This article explores how public writers view rhetorical decisions in their use of quantitative information to educate, inform, and move audiences toward action. Using the concept of “statistical framing” to describe how writers signal evaluations of numbers to their readers, we set out to learn how these writers connected their rhetorical goals to how they framed quantitative information. We interviewed 14 writers using the discourse-based interview method and found that, for various reasons, writers valued speeding up and slowing down evaluations of numbers.
AllenM.PreissR. W. (1997). Comparing the persuasiveness of narrative and statistical evidence using meta-analysis. Communication Research Reports, 12(2), 125–131.
2.
AmbergS. M.HallT. E. (2010). Precision and rhetoric in media reporting about contamination in farmed salmon. Science Communication, 32(4), 489–513.
BeveridgeA. (2015). Looking in the dustbin: Data janitorial work, statistical reasoning, and information rhetoric. Computers and Composition Online, Fall 2015. http://cconlinejournal.org/fall15/beveridge/
5.
DahlT. (2015). Contested science in the media: Linguistic traces of news writers’ framing activity. Written Communication, 32(1), 39–65.
D’IgnazioC.KleinL. F. (2020). Data feminism. MIT Press.
8.
DolmageJ. T. (2014). Disability rhetoric. Syracuse University Press.
9.
DolmageJ. T. (2017). Academic ableism: Disability and higher education. University of Michigan Press.
10.
DraggaS.VossD. (2001). Cruel pies: The inhumanity of technical illustrations. Technical Communication, 48(3), 265–274.
11.
Du BoisW. E. B. (2018). W.E.B. Du Bois’s data portraits: Visualizing Black America (Battle-BaptisteW.RusertB., Eds). Princeton Architectural Press.
12.
EntmanR. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.
13.
FahnestockJ. (1986). Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. Written Communication, 3(3), 275–296.
14.
FahnestockJ. (2011). Rhetorical style: The uses of language in persuasion. Oxford University Press.
15.
FlickU. (2018). Doing grounded theory. Sage.
16.
FoucaultM. (2007). Security, territory, population: Lectures at the Collège de France 1977–1978 (SenellartM., Ed.; BurchellG., Trans.). Palgrave.
17.
FrankD. A.SlovicP.VastfjallD. (2011). “Statistics don’t bleed”: Rhetorical psychology, presence, and psychic numbing in genocide pedagogy. JAC, 31(3/4), 609–624.
18.
FrelingT. H.YangZ.SainiR.ItaniO. S.AbualsamhR. R. (2020). When poignant stories outweigh cold hard facts: A meta-analysis of the anecdotal bias. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 160, 51–67.
19.
GeislerC.SwartsJ. (2019). Coding streams of language: Techniques for the systematic coding of text, talk, and other verbal data. University Press of Colorado.
20.
HamraieA. (2017). Building access: Universal Design and the politics of disability. University of Minnesota Press.
21.
HuffD. (1954). How to lie with statistics. W.W. Norton Company.
22.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1984). Choices, values, frames. American Psychologist, 39(4), 341–350.
23.
KnoblauchA. A. (2012). Bodies of knowledge: Definitions, delineations, and implications of embodied writing in the academy. Composition Studies, 40(2), 50–65.
24.
KnoblauchA. A.MoellerM. E. (2022). Introduction: Bodies, embodiment, and embodied rhetorics. In KnoblauchA. A.MoellerM. E. (Eds.), Bodies of knowledge: Embodied rhetorics in theory and practice (pp. 3–22). Utah State University Press.
25.
KuypersJ. A. (2009). Framing analysis. In KuypersJ. A. (Ed.), Rhetorical criticism: Perspectives in action (pp. 181–203). Lexington Books.
26.
LanhamR. A. (2006). The economics of attention: Style and substance in the age of information. University of Chicago Press.
27.
LatourB. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press.
28.
LawsonB.LovattM. (2021). Towards a rhetorical understanding of statistics in politics: Quantifying the National Health Service “Winter Crisis.”European Journal of Communication, 36(2), 110–124.
29.
LibertzD. (2018). Framed for lying: Statistics as in/artistic proof. Res Rhetorica, 5(4), 2–15.
30.
LibertzD. (2021). Amplification by counterstory in the quantitative rhetoric of Ida B. Wells. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 51(4), 309–324.
31.
LibertzD. (2023). Evaluating to persuade in statistical framing: A conceptual tool for rhetors and audiences. In FahnestockJ.HarrisR. A. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language and persuasion (pp. 190–206). Routledge.
32.
MartinezA. Y. (2020). Counterstory: The rhetoric and writing of critical race theory. National Council of Teachers of English.
33.
McKittrickK. (2021). Dear science and other stories. Duke University Press.
34.
MitraR. (2012). The famine in British India: Quantification rhetoric and colonial disaster management. Journal of Creative Communications, 1 & 2, 153–174.
35.
NewcombM. J. (2010). Feeling the vulgarity of numbers: The Rwandan genocide and the classroom as a site of response to suffering. JAC, 30(1/2), 175–213.
36.
OdellL.GoswamiD.HerringtonA. (1983). The discourse-based interview: A procedure for exploring the tacit knowledge of writers in nonacademic settings. In MosenthalP.TamorL.WalmsleyS. A. (Eds.), Research on writing: Principles and methods (pp. 221–236). Longman.
37.
PorterT. M. (1995). Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton University Press.
PriorP. (2004). Tracing process: How texts come into being. In BazermanC.PriorP. (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices (pp. 167–200). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
40.
ReyesG. M. (2022). The evolution of mathematics: A rhetorical approach. The Pennsylvania State University Press.
41.
RoehI.FeldmanS. (1984). The rhetoric of numbers in front-page journalism: How numbers contribute to the melodramatic in the popular press. Text, 4(4), 347–368.
42.
RoseE. J.CardinalA. (2021). Purpose and participation: Heuristics for planning, implementing, and reflecting on social justice work. In WaltonR.AgbokaG. Y. (Eds.), Equipping technical communicators for social justice work: Theories, methodologies, and pedagogies (pp. 75–97). University Press of Colorado.
43.
SaldañaJ. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage.
44.
SlovicP. (2007). “If I look at the mass I will never act”: Psychic numbing and genocide. Judgment and Decision Making, 2(2), 79–95.
45.
ThibodeauP. S.BoroditskyL. (2011). Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PLoS One, 6(2), 1–11.
46.
ThornbergR.CharmazK. (2014). Grounded theory and theoretical coding. In FlickU. (Ed.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis (pp. 153–169). Sage.
47.
VossJ.TurnerH. (2021). Thinking through data visualization: Leveraging the exploratory power of figures to create WPA knowledge. In GramerR.BeardenL.MuellerD. (Eds.), Radiant figures: Visual rhetorics in everyday administrative contexts. Utah State University Press. https://ccdigitalpress.org/book/radiant-figures/ch-alluvial.html
48.
WolfeJ. (2010). Rhetorical numbers: A case for quantitative writing in the composition classroom. College Composition and Communication, 61(3), 452–475.
49.
WolfeJ. (2015). Teaching students to focus on the data in data visualization. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 29(3), 344–359.
50.
XuJ. (2023). A meta-analysis comparing the effectiveness of narrative vs. Statistical evidence: Health vs. Non-health contexts. Health Communication, 38(14), 3113–3123.
51.
ZebergsS.van den PutteB.NeijensP.de GraafA. (2015). The differential impact of statistical and narrative evidence on beliefs, attitude, and intention: A meta-analysis. Health Communication, 30, 282–289.
52.
ZuberiT. (2001). Thicker than blood: How racial statistics lie. University of Minnesota Press.
