Rhetoric of Science and Technology: Syllabus

Reference Information for Spring 2009

James Collier
Office: 433 Shanks
Hours: 1-2 T,H and by appointment
(O) 231-8340; (H) Please refer to the abridged syllabus
jim.collier@vt.edu
AOL IM: CollierVT

Course Description

A trope in introducing the rhetoric of science is to invite one to consider the dissonance when commingling the terms 'science' and 'rhetoric.' In accepting or resolving the discord, we examine our presuppositions regarding the nature of scientific and humanistic inquiry. More specifically, our course will explore the inquiry derived from the interplay of rhetoric, science and technology. Through the course readings, we will take a chronological look at the development of rhetoric of science and technology as an academic field and site for interdisciplinary research. In so doing we will move from Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Science Revolutions (1962), to the first major publications in the rhetoric of science (e.g., Nelson, Mcgill and McCloskey's The Rhetoric of the Human Sciences, 1987), to the beginnings of the rhetoric of technology (e.g., Miller 1994), to the so-called "science wars" (1996), and to "second wave" rhetoric of science and technology (Ceccarelli, 2001). Finally, in considering "rhetorical reclamation," we will attempt to navigate the Scylla of sophistry and Charybdis of scientific controversy.

Course Goals

• To survey the development of the field of rhetoric of science and technology (RST);

• To consider RST as an exemplar of contemporary disciplinary formation;

• To pose questions, to form responses, to initiate discussion and to forward arguments on RST;

• To analyze the rhetoric in, and about, Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Science Revolutions;

• To examine the efficacy of interdisciplinary research through RST.

The Story of the Course

Every course assumes and, hopefully, tells a story. Let me make explicit some assumptions guiding the course so that we might craft a more cogent narrative.

The course will focus on two related areas of inquiry. The first area of inquiry, put broadly, is the disciplinary formation of the Rhetoric of Science and, more recently, Technology (RST). RST lends not only an obviously unique, but also a somewhat stock, example of the development of contemporary academic inquiry. The creation myths differ, but one can point to the ubiquitous The Structure of Scientific Revolutions as RST's starting point. Structure occurs frequently, in contemporary academic inquiry as either a field's big bang or a field's moment of renewal. RST's initial fellow traveler, Science and Technology Studies (STS), traces its roots to the same father. But a common progenitor is not the only shared aspect of many contemporary fields of humanistic and social scientific inquiry.

Fields like RST and STS have an eerily common story of their continuous rise (Steve Fuller uses the term "Panglossian" to help describe this attitude) and subsequent "turns" to neglected and, apparently, more explanatory methods and subjects. Example turns include the "linguistic turn," the "cognitive turn," the "social turn," the ... well, you get the idea. "Turning" or, rather, the proclamation that a turn has, or will, occur, signals a new, typically more progressive, research agenda in the field. RST turns as well — a turn toward technology, for example, or a turn toward neo-Aristotelian rhetoric. Turns often accompany disputes. In RST, the dispute concerned the "globalization" of rhetoric. In STS, the dispute concerned "postmodern science" (the "science wars"). As the borders among disciplines in the humanities and social sciences remain porous, a dispute in one area can spill over into other areas. For example, the dispute over rhetoric's globalization affects not only RST, but also fields with rhetoric as a vital component. Methodenstreit is not a new phenomenon; however, I assume that in current academic inquiry the narrative of disciplinary progress overshadows and determines the outcome of any dispute. Thus, the outcome of disputes only strengthens a field and helps it to progress. While these disputes do have winners and losers, disciplinary history is written by the winners and, consequently, only progress results. In RST, for example, the globalization dispute led to a more sophisticated "second wave" of research. Initially, then, I want to put into play a critical exploration of the commonplace of disciplinary progress in examining the narrative of RST's development. Moreover, we will take up to what extent fields claming kinship with Structure may have been normed by adopting Kuhn's rhetoric.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions provides the second area of our inquiry. We will study Structure's rhetoric and influence. The assumption guiding our study of Structure is the broad, deep and largely unrealized impact the book has on the current conduct of academic inquiry. Structure gives a kind of methodological and rhetorical blueprint for areas of inquiry that want to be taken seriously; that is, fields that want to enjoy the status afforded the natural sciences. While Structure's general significance is well-documented, we will take the opportunity to perform a critical rhetorical analysis. I believe Kuhn's rhetoric is what's bred into the bone of academic inquiry — the problems we see, the questions we form, the methods we use, the outcomes we accept, what we understand as knowledge, our embrace of scientism can be traced to Structure. Quite likely, I have over determined Kuhn's influence. However, our study of Structure will bring into relief our intuitions about how academic ideas gain currency, if inquiry can be purposely engineered and the depths of our realization about our ideological, methodological and epistemological influences. Ultimately, this area of the course takes up the question of rhetoric's reflexive potential — the ability for rhetoric to reveal and change our presuppositions about the conduct of academic inquiry.

