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. Briefly sketch the employment outlook for scientists and engineers according to Tobias, Chubin and Aylesworth. Would, in your opinion, "... American business and industry ... be better off with fewer lawyers, financial specialists, and traditional managers, and more science-trained professionals."? Explain. Do you agree or disagree with authors' reasoning?
2. Tobias, Chubin and Aylesworth point out a paradox currently facing scientists. The public mood requires greater tax-payer accountability, both at the federal and state levels. Demands for accountability places scientists, and other researchers receiving public funds, in the position of explaining the value of their work. Some scientists argue their work is too complex for the lay public to understand, and cannot be properly explained. Other professionals offer the same argument. Further (according to the authors) "... popularization may lead to criticism and loss of prestige." Do you believe science and technology should be "democratized" - that is, explained in a public language, opened to public critique, and changed according to public will? Explain referring to the arguments forwarded by Fuller in Chapter 7 Part II of the text. What are the benefits and problems you see with your position?
3. Many of you attend state supported institutions. Even if you attend a private university, many programs in which you participate are directly or indirectly supported by federal and state dollars in the form of grants and loans. Initially, then, what arguments would you give a tax-paying public for why they should, or should not, support education generally, and research in your discipline specifically. Why should the state, as opposed to private industry, supply institutions for student and worker training? Should the state formally regulate the number of graduates produced in a certain area (physics, for example) in order to regulate the talent pool?
4. What responsibilities do professional societies (like the American Society of Chemical Engineers) and professors have to practitioners entering their fields? If, for instance, the job outlook for graduates is bleak, should students be actively discouraged from entering the discipline or attending graduate school? Why or why not?
5. What alternative paths to academic research do the authors point out as possible opportunities for science and engineering Ph.D.'s? How will having a ready-pool of scientists and engineers change the current nature of research? What problems do the authors see with respect to a progressively privatized science? Do you agree? How are science and technology susceptible to, or immune from, change in the market?
6. The authors' maintain: "An ideal future for science-trained professionals in the U.S. in the authors' opinion would look something like this -- a significantly larger percentage of young people, regardless of race, ethnic background, gender, or disability, would be recruited to the study of science. Like today's ROTC and military academy candidates, they would be supported with tuition waivers, monthly stipends, and paid summer work experience." Given the authors' further explanation of their reasoning, argue why you think this is or is not a good idea. Could such a program be extended to training in other disciplines?
7. How is the general welfare of the United States tied to welfare of science and technology according to the authors? Explain why you agree or disagree with their position.
Exercises
1. Determine the role the federal government plays in your discipline. In a brief report, document the federal money that goes to support research at your school or in your particular area of expertise. You may look at government documents that account for funding (transcripts from committee hearings can be helpful), examine studies about job and research prospects in your field (in professional and popular journals and magazines, for example), and/or interview practitioners in your field that receive federal grants. From the information you gather determine what areas of your discipline are getting support a why. Based on your analysis explain your recommendations regarding whether the federal government should maintain, increase, decrease or shift its funding to areas of your discipline. From your analysis, and based on predictions of future federal funding, indicate which areas of your field will hold the greatest potential for future employment. Do you agree your field should head in this direction? Explain your reasoning.
2. In an assignment pattern on Exercise 1, document the role private industry plays in your field or discipline. You may look at corporate reports, newspaper, magazine and journal articles and/or interview practitioners in your field about the ways private industry shape the direction of your field. Based on your analysis determine whether private industry should play a greater or lesser role in your field.
3. The authors' outline alternative careers paths in science. Based on your interviews, draw a detailed profile of practitioners within your field or discipline identifying shared characteristics. Compare and contrast the accounts you received with (if applicable) the authors' rendering. Consider, for example, if current practitioners in your field continue to take a standard career path, or if alternatives to traditional practice are becoming more common. What factors explain this continuity or change? In drawing these profiles, determine if race, class and gender act as factors determining career choice. Ultimately, provide a common map of the way these practitioners come into your field.
4. Describe, in a brief essay, the "new social compact" the authors believe should be struck between scientists and society. Referring to Chapter 6 in Part I of the text on the conduct of science policy, how would this new compact influence, or create, current federal policy mechanisms? How is the authors' new compact similar or different in sentiment to the social compact recommended by Fuller in the text? Do you think the lay public should have a greater or lesser role in determining science policy? Explain your reasoning.
5. The conduct of science and technology, and their images, have been discussed through this text. Traditionally, one of science's hallmark characteristics has been public openness and accountability -- scientific knowledge is, theoretically, available to all who seek it and wish to test it. In a response essay, give an argument, based on a case study or detailed example, of how corporate privatization helps or harms the traditional conduct of science. Be sure to clearly define your terms.