Click on a link to go to:
Carpenter, J. H. & Krest, M. (2001). It's about the
science: Students writing and thinking about data in a scientific
writing course. Language and Learning Across the Disciplines,
5(2), 46-65
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osbourne, J. (2000).
Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms.
Science Education, 84, 287-312.
Faber, B. (2002). Professional identities: What's
professional about professional communication? Journal of
Business and Technical Communication, 16, 306-337.
Hand, B., Prain, V., Lawrence, C., & Yore, L. D.
(1999). A writing in science framework designed to enhance
science literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 21,
1021-1035.
Hirst, R. (2003). Scientific jargon, good and bad. Journal of
Technical Writing and Communication, 33, 201-229.
Jones, A. A. (2003). Imitation, copying, and the use of
models: Report writing in an introductory physics course.
IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 46, 168-184.
Kelly, G. J. & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An
analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in
writing. Science Education, 86, 314-342.
Mason, L. & Bascolo, P. (2000). Writing and conceptual change: What changes? Instructional Science, 28, 199-226.
Palevitz, B. A., Lewis, R. & Latourelle, S. (2002).
Issue oriented biology: Merging technical & popular science
writing in the classroom. The American Biology Teacher, 64,
250-259.
Samraj, B. & Swales, J. (2000). Writing in conservation biology: Searching for an interdisciplinary rhetoric? Language and Learning Across the Disciplines, 3(3), 36-56.
Schulte, B. A. (2003). Scientific writing & scientific
method: Parallel 'hourglass' structure in form &
content. American Biology Teacher, 65, 591-594.
Takao, A. Y., & Kelly, G. J. (2003). Assessment of
evidence in university students' scientific writing. Science and
Education, 12, 341-363.
Venebles, A., & Summit, R. (2003). Enhancing scientific
essay writing using peer assessment. Innovations in Education and
Teaching International, 40, 281-290.
Yore, L. D., Hand, B. M., & Prain, V. (2002). Scientists as writers. Science Education, 86, 672-692.
Evidently, few studies have been
done on the use of electronic communication within the sciences.
Most all the articles that I've found have focused upon the Internet as
a medium for communication of scientific information to lay
audiences. If you know of significant sources, please email me the
publication information. I'll greatly appreciate your
contributions!
Correia, A. M. R., & Neto, M.D. (2002). The role of e-print archives in the access to, and dissemination of, scientific grey literature. Journal of Information Science, 28, 231-241.
Goble, C. (2001). The low down on e-science and grids for
biology. Comparative and Functional Genomics, 6, 365-370.
Gonzalez-Pueyo, I., & Redrado, A. (2003). Scientific
articles in internet homepages: Assumptions about lay
audiences. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 33,
165-184.
Hovav, A., & Gray, P. (2002). Future penetration of
academic electronic journals: Four scenarios. Information Systems
Frontiers, 4, 229-244.
McInereny, C. R., & Bird, N. J. (2005). Assessing web site quality in context: Retrieving information about genetically modified food on the Web. Information Research, 10 (2), paper 213 [Available at InformationR.net/ir/10-2/paper213.html]
Triese, D., Walsh-Childers, K., Weingold, M. F., & Friedman,
M. (2003). Cultivating the science internet audience.
Science Communication, 24, 309-333.
Wyatt, S., Henwood, F., Hart, A., & Smith, J.
(2005). The digital divide: Health information and everyday
life. New Media & Society, 7, 199-218.
Zhao, D.Z., & Logan, E. (2002). Citation analysis using scientific publications on the Web as data source: A case study in the XML research area. Scientometrics, 54, 449-472.
Arsenault, D. J., Smith, L. D., & Beauchamp, E. A. (2006).
Visual inscriptions in the scientific hierarchy: Mapping the
'treasures of science.' Science Communication, 27, 376-428.
Ceccarelli, L. (2004). Neither confusing cacophony nore
culinary compliments: A case study of mixed metaphors for genomic
science. Written Communication, 21, 92-105.
Crick, N. (2005). 'A capital and novel argument':
Charles Darwin's notebooks and the productivity of rhetorical
consciousness. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 91, 337-364.
Fahnestock, J. (2004). Preserving the figure:
Consistency in the presentation of scientific arguments. Written
Communication, 21, 6-31.
