This ethnography of communication was concerned with discovering a speech code in the discourse about values in science used by scientists and engineers working in nanoscale science and engineering. It was supported and guided by the theoretical framework of speech codes theory. Materials analyzed included 4 years of fieldwork at a U.S. research university and nanotechnology center and 20 in-depth interviews conducted with scientists and engineers working in nanotechnology. Data sets were constructed and analyzed to identify a distinctive speech code about science and social and ethical implications of nanotechnology that contains beliefs among its users about identity, society, and rhetoric.
AlbertE. (1972). Culture patterning of speech behavior in Burundi. In GumperzJ.HymesD. (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 72-105). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
2.
AlivisatosP.RocoM.WilliamsR. (1999). Introduction to nanotechnology for non-specialists. In Nanotechnology research directions: IWGN workshop report–Vision for nanotechnology R&D in the next decade (pp. xxv-xxx). Retrieved from http://www.wtec.org/loyola/nano/IWGN.Research.Directions/chapter00.pdf
3.
AltmannJ. (2004). Military uses of nanotechnology: Perspectives and concerns. Security Dialogue, 35, 61-79.
4.
BassoK. (1970). To “give up on words”: Silence in the western Apache culture. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 26, 213-230.
5.
BaumanR. (1970). Aspects of 17th century Quaker rhetoric. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 56, 67-74.
6.
BennettI.SarewitzD. (2006). Too little, too late? Research policies on the societal implications of nanotechnology in the United States. Science as Culture, 15, 309-325.
7.
BerneR. (2006). Nanotalk: Conversations with scientists and engineers about ethics, meaning, and belief in the development of nanotechnology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
BerubeD. (2006). Nanohype: The truth behind the nanotechnology buzz. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Press.
BriggsC. (1986). Learning how to ask: A sociolinguistic appraisal of the role of the interview in social science research. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
11.
CarbaughD. (1988). Talking American: Cultural discourses on Donahue. New York, NY: Ablex.
12.
CarbaughD. (1993). “Soul” and “self”: Soviet and American cultures in conversation. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 79, 182-200.
13.
CarbaughD. (2005). Cultures in conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
CobbM. (2005). Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Science Communication, 27, 221-239.
15.
CoutuL. (2000). Communication codes of rationality and spirituality in the discourse of and about Robert S. McNamara’s In Retrospect. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33, 179-212.
16.
CrichtonM. (2002). Prey. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
17.
DrexlerK. E. (1986). Engines of creation: The coming era of nanotechnology. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
FeynmanR. (1960, December29). There’s plenty of room at the bottom (Transcript of a talk at the annual meeting of the American Physical Society at the California Institute of Technology). Retrieved from http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/feynman.html
22.
FitchK. (1991). The interplay of linguistic universals and cultural knowledge in personal address: Colombian madre terms. Communication Monographs, 58, 254-272.
23.
FongM. (1998). Chinese immigrants’ perceptions of semantic dimensions of direct/indirect communication in intercultural compliment interactions with North Americans. Howard Journal of Communications, 9, 245-262.
24.
GustonD. (2010). Encyclopedia of nanoscience and society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25.
HessD. (2001). Ethnography and the development of science and technology studies. In AtkinsonP.CoffeyA.DelamontS. (Eds.), Handbook of ethnography (pp. 234-245). London, England: Sage.
26.
HymesD. (1962). The ethnography of speaking. In GladwinT.SturtevantW. C. (Eds.), Anthropology and human behavior (pp. 13-53). Washington, DC: Anthropological Society of Washington.
27.
HymesD. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In GumperzJ.HymesD. (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 35-71). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
28.
HymesD. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
29.
JelinskiL. (1999). Biologically related aspects of nanoparticles, nanostructured materials, and nanodevices. In SiegelR. W.HuE.RocoM. C. (Eds.), Nanostructure science and technology: A worldwide study (pp. 113-130). Baltimore, MD: International Technology Research Institute at Loyola College. Retrieved from http://www.wtec.org/loyola/nano/IWGN.Worldwide.Study/ch7.pdf
KatrielT. (1986). Talking straight: Dugri speech in Israeli Sabra culture. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
33.
KatrielT. (2004). Dialogic moments: From soul talks to talk radio in Israeli culture. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.
34.
KatrielT.PhilipsenG. (1981). “What we need is communication”: “Communication” as a cultural category in some American speech. Communication Monographs, 48, 301-317.
35.
KearnesM.Grove-WhiteR.MacnaghtenP.WilsdonJ.WynneB. (2006). From bio to nano: Learning lessons from the UK agricultural biotechnology controversy. Science as Culture, 15, 291-307.
36.
