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
Opening
Scientific and technical texts appear "value-neutral." A text is "objective" in that it does not appear to represent any system of values or beliefs. During the seventeenth century scientists promoted research as a neutral activity far outside of, and absent any influence in, the realm of political and religious intrigue. Scientists made discoveries that society could apply to "the question of values" that could be worked out later. Since the scientific practice was considered apolitical, the state felt free to allow it to exist and researchers felt free to pursue the subjects they wished. Scientific and technical writing reflected the goal of value-neutral research to appease state and religious officials. Science was portrayed as neutral and in the realm of public reason; values were portrayed as subjective and in the realm of personal impulse.
Our approach to reading and interpreting scientific and technical texts assumes seventeenth century sensibilities. In the seventeenth century, the neutrality of science toward political and religious issues was a progressive solution in defining the relation of science and society. In the twentieth century, however, science and technology are not marginal institutions struggling for survival. Science wields extraordinary social and political influence. Science is ethics. Science is politics. Since science possesses its own power, neutrality can no longer be interpreted as freedom from state and religious authority, but as an escape from commitment or as its own instrument of authority. Judgments involving "value-neutrality", objectivity, subjectivity, authority, democracy and power are embedded in scientific and technical writing. But our analyses of scientific and technical texts do not take up the question of ideology or values.
A common sense notion suggests the more we know about the contexts, relationships and purposes of the communicative process, the better we know our own choices and practices. To write a better research proposal, for instance, we need to know what areas and concerns are being funded, and direct the elements of our proposal to those areas. But if we concentrate on studying scientific texts, how can we determine their underlying basis? In studying the text of a journal article, for instance, you do not go behind the scenes into the laboratory. Nevertheless the purpose for studying scientific texts is to identify your reactions and reactions of others, to see how they influence, and are influenced by elements of the text. Examining the construction of sentences, the use of jargon, the placement of visual aids, the organization of the work, and the subject matter -- and your reactions to these elements -- allows you hold up your presumptions and ideas for examination. In this way you go "behind the scenes" to inspect your own writing process.
Bill Keith asks us study the images and aspects of science, technology and communication we often use. Keith also introduces us to the elements shared in all forms of communication such as rhetoric and persuasion. He suggests that "a communicator that takes a rhetorical stance ... takes responsibility for having a specific purpose in communicating, and designing the communication to fit that purpose." If you accept Keith's notion of "being rhetorical," then scientific and technical communication represents a series of choices not unlike the choices faced -- and studied -- by writers of all types of literature.