theory of verbal-visual interaction: The case of Lavoisier. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 39(2), 147-169.
19.
GrossA. G.HarmonJ. E. (2013). Science from sight to insight: How scientists illustrate meaning. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
20.
Hart-DavidsonW.OmizoR. (2017). Genre signals in textual topologies. In WalshL.BoyleC. (Eds.), Topologies as techniques for a post-critical rhetoric (pp. 99-124). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
21.
HartzogM. (2017). Inventing mosquitoes: Tracing the topology of vectors for human disease. In WalshL.BoyleC. (Eds.), Topologies as techniques for a post-critical rhetoric (pp. 75-98). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
22.
JackJ. (2009). A pedagogy of sight: Microscopic vision in Robert Hooke’s micrographia. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 95(2), 192-209.
23.
JackJ.AppelbaumL. G.BeamE.MoodyJ.HuettelS. A. (2017). Mapping rhetorical topologies in cognitive neuroscience. In WalshL.BoyleC. (Eds.), Topologies as techniques for a post-critical rhetoric (pp. 125-150). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
24.
KimballM. (2006). London through rose-colored graphics: Visual rhetoric and information graphic design in Charles Booth’s maps of London poverty. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 36(4), 353-381.
25.
KostelnickC. (1994). From pen to print. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 8(1), 91-117.
26.
KostelnickC.HassettM. (2003). Shaping information: The rhetoric of visual conventions. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
27.
LatourB. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28.
LatourB. (1990). Drawing things together. In LynchM.WoolgarS. (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp. 19-68). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29.
LeffM. (2006). Up from theory: Or I fought the topoi and the topoi won. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 36(2), 203-211.
30.
MessarisP.MoriartyS. (2005). Visual literacy theory. In SmithK.MoriartyS.BarbatsisG.KenneyK. (Eds.), Handbook of visual communication: Theory, methods, and media (pp. 481-502). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31.
NewmanS. (2009). Gestural enthymemes. Written Communication, 26(3), 273-294.
32.
NewtonJ. H. (2005). Visual ethics theory. In SmithK.MoriartyS.BarbatsisG.KenneyK. (Eds.), Handbook of visual communication: Theory, methods, and media (pp. 429-443). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
33.
NorthcutK. M. (2004). The making of knowledge in science: Case studies of paleontology illustration. Dissertation Abstracts International, Section A: The Humanities and Social Sciences, 65(3), 917.
34.
PrelliL. J. (1989). A rhetoric of science: Inventing scientific discourse. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
35.
ReevesC. (2011). Scientific visuals, language, and the commercialization of a scientific idea: The strange case of the prion. Technical Communication Quarterly, 20(3), 239-273.
36.
RymerJ. (1988). Scientific composing processes: How eminent scientists write journal articles. In JolliffeD. (Ed.), Advances in writing research (Vol. 2, pp. 211-250). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
37.
SmagorinskyP. (2001). Rethinking protocol analysis from a cultural perspective. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 233-245.
38.
TebeauxE. (1991). Ramus, visual rhetoric, and the emergence of page design in medical writing of the English renaissance tracking the evolution of readable documents. Written Communication, 8(4), 411-445.
39.
TestonC. (2017). Enthymematic elasticity in the biomedical backstage. In WalshL.BoyleC. (Eds.), Topologies as techniques for a post-critical rhetoric (pp. 219-242). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
40.
ThrallsC. (1991). Bridging visual and verbal communication: Training videos and written instructional texts. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 21(3), 285-306.
41.
TrumboJ. (2006). Visual literacy. In PauwelsL. (Ed.), Visual cultures of science (pp. 266-284). Hanover, NH: Dartmouth College Press.
42.
WalkerK. C. (2016). Mapping the contours of translation: Visualized un/certainties in the ozone hole controversy. Technical Communication Quarterly, 25(2),104-120.
43.
WalshL. (2009). Marking territory: Legislated genres, stakeholder beliefs, and the possibilities for common ground in the Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project. Written Communication, 26(2), 115-153.
44.
WalshL. (2010). The common topoi of STEM discourse: An apologia and methodological proposal, with pilot survey. Written Communication, 27(1), 120-156.
45.
WalshL. (2013). Resistance and common ground as functions of mis/aligned attitudes: A filter-theory analysis of ranchers’ writings about the Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project. Written Communication, 30(4), 458-487.
46.
WalshL. (2014). “Tricks,” hockey sticks, and the myth of natural inscription: How the visual rhetoric of Climategate conflated climate with character. In NockeT.SchneiderB. (Eds.), Image politics of climate change: Visualizations, imaginations, documentations (pp. 55-81). Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript Verlag.
47.
WalshL.BoyleC. (Eds.). (2017). Topologies as techniques for a post-critical rhetoric. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
48.
WalshL.RossA. B. (2015). The visual invention practices of stem researchers: An exploratory topology. Science Communication, 37(1), 118-139.
49.
WickmanC. (2012). Observing inscriptions at work: Visualization and text production in experimental physics research. Technical Communication Quarterly, 22(2), 150-171.
50.
WilderL.WolfeJ. (2009). Sharing the tacit rhetorical knowledge of the literary scholar: The effects of making disciplinary conventions explicit in undergraduate writing about literature courses. Research in the Teaching of English, 44(2), 170-209.
