Recent studies indicate that scientific research is part of prewriting in the scientific writing process. This article argues that since invention in scientific research is discovery of the unknown of the scientific community and invention in writing is discovery of ideas within existing knowledge, scientific research cannot be part of prewriting in the scientific writing process. Researchers should be aware that inventional heuristics introduced in freshman composition courses, which serve to discover ideas within existing knowledge, are not always applicable in real-life situations where scientific writing occurs, because the content of discourse is sometimes given in these situations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
MurrayD. M., Writing as Process: How Writing Finds Its Own Meaning, in Eight Approaches to Teaching Composition, DonovanT. R. and McClellandB. W. (eds.) Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, New York, pp. 4–5, 1980.
2.
LindemannE., A Rhetoric for Writing Teachers, Oxford University Press, New York, 1982.
3.
WinklerV. M., The Role of Models in Technical and Scientific Writing, in New Essays in Technical and Scientific Communication: Research, Theory, Practice, AndersonP. V.BrockmannR. J., and MillerC. R. (eds.), Baywood Publishing Co., Amityville, New York, p. 112, 1983.
4.
BazermanC., Scientific Writing as a Social Act: A Review of the Literature of the Sociology of Science, in New Essays in Technical and Scientific Communication: Research, Theory, Practice, AndersonP. V.BrockmannR. J., and MillerC. R. (eds.), Baywood Publishing Co., Amityville, New York, p. 165, 1983.
5.
MillerC. R., Invention in Technical and Scientific Discourse: A Prospective Survey, in Research in Technical Communication, MoranM. G. and JourneyD. (eds.), Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut, pp. 117–162, 1985.
6.
RossiP., Francis Bacon: From Magic to Science, RabinovitchS. (trans.), pp. 153–156, 1968.
7.
BaconF., Advancement of Learning (III) and De Augmentis (IV), in Works of Francis Bacon, SpeddingJ.EllisR. L., and HeathD. D. (eds.), Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey, 1859, rpt. Stuttgart, 1963.
8.
YoungR. E., Paradigms and Problems: Needed Research in Rhetorical Invention Invention, in Research on Composing: Points of Departure, CooperC. R. and OdellL. (eds.), Sage, Beverley Hills, pp. 36–39, 1978.
9.
CowanE., Writing, Scott Foresman, Glenview, Illinois, pp. 10–29, 1983.
10.
BurkeK., A Grammar of Motives, University of California Press, 1969.
11.
RohmanD. G.Pre-Writing: The Stage of Discovery in the Writing Process, College Composition and Communication, 16, pp. 102–112, 1977.
12.
DowstK., The Epistemic Approach: Writing, Knowing, and Learning, in Eight Approaches to Teaching Composition, DonovanT. R. and McClellandB. W. (eds.), Longman, White Plains, New York, p. 72, 1980.
13.
YoungR. E.BeckerA. L., and PikeK. L., Rhetoric: Discovery and Change, Harcourt Brace Jonanovich, San Diego, pp. 94–129, 1970.
14.
FlowerL. S. and HayesJ. R.Problem-Solving Strategies and the Writing Process, College English, 39, p. 455, 1977.
15.
JardineL., Francis Bacon: Discovery and the Art of Discourse, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 109–147, 1974.
16.
KuhnT. S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edition, University of Chicago Press, pp. 10–85, 1970.
17.
BlackM., Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, p. 237, 1962.
18.
HamiltonD.Writing Science, College English, 40, p. 33, 1978.
19.
SoutherJ. W.Developing Assignments for Scientific and Technical Writing, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 7, p. 262, 1977.
20.
OveringtonM. A.The Scientific Community as Audience: Toward a Rhetorical Analysis of Science, Philosophy and Rhetoric, 10, pp. 143–164, 1977.
