Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Written Communication
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by SULLIVAN, D. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Displaying Disciplinarity

DALE L. SULLIVAN

Northern Illinois University

Publishing in professional journals requires the author to display disciplinarity and yet to say something novel. This article approaches this familiar rhetorical problem from a novel perspective by analyzing disciplinarity as a kind of orthodoxy. Four elements of orthodoxy (narrative knowledge, assumptions and methodologies, hierarchy, and doctrinal knowledge) are identified. Then, the article argues that an orthodox ethos is created by signaling allegiance to a plurality of these elements. An example of an article that displays disciplinarity, David Raup's "Cohort analysis of generic survivorship," is analyzed, showing the author establishes his orthodox ethos by challenging only one of the elements of orthodoxy while simultaneously signaling allegiance to the others.

Written Communication, Vol. 13, No. 2, 221-250 (1996)
DOI: 10.1177/0741088396013002003
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Journal of Business and Technical CommunicationHome page
C. F. Casper
In Praise of Carbon, In Praise of Science: The Epideictic Rhetoric of the 1996 Nobel Lectures in Chemistry
Journal of Business and Technical Communication, July 1, 2007; 21(3): 303 - 323.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Science CommunicationHome page
C. Reeves
An Orthodox Heresy: Scientific Rhetoric and the Science of Prions
Science Communication, September 1, 2002; 24(1): 98 - 122.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Business and Technical CommunicationHome page
IText Working Group, C. Geisler, C. Bazerman, S. Doheny-Farina, L. Gurak, C. Haas, J. Johnson-Eilola, D. S. Kaufer, A. Lunsford, C. R. Miller, et al.
IText: Future Directions for Research on the Relationship between Information Technology and Writing
Journal of Business and Technical Communication, July 1, 2001; 15(3): 269 - 308.
[Abstract] [PDF]