Studies in the rhetoric of science have tended to focus on classic scientific texts and on the history of drafts and the interaction surrounding them up until the moment when the drafts are accepted for publication by a journal. Similarly, research on disasters resulting from failed communication has tended to focus on the history of drafts and the interaction surrounding them up until the moment of the disaster. The authors argue that overattention to the moment skews understanding of what makes scientific discourse successful and neglects other valuable sources of evidence. After reviewing the promises and limitations of studies from historical, observational, and text-analytic approaches, the authors call for studies of responses to research articles from disciplinary readers and argue for studies using a variety of qualitative and quantitative methodologies that will explore the real-time responses of readers to scientific texts, test the effects of rhetorical strategies on readers, and track the course of acceptance or rejection over time.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arnold, Vanessa Dean, and John C. Mailey. “Communication: The Missing Link in the Challenger Disaster.”ADE Bulletin51.4 (1988): 12-14.
2.
Atkinson, Dwight. Scientific Discourse in Sociohistorical Context: The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675-1975. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1999.
3.
Avery, Oswald T., Colin M. MacLeod, and Maclyn McCarty. “Studies on the Chemical Nature of the Substance Inducing Transformation of Pneumococcal Types.”Journal of Experimental Medicine79 (1944): 137-157.
4.
Bazerman, Charles. Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989.
5.
Berkenkotter, Carol, and Thomas Huckin. Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1995.
6.
Blakeslee, Ann. “Inventing Scientific Discourse: Dimensions of Rhetorical Knowledge in Physics.”Diss. Carnegie Mellon University, 1993.
7.
Campbell, John Angus. “Charles Darwin: Rhetorician of Science.”Rhetoric of the Human Sciences. Ed. John Nelson, Allan Megill, and Donald McCloskey. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1987. 69-86.
8.
Charney, Davida. “Empiricism Is Not a Four-Letter Word.”College Composition and Communication47 (1996): 567-593.
9.
Charney, Davida. “AStudy in Rhetorical Reading: How Evolutionists Read ‘The Spandrels of San Marco.’ ”Understanding Scientific Prose. Ed. Jack Selzer. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1993. 203-231.
10.
Crismore, Avon, and Willem Vande Kopple. “Readers’ Learning from Prose: The Effects of Hedges.”Written Communication5 (1988): 184-202.
11.
Darwin, Charles.On the Origin of Species and the Descent of Man. Facsim. of the 1st ed. 1859. Introd. Ernst Mayr. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964.
12.
Dombrowski, Paul M.“Challenger and the Social Contingency of Meaning: Two Lessons for the Technical Communication Classroom.”Humanistic Aspects of Technical Communication. Ed. Paul M. Dombrowski. Amityville, NY: Baywood, 1994. 97-109.
13.
Eckhardt, Robert B.“Releasing the Gene Genie.”World and I15 (2000): 164-164.
14.
Farrell, Thomas B., and G. Thomas Goodnight. “Accidental Rhetoric: The Root Metaphors of Three Mile Island.”Communication Monographs48 (1981): 271-300.
15.
Franklin, Rosalind, and R. G. Gosling. “Molecular Configuration in Sodium Thymonucleate.”Nature171 (1953): 740-741.
16.
Fuller, Steve. “ ‘Rhetoric of Science’: A Doubly Vexed Expression.”Southern Communication Journal58 (1993): 306-311.
17.
Gaonkar, Dilip Parameshwar. “The Idea of Rhetoric in the Rhetoric of Science.”Southern Communication Journal58 (1993): 258-295.
18.
Gould, Stephen Jay, and Richard C. Lewontin. “The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme.”Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B: Biological Sciences205 (1979): 581-598.
19.
Gouran, Dennis S., Randy Hirokowa, and Amy E. Martz. “ACritical Analysis of Factors Related to Decisional Processes Involved in the Challenger Disaster.”Central States Speech Journal37.3 (1986): 119-135.
20.
Gragson, Gay, and Jack Selzer. “The Reader in the Text of ‘The Spandrels of San Marco.’”Understanding Scientific Prose. Ed. Jack Selzer. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1993.
21.
Gross, Alan. “Science and Culture.”American Literary History7 (1995): 169-186.
22.
Gross, Alan. “On the Shoulders of Giants: Seventeenth-Century Optics as an Argument Field.”Quarterly Journal of Speech74 (1988): 1-17.
23.
Gross, Alan, and William M. Keith. Rhetorical Hermeneutics: Invention and Interpretation in the Age of Science. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997.
