Case studies of two proposals for research funding serve as examples of how scientific texts are the products of a community of researchers. Comparisons of successive versions of the proposals show that the two biologists, in revisions of their texts, alter their personae and their relations to the literature of their fields. In writing and rewriting, they both respond to and develop a disciplinary consensus.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bloch, D.
(1983). tRNA-rRNA sequence homologies: Evidence for a common evolutionary origin?Journal of Molecular Evolution, 19, 420-428.
2.
Callon, M.
(1980). Struggles and negotiations to define what is problematic and what is not: The socio-logic of translation. In K. Knorr, R. Krohn, & R. Whitley, (Eds.), The social process of scientific investigation. Sociology of the sciences (Vol. IV, 197-219). Hingham, MA: Kluwer Academic.
3.
Cole, J.
, & Cole, S. (1979). Which researcher will get the grant?Nature, 279, 575-576.
4.
Cole, S.
, Cole, J., & Simon, G. (1981). Chance and consensus in peer review. Science, 214, 881-886.
5.
Cole, S.
, Rubin, R., & Cole, J. (1977). Peer review and the support of science. Scientific American, 237(4), 34-41.
6.
Cooper, C.
, & Odell, L. (1976). Considerations of sound in the composing processes of published writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 10, 103-115.
7.
Crews, D.
(1975). Psychobiology of reptilian reproduction. Science, 189, 1059.
8.
Crews, D.
(1984). Gamete production, sex hormone secretion, and mating behavior uncoupled. Hormones and Behavior, 18, 22-28.
9.
Gilbert, N.
, & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandora's box: A sociological analysis of scientists' discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
Kenward, M.
(1984, May 31). Peer review and the axe murderers. New Scientist, p. 13.
11.
Knorr-Cetina, K.
(1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon.
12.
Latour, B.
, & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
13.
Mandel, H.
(1983). Funding more NIH research grants. Science, 221, 338-340.
14.
Myers, G.
(1984). The social construction of two biology articles. Paper presented at the Conference on College Composition and Communication. New York, March.
15.
National Institutes of Health
(1983). Proceedings of the 1983 meetings of NIH scientific review groups. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services.
16.
National Institutes of Health
(1984). Application for public health service grant. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services.
17.
Van den Beemt, F.
, & LePair, C. (1983). Appraisal of peer review. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science, Blacksburg, VA.November.
