Negotiating membership within a disciplinary community is as much an exercise in rhetorical facility as it is content expertise. Where individuals reside in the hierarchy of membership is determined by not only what they talk and write about, but how. Yet, there are many factors that can impact newcomers’ acculturation into a disciplinary community on a rhetorical level. In this article, I use positioning theory and intersectional identity to examine how Anne, a woman of color participating in undergraduate research in science, learned to read and write as a scientist and the ways her social position as a woman, person of color, and low-income and first-generation student influenced her perception and adoption of the discourse as her own. I argue that social positioning influences students’ views of scientific discourse and affects their rhetorical skill development as scientific writers. Because recognition as a group insider is heavily influenced by discourse, this research has potential implications for those interested in retention and persistence of women of color in STEM, as well as for those interested in changing learning cultures and incorporating writing instruction into disciplinary arenas.
AlvermannD. E. (2001). Reading adolescents’ reading identities: Looking back to see ahead. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44, 676-690.
2.
BazermanC. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in Science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
3.
BazermanC. (2004). Speech acts, genres, and activity systems: How texts organize activity and people. In BazermanC.PriorP. (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices (pp. 309-339). London, UK: Routledge.
4.
BourdieuP. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
5.
BoyatzisR. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
BrandtC. B. (2008). Discursive geographies in science: Space, identity, and scientific discourse among indigenous women in higher education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 703-730.
7.
BrickhouseN. W.PotterJ. T. (2001). Young women’s scientific identity formation in an urban context. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 965-980.
8.
BrownB. A.RevelesJ. M.KellyG. J. (2005). Scientific literacy and discursive identity: A theoretical framework for understanding science learning. Science Education, 85(5), 779-802.
9.
CarrollL. A. (2002). Rehearsing new roles: How college students develop as writers. Studies in Writing and Rhetoric. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
10.
CrenshawK. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241-1299.
11.
CresswellJ. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
DaviesB.HarréR. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 20(1), 43-63.
13.
DelpitL. (2006). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: New Press.
14.
FairbanksC. M.AriailM. (2006). The role of social and cultural resources in literacy and schooling: Three contrasting cases. Research in the Teaching of English, 40, 310-354.
15.
FaircloughN. (1989). Discourse and text: Linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 3(2), 193-217.
16.
FrankelK. K. (2016). The intersection of reading and identity in high school literacy intervention classes. Research in the Teaching of English, 51(1), 37-59.
17.
GayG. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
18.
HaasC. (1994). Learning to read biology: One student’s rhetorical development in college. Written Communication, 11(43), 43-84.
19.
HarréR.MoghaddamF. M. (Eds.). (2003). The self and others: Positioning individuals and groups in personal, political, and cultural contexts. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
20.
HerringtonA.CurtisM. (2000). Persons in process: Four stories of writing and personal development in college. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
21.
HylandK. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.
22.
HylandK. (2012). Disciplinary identities: Individuality and community in academic discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
23.
IvaničR. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
24.
JaegerE. L. (2018). Bella here and there: Forming and re-forming identities across school contexts. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 34(4), 306-321.
25.
JohnsonA.BrownJ.CarloneH.CuevasA. K. (2011). Authoring identity amidst the treacherous terrain of science: A multiracial Feminist examination of the journeys of three women of color in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(4), 339-366.
26.
LammersJ. C.MarshV. L. (2017). “A writer more than . . . a child”: A longitudinal study examining adolescent writer identity. Written Communication, 35(1), 89-114.
27.
MyersG. (1990). Writing biology: Texts in the social constructions of scientific knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
28.
National Science Foundation. (2012, December). Survey of federal science and engineering support to universities, colleges, and nonprofit institutions. Retrieved from www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf13303/pdf/tab01.pdf
29.
PoeM.LernerN.CraigJ. (2010). Learning to communicate in science and engineering: Case studies from MIT. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30.
Purcell-GatesV.DukeN. K.MartineauJ. A. (2007). Learning to read and write genre-specific text: Roles of authentic experience and explicit teaching. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 8-45.
31.
QinK. (2018). “Doing funny” and performing masculinity: An immigrant adolescent boy’s identity negotiation and language learning in one US ESL classroom. Research in the Teaching of English, 54(2), 427-454.
32.
ShaughnessyM. (1977). Errors and expectations: A guide for the teachers of basic writing. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
33.
StakeR. E. (1981). Case study methodology: An epistemological advocacy. In WelshW. W. (Ed.), Case study methodology in educational evaluation. Proceedings of the 1981 Minnesota Evaluation Conference. Minneapolis: Minnesota Research and Evaluation Center.
34.
SternglassM. (1993). Writing development as seen through longitudinal research: A case study exemplar. Written Communication, 10(2), 235-261.
35.
SwalesJ. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
36.
VetterA. (2010). Positioning students as readers and writers through talk in a high school English classroom. English Education, 43(1), 33-64.
37.
WilderL. (2012). Rhetorical strategies and genre conventions in literary studies: Teaching and writing in the disciplines. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
38.
WolfeJ.OlsonB.WilderL. (2014). Knowing what we know about writing in the disciplines: A new approach to teaching for transfer in FYC. WAC Journal, 25, 42-77.