Graham, M. B. & Lindeman, N. The rhetoric and politics of
science in the case of the Missouri River system. Journal of
Business and Technical Communication, 19, 422-448.
Hirst, R. (2003). Scientific jargon, good and bad.
Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 33, 201-229.
Journet, D. (2005). Metaphor, ambiguity, and motive in
evolutionary biology: W. D. Hamilton and the 'gene's point of
view.' Written Communication, 22, 379-420.
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical structure of
biochemistry research articles. English for Specific Purposes,
24, 269-292.
Latour, B. & Fabbri, P. (2000). The rhetoric of
science:
Authority and duty in an article from the exact sciences.
(S.
Cummins, Trans.). Technostyle, 16, 115-34.
Litticoat, A. J. (2004). Grammar as a feature of text
construction: Time and rhetorical function in French journal
articles in biology. Written Communication, 21, 316-343.
Little, J. (2000). Analogy in science: Where do we go
from
here? Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 30, 69-92.
Mandersloot, W. G. B., & Bruckmann, C. G. (2000).
Structuring
and evaluating scitech communications. Journal of Technical
Writing
and Communication, 30, 343-53.
Nelson, C. K. (2004). Classifying communibiology's
texts: Implication for genre theory. Communication Theory,
14, 142-166.
Schryer, C. F., Lingard, L., & Spafford, M. M. (2005).
Techne or artful science and the genre of case presentations in
healthcare settings. Communication Monographs, 72, 234-260.
Turner, S. (2005). Critical junctures in genetic
medicine: The transformation of DNA lab science to commercial
pharmacogenics. Journal of Business and Technical Communication,
19, 328-352.
Varghese, S. A. & Abraham, S. A. (2004). Book-length
scholarly essays as a hybrid genre in science. Written
Communication, 21, 201-231.
Warnock, B. (2005). The optometrist's rise to power in
the health care market, of 'It's optometric physician, to you.'
Science Communication, 27, 100-126.
Blakeslee, A. M. (2001). Interacting with audiences: Social influences on the production of scientific writing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Clark, F. & Illman, D. L. (2001). Dimensions of civic
science. Science Communication, 23, 5-27.
Hartley, J., Sotto, E., & Pennebaker, J. (2002). Style and
substance in psychology: Are influential articles more readable than
less influential ones? Social Studies of Science, 32, 321-334.
Hutto, D. (2003). When
professional biologists write: An
ethnographic study with pedagogical
implications. Technical Communication Quarterly, 12, 207-223.
Frasca-Spada, M., & Jardine, N. (2000). Books and the sciences in history. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gross, A. G., Harmon, J. E. & Reidy, M. S. (2002).
Communicating science: The scientific article from the 17th
century to the present. Cambridge: Oxford University
Press.
NB: I make no endorsements of these texts' quality, nor of their applicability. Many of the textbooks available on scientific writing and communication are designed for professionals. However, portions of them may be useful for ungergraduate and/or graduate classes. As always, texts should be chosen with care and consideration of their utility.
Beall, H. & Trimbur, J. (2000). A short guide to writing about Chemistry. 2nd ed. New York: Longman.
Ebel, H. F., Bleifert, C., & Russey, W. E. (2002). The art of scientific writing: From student reports to professional publications in chemistry and related fields. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Gehlbach, S. H. (2002). Interpreting the medical literature. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Medical Publishing Division.
Kinsley, K. (2002). A student handbook for writing in Biology. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc.
Matthews, J. R., Bowen, J. M., & Matthews, R. W. (2001). Successful scientific writing: a step-by-step guide for biomedical scientists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
McMillan, V. E. (2001). Writing papers in the biological sciences. 3rd ed. Boston: Bedford/St.Martin's.
Paradis, J. G. & Zimmerman, M. L. (1997). The MIT guide to science and engineering communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pechenik, J. A. (2001). A short guide to writing about Biology. 4th ed. New York: Longman.
Penrose, A. M. & Katz, S. B. (2004). Writing in the Sciences: Exploring the conventions of scientific discourse. 2nd ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.
Valiela, I. (2000). Doing science: Design, analysis, and communication of scientific research. New York: Oxford University Press.
Zeiger, M. (2000). Essentials of writing biomedical research papers. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Health Professions Division.
Return to Harrison's Home Page.