I invite each of you to challenge the assumptions guiding this course and to challenge accepted notions of the conduct and purpose of academic inquiry. I look forward to beginning our story.

Assignments

Grading Criteria

Forming Questions; Leading Discussion

Once during the semester, each class member will pose questions to the appropriate forum on the wiki and lead the class discussion. Members of the class will evaluate the presentation through an on-line form. Scores and comments will be forwarded to me. I will share comments, anonymously, with the presenters. I will provide an overall assessment of the presentation. (Please refer to the essay sequence assignment.)

Responses

Class members not leading a given week's discussion will provide 350-500 word responses to selected questions to the appropriate forum on the wiki. As the responses are time sensitive, you will not have a opportunity for late submission. Please note, however, you do have the opportunity to take a well-planned pass during selected weeks. Responses will be evaluated by the number completed as follows (Please refer to the essay sequence assignment.):

    • 8 or more responses: A
    • 7 responses: B
    • 6 responses: C
    • 5 of fewer responses: F

Essays

In assessing the essays, I will look to the norms of academic argument. To that end, each essay will (Please refer to the essay sequence assignment.):

    • Define carefully the idea or issue being explored;
    • Pose an explicit central question about the idea or issue;
    • Provide an arguable claim that takes a position on the central question;
    • Offer coherent argumentative logic;
    • Lend textual evidence to support the argument's claim.

You may revise Essay One as many times as you wish during the semester. We will average the grades. Given time constraints, you will not have the opportunity to revise Essay Two.

Rhetorical Analysis

In assessing your contribution to this assignment, I will focus on two areas. Each of you will develop a 1,500-2000 word entry to our larger wiki article. First, as with the essay, I will look to the norms of academic argument to evaluate your work. Second, and more informally, I will look to your contribution in making the overall piece hang together. We will discuss our ideas of what makes on-line academic writing and research work and, based on that discussion, I will evaluate your contribution to the overall success of our work. As on-line mass collaborative writing is in its infancy, I will reward generously your pioneering spirit and enthusiasm.

Texts

Texts are listed in their order appearance in the course:

    Nelson, Megill and McCloskey (eds.). The Rhetoric of the Human Sciences. University of Wisconsin Press 1987, ISBN: 0299110249

    Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd edition. University Of Chicago Press; 1996, ISBN-10: 0226458083

    Gross and Keith (eds.), Rhetorical Hermeneutics. SUNY 1997, ISBN: 079143110

    Ceccarelli, Leah. Shaping Science With Rhetoric. University of Chicago Press, 2001 ISBN: 0226099075

    Gross, Alan. Starring the Text: The Place of Rhetoric in Science Studies. Southern Illinois University Press; 2006, ISBN-10: 0809326965

Honor System

This course follows university policies pertaining to academic honesty and plagiarism. If you any have questions please ask us, or consult the Graduate Honor System web site.

Rhetoric of Science