Section I
Chapter 1:
Scientific and Technical Communication in Context
Part 1;
Part 2;
Part 3
Chapter 2:
Reading Scientific and Technical Texts
Chapter 3:
Writing Scientific and Technical Texts
Part 1;
Part 2;
Part 3
Chapter 4:
Conducting Research
Part 1;
Part 2
Chapter 5:
Understanding Audiences
Part 1;
Part 2
Chapter 6:
Persuasion and Critical Thinking
Part 1;
Part 2
Chapter 7:
Participation and Policy
Part 1;
Part 2
Section II
Chapter 8:
Definitions, Descriptions, and Instructions
Part 1;
Part 2
Chapter 9:
Correspondence
Chapter 10:
Job-Finding Materials
Chapter 11:
Proposals
Part 1;
Part 2
Chapter 12:
Technical Reports
Chapter 13:
Scientific Articles and Abstracts
Chapter 14:
Oral Presentations
Chapter 15:
Formatting, Designing, and Using Graphics
Part 1;
Part 2
Grammar Handbook
Section III
Chapter 16:
Opening
Geoff Cooper:
"Textual Technologies"
Discussion
Chapter 17:
Opening
Steve Fuller: "Putting People Back Into the Business of Science"
Part 1; Part 2
Discussion
Chapter 18:
Opening
William Keith: "Science and Communication"
→ Discussion
Chapter 19:
Opening
Sujatha Raman: "Challenging High-Tech War"
Discussion
Chapter 20:
Opening
Dale L. Sullivan: "Migrating Across Disciplinary Boundaries"
Discussion
Chapter 21:
Opening
Tobias, Chubin, Aylesworth: "Restructuring Demand for Scientific Expertise"
Part 1; Part 2
Discussion
Discussion
1. What does Keith mean by "being rhetorical"? What do you think rhetoric or "rhetorical" means generally? How is rhetoric understood in common usage (refer to Chapter 1, Part I in the text)? Why should a writer purposefully set out persuade the reader? Should writers clearly indicate what their motives are and how they expect the reader do respond? How is science or technology "rhetorical"?
2. What is ethos? Describe the ethos of your field or discipline to someone unfamiliar with it? What do you think the public perception is of the ethos of science and technology? What function does ethos play in scientific and technical communication? In what specific way can technical writers successfully appeal to ethos to persuade an audience?
3. In analyzing audiences for science Keith mentions that traditionally there has been a distinction between audiences "inside" and "outside" science. In your opinion, what would an "inside" audience need to know? Would an "inside audience" need to be experts, other professionals, curious laypersons? Who would compose an "outside" audience?
4. Certain scientific texts -- Newton's Principia, Lyell's Geology, Darwin's Origin, Einstein's papers on relativity -- are considered some of the most influential works on our thinking about the world ever written. Name some other scientific texts you think were influential. If could not name many, why do you think that is? Which of these texts have you read, and for what reason? Are any of these works used in any of the science classes you have taken? If not, why not? If so, how did you analyze them?
5. Keith observes that experts spend most of their time in problem solving in formulating the problem, while novices try to get at solutions by trail and error. From an analysis and description of your own writing process, do you spend more time in formulating problems or getting at solutions? What aspects of writing do you consider "problems" or "solutions"? From a document that you have recently prepared formulate the steps of the writing process you followed into a set problems to be solved. In writing this document why did you formulate or fail to formulate a purpose, determine the nature of the audience, and define the rhetorical context? Why or why not? How could this problem solving method could be applied to other documents?
6. What is the image of science that Keith promotes? How does this image relate to the practice of scientific and technical communication defined in this text? What is gained by you as a student, potential professional and citizen by revising the image of science?
Exercises
1. Keith offers a list of purposes, contexts and roles for communication. As a class make suggestions for additions to these lists keeping in mind the special problems student writers encounter.
2. In the first discussion question, you were asked to define what the author means by "being rhetorical." With this definition in mind, find a passage in the readings in Part II or in Chapter One, Part I which serves as an example the authors "being rhetorical." In a brief response paper citing examples, illustrate what rhetorical attitude you find in the passage. Further, offer suggestions for how to change the text to better achieve its purpose.
3. Keith opens with the claim that "the pictures of science we get from the movies is very different from the way it is actually done." List 5 to 8 pictures or images we get of science from the movies, television, newspapers or other popular media. Next, list 5 to 8 social or cultural factors that you think would influence the practice of science or technology. In a class discussion compare your lists to the lists of your classmates. In a brief written response citing examples, argue for or against the idea that science is like other activities in everyday life. Provide any suggestions about how better ways to talk, write or present pictures and images about science or technology.
4. Keith provides an "unsatisfactory' illustration of the communication process. Taking into account the concepts of audience, relationship, purpose and context ¡V provide a more useful illustration of the communication process. Given that this illustration provides an ideal model, give a more realistic illustration of your writing process.
5. One could argue that given the rapid advance, change and fragmentation of knowledge leads to the rapid creation of new audiences for scientific and technical communication. Further, upon graduation, practitioners in specialties of larger fields rapidly become laypersons with respect to other specialties in the same field. Consider your own career path over the next ten to fifteen years. In a brief paper "interview" yourself as a professional ten to fifteen years from now. In the interview consider whether you think you still possess the "cutting edge" skills you had upon graduation. Consider how you think changes in the lasts ten to fifteen years have changed how you communicate specialized information. What new audiences and context have arisen? In your professional practice do you think it is important that people in the same field, although not in the same specialty, know basically the same skills and concepts? Do you think increased specialization has helped or hurt your profession? Which communication practices have changed over the years?