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. Dale Sullivan's case study points out that during a scientific controversy, traditional disciplines and audiences change — sometimes radically. Why is the concept of ethos important in understanding how David Raup connects with different audiences? What is the definition of kairos? Why is the concept of kairos important in understanding how Raup connects with different audiences? What happens to the relationship between writer and reader during a scientific controversy? How does David Raup convince readers of intra- and inter-disciplinary journals that his claims are true? In what ways are the significance of a scientific claim — and responses to it — primarily rhetorical? How does proper timing to lend credibility to an idea?
2. At the outset, Sullivan outlines two conceptions of interdisciplinarity. The pluralist model calls for specialists in one discipline to reinvigorate their research by turning to the methods and approaches of other disciplines. On this model traditional academic disciplines essentially stay intact, but widen their scope. The "interpenetrative" model calls for specialists to synthesize their fields of study into a fully integrated approach to a given problem. On this model traditional academic disciplines are transformed or completely eliminated. Provide an argument in which you advocate one concept of interdisciplinarity. In your argument consider how technical communicators concept of audience would be affected by your position.
3. Given Sullivan's analysis, draw a portrait of David Raup as a writer possessing defined rhetorical sensibilities. That is, what aspects of Raup's presentation convince audiences that his claims regarding mass extinction are more likely correct? Does Raup have a specific purpose in the strategies he adopts? More generally, in what ways can scientific and technical communicators capture "timeliness" in their presentations? Using a current scientific or technological controversy as an example, which positions regarding it would you consider "timely" or "untimely?" Explain the criteria for your choices.
4. Which academic audiences do Raup and Sepkoski have to convince with an explanation of mass extinctions? How does Raup appeal to those audiences? What part does historical context play in Raup's and Sepkoski's presentation? How do they position themselves within the history of geology? How does the appeal to history insure kairos?
5. Like Keith, Sullivan emphasizes the function of ethos in causing the audience to identify with the speaker. What is the ethos of the audience to which Raup and Sepkoski must appeal? Sullivan describes an "appropriate ethos" as a "manufactured image or persona." Considering that Raup and Sepkoski's audience is, generally, interdisciplinary, through what process do they create ethos?
6. In the conclusion, Raup and Sepkoski are compared to "cosmopolitan travelers" who are able to speak the languages and dialects of many disciplines. Still, their ideas may fail to be accepted unless their timing is right. Sullivan suggests quite a narrow window of opportunity for successful interdisciplinary rhetoric. What are the implications of Sullivan's position for technical communicators who wish to appeal to interdisciplinary audiences? Are claims about phenomena that intersect many disciplines harder to "sell" than knowledge claims bound within disciplines? Does the acceptance of an explanation in one discipline necessarily satisfy the criteria for the acceptance in another discipline. Provide an example.
Exercises
1. Sullivan's case study lends a model for examining the function of rhetoric in scientific and technical writing -- especially during a time when a new or controversial claim is forwarded. Select an explanation of a phenomena which has recently been the source of intellectual dispute within your discipline. Examples of these disputes include questions regarding whether Pluto is properly classified as a planet, if a gene that determines criminal behavior exists, and if paid political advertising has any affect (as measured empirically) on voters' choices. In a rhetorical analysis and report on selected literature generated by this controversy, provisionally determine the outcome of the debate. In so doing examine the role that kairos and ethos have in the rhetorical appeals made by the debate participants. Consider how audiences' were swayed to take a given position.
2. Referring to Chapter 4 of the text, perform an audience analysis of Sullivan's article. Initially, characterize Sullivan's professional field (rhetoric). Consider what resources he controls, what requirements there are for practice, organizational control, and workstyle. As well, you may wish to refer to Chapter 2 in Part I of the text, to help define your response as a reader. To what readers does Sullivan appeal? Does he appeal to readers outside the fields of rhetoric and communication? Do you think an audience of scientists would agree with his analysis of the mass extinctions controversy? Why or why not? Given your characterization of rhetoric as a field and Sullivan as a practitioner, speculate on the requirements for what counts as knowledge within the field, and how these requirements compare to those in your discipline. On the same grounds that Sullivan argues for what makes successful interdisciplinary rhetoric, would you assess his analysis as persuasive to an interdisciplinary audience? Why or why not?
3. Sullivan presents an analysis of how scientists appeal to various audiences. Choose two articles on the same subject from a general-audience periodical such as Time or Newsweek and a somewhat more technical journal like Scientific American or Popular Mechanics. In a brief response paper, compare and contrast the two articles consider the audience for the piece and its purpose. Consider the structural aspects of the writing, sentence length, paragraph length, vocabulary, amount of white space, the number of graphic and formulas and the references s within and at the end of the article. After making these determinations draw a profile of the audience. What is their general educational background and expertise?