24.
Halloran, S. Michael. “The Birth of Molecular Biology: An Essay in the Rhetorical Criticism of Scientific Discourse.”Rhetoric Review3 (1984): 70-83.
25.
Harris, Randy Allen, ed. Landmark Essays on Rhetoric of Science: Case Studies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1997.
26.
Hartley, James, and Matthew Sydes. “Which Layout Do You Prefer? An Analysis of Readers’ Preferences for Different Typographic Layouts of Structured Abstracts.”Journal of Information Science22 (1996): 27-37.
27.
Hartley, James, and Mark Trueman. “The Effects of Changes in Layout and Changes in Wording on Preferences for Instructional Text.”Visible Language15 (1981): 13-31.
28.
Herndl, Carl, Barbara Fennell, and Carolyn Miller. “Understanding Failures in Organizational Discourse: The Accident at Three Mile Island and the Shuttle Challenger Disaster.”Text in the Professions. Ed. Charles Bazerman and James Paradis. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. 279-305.
29.
Institute for Scientific Information. Home page. http://www.isinet.com/isi/hot/research.
30.
Kaufer, David, and Kathleen M. Carley. Communication at a Distance: The Influence of Print on Sociocultural Organization and Change. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1993.
31.
Kuhn, Thomas S.The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.
32.
Law, J., and R. J. Williams. “Putting Facts Together: A Study of Scientific Persuasion.”Social Studies of Science12 (1982): 535-558.
33.
Lederberg, Joshua. “What the Double Helix (1953) Has Meant for Basic Biomedical Science: A Personal Commentary.”Journal of the American Medical Association269 (1993): 1981-1981.
34.
McRoberts, Michael H., and Barbara R. McRoberts. “Quantitative Measures of Communication in Science: A Study of Formal Level.”Social Studies of Science16 (1986): 151-172.
35.
Melia, Trevor. “And Lo the Footprint...: Selected Literature in Rhetoric and Science.”Quarterly Journal of Speech70 (1984): 303-313.
36.
Miller, Carolyn. “Kairos in the Rhetoric of Science.”A Rhetoric of Doing: Essay on Written Discourse in Honor of James L. Kinneavy. Ed. Stephen P. Witte, Neil Nakadate, and Roger D. Cherry. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1992. 309-327.
37.
Myers, Greg. Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1990.
38.
Newton, Isaac. Opticks, or a Treatise of the Reflections, Refractions, Inflections, & Colours of Light. 1730. 4th ed.New York: Dover, 1979.
39.
Pace, R. C.“Technical Communication, Group Differentiation, and the Decision to Launch the Space Shuttle Challenger.”Journal of Technical Writing and Communication18 (1988): 207-220.
40.
Paul, Danette. “In Citing Chaos: A Study of the Rhetorical Use of Citations.”JBTC14 (2000): 185-222.
41.
Paul, Danette, and Davida Charney. “Introducing Chaos into Science and Engineering: Effects of Rhetorical Strategies on Scientific Readers.”Written Communication12 (1995): 396-438.
42.
Prelli, Lawrence. A Rhetoric of Science: Inventing Scientific Discourse. Columbia: University of South Carolina, 1989.
43.
Rymer, Jone. “Scientific Composing Processes: How Eminent Scientists Write Journal Articles.”Advances in Writing Research. Vol. 2. Ed. David Jolliffe. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1988. 211-250.
44.
Selzer, Jack, ed. Understanding Scientific Prose. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1993.
45.
Shreeve, James. “Secrets of the Gene.”National GeographicOct. 1999: 42-42.
46.
Swales, John M.Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
47.
Walzer, Arthur E., and Alan Gross. “Positivists, Postmodernists, Aristotelians and the Challenger Disaster.”College English56 (1994): 420-433.
48.
Watson, James D., and Francis H. C. Crick. “AStructure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid.”Nature171 (1953): 737-738.
49.
Winsor, Dorothy A.“Communication Failures Contributing to the Challenger Accident: An Example for Technical Communicators.”IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication31 (1988): 101-107.
50.
Winsor, Dorothy A.“Constructing Scientific Knowledge in Gould and Lewontin's ‘The Spandrels of San Marco.’ ”Understanding Scientific Prose. Ed. Jack Selzer. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1993. 127-143.
51.
Winsor, Dorothy A.“The Construction of Knowledge in Organizations: Asking the Right Questions about the Challenger.”JBTC4.2 (1990): 7-20.
