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. Summarize Raman's argument regarding the relationship of the media to our perception of the events of the Gulf War. Give an argument as to why you agree or disagree with Raman's analysis.
2. Much of controversy abut the Gulf War turns, in Raman's view, on a series of definitions. Pick two or three of the examples Raman uses and analyze them. Do you agree or disagree that the public's understanding of scientific or technological controversy is fundamentally linguistic? What were your impressions of the "success" or "failure" of technology during the Gulf War? Do you think your impressions were shaped by the language of the war? If so how, if not, why not?
3. Raman claims that blurring distinctions among types of war is a rhetorical tactic used by both military hawks and peace activists. Explain whether you think scientific and technical communicators should take advantage of similar rhetorical tactics in order to convince an audience of a particular position. In arguing your view provide an example.
4. Wars seem to beget new words for old things — and some would argue that the terms are gradually losing their power, and the real horror of war is somehow sanitized. What in W.W.II was called "shell-shock" has more recently been termed Post-traumatic Stress Disorder. Are there other terms, in other areas of human endeavor, that seem designed not so much to convey information as to disguise it? Some might argue that such terms are an improvement on the original because they comfort. Do you agree?
5. The war in Bosnia and Herzegovina involved what its participants termed "ethnic cleansing" and what early newspaper accounts of the war used the more familiar "genocide" — the systematic destruction of a people. Gradually, newspapers abandoned the latter term and began to use the former. Certainly they were not aligning themselves with the people enacting the atrocities. Why, then, did they employ their language?
6. The Battle of New Orleans was fought in part because its participants did not realize the peace treaty ending the War of 1812 had been signed. During The Gulf War Americans saw — on their television screens and in real time — shells raining through Baghdad's night sky. Raman's article suggests that a presentation of the technologies of war may have influenced our understanding (or misunderstanding) of the war. The presentation of the technologies of war was made through a communications technology which was itself almost incredibly sophisticated. Did the communications technology — that is, real-time television pictures — influenced your view of the war? How?
Exercises
1. Referring to Chapter 6, Part I of the text, analyze, in a short report, the arguments Raman gives to support the her thesis. First, identify Raman's main thesis and the arguments see forwards in defense of her position. Analyze each argument determining its premises and conclusions, use of evidence and possible fallacies. From your evaluation of Raman's argument, offer your own argument as to whether the reader should or should not accept her conclusions.
2. In an assignment related to Exercise 1, discuss the linguistic ambiguity and argumentative fallacies Raman points out that military officials and the media engage in during the Gulf War. Do you agree with Raman's recommendations about our approach to the media? What other recommendations would you suggest?
3. Raman's case study lends a model for examining the function of language in shaping perception and knowledge. Referring to Chapter 5, Part I of the text, perform a linguistic analysis of a scientific or technological explanation as it appears in a textbook, newspaper or magazine articles and editorials, or in literature published by participants. List the terms involved. Consider the style of presentation. Analyze the ways in which ways in which language is being used. As the result of your analysis determine the ways in which facts about a given occurrence or phenomena are established and disputed. Consider in your analysis how the lay public influences, and is influenced by, the use of persuasion in media.
4. Raman claims that blurring distinctions among types of war is a rhetorical tactic used by both military hawks and peace activists. In a report offering recommendations, explain whether you think scientific and technical communicators should take advantage of similar rhetorical tactics in order to convince an audience of a particular position. Specify what tactics one could use to convince a given audience (which you define) citing a particular case.