This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by FAHNESTOCK, J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Accommodating Science

The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts

University of Maryland

Commentary: When this essay first appeared more than 10 years ago, it built on a small but substantial body of scholarship that declared scientific writing an appropriate field for rhetorical analysis. In the last 10 years, studies of scientific writing for both expert and lay audiences have increased exponentially, drawing on the long-established disciplines of the history and philosophy of science. These newer studies, however, differ widely in approach. Many take the perspective of cultural critique (e.g., the work of Bruno Latour and Stephen Woolgar), whereas others use the tools of discourse analysis (e.g., Greg Myers, M.A.K. Halliday, and J. R. Martin). But, application of rhetorical theory also thrives in the work of John Angus Campbell, Alan Gross, Charles Bazerman, Jean Dietz Moss, Lawrence J. Prelli, Carolyn Miller, and many others. Randy Allen Harris offers a useful introduction to this field in Landmark Essays on Rhetoric in Science (1997).

"Accommodating Science" applies ideas from classical rhetoric and techniques of close reading typical of discourse analysis to the question of what happens when scientific reports travel from expert to lay publications. This change in forum causes a shift in genre from forensic to celebratory and a shift in stasis from fact and cause to evaluation and action. These changes in genre, audience, and purpose inevitably affect the material and manner of re-presentation in predictable ways. Two concerns informed this study 10 years ago: the impact of science reporting on public deliberation and the nature of technical and professional writing courses. These concerns have, if anything, increased (e.g., the campaign on global warming), warranting continued scholarly investigation of the gap between the public's right to know and the public's ability to understand.

Written Communication, Vol. 15, No. 3, 330-350 (1998)
DOI: 10.1177/0741088398015003006


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. Dyehouse Knowledge Consolidation Analysis: Toward a Methodology for Studying the Role of Argument in Technology Development Written Communication, April 1, 2007; 24(2): 111 - 139. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. Mcinerney, N. Bird, and M. Nucci The Flow of Scientific Knowledge from Lab to the Lay Public: The Case of Genetically Modified Food Science Communication, September 1, 2004; 26(1): 44 - 74. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. Charney Lone Geniuses in Popular Science: The Devaluation of Scientific Consensus Written Communication, July 1, 2003; 20(3): 215 - 241. [Abstract] [PDF]

				W. J. Vande Kopple From the Dynamic Style to the Synoptic Style in Spectroscopic Articles in the Physical Review: Beginnings and 1980 Written Communication, April 1, 2002; 19(2): 227 - 264. [Abstract] [PDF]