Publishing in professional journals requires the author to display disciplinarity and yet to say something novel. This article approaches this familiar rhetorical problem from a novel perspective by analyzing disciplinarity as a kind of orthodoxy. Four elements of orthodoxy (narrative knowledge, assumptions and methodologies, hierarchy, and doctrinal knowledge) are identified. Then, the article argues that an orthodox ethos is created by signaling allegiance to a plurality of these elements. An example of an article that displays disciplinarity, David Raup's “Cohort analysis of generic survivorship,” is analyzed, showing the author establishes his orthodox ethos by challenging only one of the elements of orthodoxy while simultaneously signaling allegiance to the others.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Amsterdamska, O.
, & Leydesdorff, L. (1989). Citations: Indicators of significance?Scientometrics, 15, 449-471.
2.
Bazerman, C.
(1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
3.
Becher, T.
(1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Stony Stratford, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
4.
Berkenkotter, C.
, & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
Blakeslee, A.
(1994). The rhetorical construction of novelty: Presenting claims in a letters forum. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 19, 88-100.
6.
Bourdieu, P.
(1980). The production of belief: Contribution to an economy of symbolic goods. Media, Culture, and Society, 2, 261-293.
7.
Bruffee, K.
(1984). Collaborative learning and the “conversation of mankind.”College English, 46, 635-652.
8.
Campbell, J. A.
(1975). The polemic Mr. Darwin. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 61, 375-390.
9.
Cole, J. R.
, & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10.
Conley, T. M.
(1990). Rhetoric in the European tradition. New York: Longman.
11.
Debs, M. B.
(1993). Corporate authority: Sponsoring rhetorical practice. In R. Spilka (Ed.), Writing in the workplace: New research perspectives (pp. 158-170). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
12.
Dingwall, R.
(1983). Introduction. In R. Dingwall & P. Lewis (Eds.), The sociology of the professions (pp. 1-13). London: Macmillan.
13.
Doheny-Farina, S.
(1989). A case study of one adult writing in academic and nonacademic discourse communities. In C. B. Matalene (Ed.), Worlds of writing: Teaching and learning in the discourse communities of work (pp. 17-42). New York: Random House.
14.
Ervin, E.
(1993). Interdisciplinarity or “an elaborate edifice built on sand”? Rethinking rhetoric's place. Rhetoric Review, 12, 84-105.
15.
Faigley, L.
(1986). Competing theories of process: A critique and a proposal. College English, 48, 527-542.
16.
Fairclough, N.
(1989). Language and power. London: Longman.
17.
Fairclough, N.
(Ed.). (1992). Critical language awareness. London: Longman.
18.
Fisher, W.
(1987). Human communication as narration: Toward a philosophy of reason, value, and action. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
19.
Fleck, L.
(1979). Genesis and development of scientific fact (F. Bradley & T. J. Trenn, Trans.; T. J. Trenn & R. K. Merton, Eds.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20.
Foucault, M.
(1972). The discourse on language. The archaeology of knowledge (M. Sheridan Smith, Trans., pp. 215-237). New York: Pantheon.
21.
Freed R.
, & Broadhead G. (1987). Discourse communities, sacred texts, and institutional norms. College Composition and Communication, 38, 154-165.
22.
Giddens, A.
(1979). Central problems in social theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.
23.
Gilbert, G. N.
, & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandora's box: A sociological analysis of scientists' discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24.
Gragson, G.
, & Selzer, J. (1990). Fictionalizing the readers of scholarly articles in biology. Written Communication, 7, 25-58.
25.
Halloran, S. M.
(1978). Doing public business in public. In K. K. Campbell & K. H. Jamieson (Eds.), Form and genre: Shaping rhetorical action (pp. 118-138). Falls Church, VA: Speech Communication Association.
26.
Halloran, S. M.
(1982). Aristotle's concept of ethos, or if not his somebody else's. Rhetoric Review, 1, 58-63.
27.
Halloran, S. M.
(1984). The birth of molecular biology: An essay in the rhetorical criticism of scientific discourse. Rhetoric Review, 3, 70-83.
28.
Hariman, R.
(1986). Status and marginality, and rhetorical theory. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 72, 38-54.
29.
Hauser, G. A.
(1968). The example in Aristotle's rhetoric: Bifurcation or contradiction?Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1, 78-90.
30.
Hodge, R.
, & Kress, G. (1993). Language as ideology (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
31.
Jaeger, W.
(1945). Paideia: The ideals of Greek culture (Vol. 3). New York: Oxford University Press.
32.
Kaufer, D. S.
, & Geisler, C. (1989). Novelty in academic writing. Written Communication, 6, 286-311.
33.
Kerferd, G. B.
(1981). The sophistic movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34.
Knorr-Cetina, K.
(1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay in the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon.
35.
Latour, B.
(1987). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
36.
Latour, B.
, & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
37.
Lessl, T. M.
(1989). The priestly voice. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 75, 183-197.
38.
Liddell, H. G.
, & Scott, R. (1968). A Greek-English lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon.
39.
Lutz, J. A.
(1989). Writers in organizations and how they learn the image: Theory, research, and implications. In C. B. Matalene (Ed.), Worlds of writing: Teaching and learning in discourse communities of work. New York: Random House.
40.
Lyne, J.
, & Howe, H. F. (1986). “Punctuated equilibria”: Rhetorical dynamics of a scientific controversy. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 72, 132-147.
41.
MacDonald, S. P.
(1994). Professional academic writing in the humanities and social sciences. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
42.
Marrou, H. I.
(1956). A history of education in antiquity (G. Lamb, Trans.). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
43.
McKerrow, R. E.
(1989). Critical rhetoric: Theory and praxis. Communication Monographs, 56, 91-111.
44.
Marchant, J.R.V.
, & Charles, J. F. (1952). Cassell's Latin dictionary (Rev. ed.) New York: Funk & Wagnalls.
45.
Miller, C. R.
(1992). Kairos in the rhetoric of science. In S. Witte, N. Nakadate, & R. D. Cherry (Eds.), A rhetoric of doing: Essays on written discourse in honor of James L. Kinneavy (pp. 310-327). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
46.
Miller, C. R.
, & Halloran, S. M. (1993). Reading Darwin, reading nature; Or, on the ethos of historical science. In J. Selzer (Ed.), Understanding scientific prose (pp. 106-126). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
47.
Miller, C. R.
, & Selzer, J. (1985). Special topics of argument in engineering reports. In L. Odell & D. Goswami (Eds.), Writing in non-academic settings (pp. 309-341). New York: Guilford.
48.
Myers, G.
(1990). Writing biology: Texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
49.
Odell, L.
(1993). Theory and practice in the teaching of writing: Re-thinking the discipline. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
50.
Ong, W. J.
(1975). The writer's audience is always a fiction. PMLA, 90, 9-21.
51.
Overington, M. A.
(1977). The scientific audience as community: Toward a rhetorical analysis of science. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 10, 143-164.
52.
Pare, A.
(1993). Discourse regulations and the production of knowledge. In R. Spilka (Ed.), Writing in the workplace: New research perspectives (pp. 111-123). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
53.
Porter, J.
(1992). Audience and rhetoric: An archaeological composition of the discourse community. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
54.
Prior, P.
(1994). Response, revision, disciplinarity: A microhistory of a dissertation prospectus in sociology. Written Communication, 4, 483-533.
55.
Raup, D. M.
(1978). Cohort analysis of generic survivorship. Paleobiology, 4, 1-15.
56.
Raup, D. M.
(1986). The nemesis affair: A story of the death of dinosaurs and the ways of science. New York: W. W. Norton.
57.
Raymond, J. C.
(1984). Enthymemes, examples, and rhetorical method. In R. J. Connors, L. S. Ede, & A. A. Lunsford (Eds.), Essays on classical rhetoric and modern discourse (pp. 140-151). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
58.
Reither, J. A.
(1985). Writing and knowing: Toward redefining the writing process. College English, 47, 620-628.
59.
Roberts, W. R. (Trans.). (1954). The rhetoric and poetics of Aristotle. New York: Modern Library.
60.
Rosenfield, L. W.
(1971). An autopsy of the rhetorical tradition. In L. F. Bitzer & E. Black (Eds.), The prospect of rhetoric (pp. 64-77). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
61.
Schiappa, E.
(1991). Protagoras and logos: A study in Greek philosophy and rhetoric. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
62.
Sullivan, D. L.
(1993). The ethos of epideictic encounter. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 26, 113-133.
63.
Sullivan, D. L.
(1994). Galileo's apparent orthodoxy in his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina. Rhetorica, 12, 237-264.
64.
Swales, J.
, & Najjar, H. (1987). The writing of research article introductions. Written Communication, 4, 175-191.
65.
Taylor, C. A.
(1994). Science as cultural practice: A rhetorical perspective. Technical Communication Quarterly, 3, 67-81.
66.
Toulmin, S.
(1972). Human understanding (Vol. 1). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
67.
Turner, S.
(1994). The social theory of practices: Tradition, tacit knowledge, and presuppositions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
68.
Watson, J. D.
(1968). The double helix: A personal account of the discovery of the structure of DNA. New York: New American Library.
69.
Wilson, B.
(1959). An analysis of sect development. American Sociological Review, 24, 3-15.
70.
Zappen, J. P.
(1983). A rhetoric for research in sciences and technologies. In P. V. Anderson, R. J. Brockmann, & C. R. Miller (Eds.), New essays in technical scientific communication: Research, theory, practice (pp. 123-138). Farmingdale, NY: Baywood.