KeatingE.JarmonL. (2006). What is nanotechnology: New properties of words as territories in a cross-disciplinary, cross border flow. Practicing Anthropology, 28(2), 6-10.
37.
KurzweilR. (2005). The singularity is near: When humans transcend biology. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
38.
Leeds-HurwitzW. (2005). Ethnography. In FitchK.SandersR. (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 327-354). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39.
LeighterJ. (2007). Codes of commonality and cooperation: Notions of citizen personae and citizen speech codes in American public meetings (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
MacnaghtenP.KearnesM.WynneB. (2005). Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences?Science Communication, 27, 1-24.
42.
McGinnR. (2008). Ethics and nanotechnology: Views of nanotechnology researchers. Nanoethics, 2, 101-131.
43.
McKibbenB. (2003). Enough: Staying human in an engineered age. New York, NY: Owl Books.
44.
National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network. (2008). Societal and ethical implications of nanoscale science and engineering (New user training). Retrieved from http://www.nnin.org/doc/TrainingSlidesv6.pdf
45.
PatraD.HaribabuE.McComasK. (2010). Perceptions of nano ethics among practitioners in a developing country: A case of India. Nanoethics, 4, 67-75.
46.
PhilipsenG. (1975). Speaking “like a man” in Teamsterville: Culture patterns of role enactment in an urban neighborhood. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 61, 13-22.
47.
PhilipsenG. (1976). Places for speaking in Teamsterville. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 62, 15-25.
48.
PhilipsenG. (1986). Mayor Daley’s council speech: A cultural analysis. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 72, 247-260.
49.
PhilipsenG. (1987). The prospect for cultural communication. In KincaidL. (Ed.), Communication theory from Eastern and Western perspectives (pp. 245-254). New York, NY: Academic Press.
50.
PhilipsenG. (1992). Speaking culturally: Explorations in social communication. Albany: State University of New York Press.
51.
PhilipsenG. (1997). A theory of speech codes. In PhilipsenG.AlbrechtT. (Eds.), Developing communication theories (pp. 119-156). Albany: State University of New York Press.
52.
PhilipsenG. (2000). Permission to speak the discourse of difference: A case study. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33, 213-234.
53.
PhilipsenG. (2002). Cultural communication. In GudykunstW.ModyB. (Eds.), Handbook of international and intercultural communication (pp. 51-67). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
54.
PhilipsenG. (2010). Researching culture in contexts of social interaction: An ethnographic approach, a network of scholars, illustrative moves. In CarbaughD.BuzzanellP. (Eds.), Distinctive qualities of communication research (pp. 87-105). New York, NY: Routledge.
55.
PhilipsenG.CarbaughD. (1986). A bibliography of fieldwork in the ethnography of communication. Language in Society, 15, 387-398.
56.
PhilipsenG.CoutuL. (2005). The ethnography of speaking. In FitchK.SandersR. (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 355-379). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
57.
PhilipsenG.CoutuL.CovarrubiasP. (2005). Speech codes theory: Restatement, revisions, and response to criticisms. In GudykunstW. B. (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 55-68). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
58.
PowellM. (2007). New risk or old risk, high risk or no risk? How scientists’ standpoints shape their nanotechnology risk frames. Health, Risk & Society, 9, 173-190.
RatnerM.RatnerD. (2003). Nanotechnology: A gentle introduction to the next big idea. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
61.
RhodesR. (1986). The making of the atomic bomb. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
62.
RipA. (2006). Folk theories of nanotechnologists. Science as Culture, 15, 349-365.
63.
SchatzmanL.StraussA. (1973). Field research: Strategies for a natural sociology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
64.
SchummerJ. (2007). Impact of nanotechnologies on developing countries. In AllhoffF.LinP.MoorJ.WeckertJ. (Eds.), Nanoethics: The ethical and social implications of nanotechnology (pp. 291-307). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
65.
SherzerJ. (1973). Nonverbal and verbal deixis: The pointed lip gesture among the San Blas Cuna. Language in Society, 2, 117-131.
SparrowR. (2007). Revolutionary and familiar, inevitable and precarious: Rhetorical contradictions in enthusiasm for nanotechnology. Nanoethics, 1, 57-68.
TorgersenH.HampelJ.von Bergmann-WinbergM.BridgmanE.DurantJ.EinsiedelE.KamaraM. (2002). Promise, problems and proxies: Twenty-five years of debate and regulation in Europe. In BauerM.GaskellG. (Eds.), Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy (pp. 21-94). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
WeaverD.LivelyE.BimberB. (2009). Searching for a frame: News media tell the story of technological progress, risk, and regulation. Science Communication, 31, 139-166.
73.
WinchatzM. (2001). Social meanings in German interactions: An ethnographic analysis of the second-person pronoun Sie. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 34, 337-369.
