COM 320/520 Presentations

Supplemental readings will be the basis for your presentations. The author names under the Presentation column of the Assignment schedule correspond to the bibliographic citations below. Use these citations to locate a copy of the reading.

Your goals in these presentations are: (1) to give a synopsis of the issues in the reading, (2) to offer illustrative examples of these issues from our class discussions and your research, and (3) to provoke class discussion of these issues as they relate to the class's current focus. In general try to show how these readings supplement or challenge the views expressed in the textbook.

Here is a suggested strategy for preparing and carrying out your presentation:

 

Supplemental readings:

Arroliga, Alejandro C.; Sara Newman,; David L. Longworth,; and James K. Stoller. 2002. Metaphorical Medicine: Using Metaphors To Enhance Communication with Patients Who Have Pulmonary Disease, Annals of Internal Medicine, Volume 137 Issue 5, Pages 376-379. 

Bazerman C. 1987. Codifying the social scientific style: the APA publication manual as a behaviorist rhetoric. In: Nelson JS, Megill A, and McCloskey DN, editors. The rhetoric of the human sciences: language and argument in scholarship and public affairs. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.

Blakeslee, A. 1994. The rhetorical construction of novelty: presenting claims in a letter forum. Science, Technology and Human Values, 19(1). Winter '94, 88-100.

Day, Michael, 1999. The scholarly journal in transition and the PubMed Central proposal, Ariadne, Issue 21

Fahnestock J. 1986. Accommodating science: the rhetorical life of scientific facts. Written Communication 3:275-96.

Fahnestock J. 1988. The Stases in Scientific and Literary Argument. Written Communication 5(4):427-443.

Farrell TB, Goodnight GT. 1981. Accidental rhetoric: The root metaphors of Three Mile Island. Communication Monographs 48:271- 300.

Fisher WR. 1994. Narrative rationality and the logic of scientific discourse. Argumentation 8:21-32.

Gieryn TF. 1983. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review 48:781-795.

Griffith, D., 1999. Exaggerating environmental health risk: The case of the toxic dinoflagellate Pfiesteria,  Human Organization, Vol. 58, Iss. 2;  pg. 119

Gross AG. 1985. The form of the experimental paper: A realization of the myth of induction. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 15:15-26.

Herrington AJ. 1985. Writing in academic settings: A study of the contexts for writing in two college chemical engineering courses. Research in the Teaching of English 19(4):331-61.

Hyland, K., 1996. Talking to the academy: forms of hedging in science research articles. Written Communication, 13:251-81.

Katz, S. B. (2001). Language and persuasion in biotechnology communication with the public: How to not say what you're not going to not say and not say it. AgBioForum, 4(2), 93-97. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.agbioforum.org.

Katz 1992. The ethic of expediency: classical rhetoric, technology, and the Holocaust. College English 54:255-75.

Kuhn TS. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Latour B, Woolgar S. 1979. Laboratory life: the social construction of scientific facts. (Chapter 5) Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Madigan, R.; S. Johnson; and P. Linton, 1995. The Language of Psychology: APA Style as Epistemology, American Psychologist, Volume 50(6), p 428&endash;436.

Matzat, Uwe, 1998, Informal Academic Communication and Scientific Usage of Internet Discussion Groups, IRISS '98: Conference Papers.

Mehlenbacher B. 1994. The rhetorical nature of academic research funding. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 37:157- 62.

Miller LL. 1996. How to get a research idea and get someone to pay you to work on it. Journal of Chemical Education 73(4):332-336. 

Myers G. 1985. The social construction of two biologists' proposals. Written Communication 2:219-45.

[NAS] National Academy of Sciences. 1995. On being a scientist: responsible conduct in research. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Paul, D., 2000. In citing chaos: A study of the rhetorical use of citations, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, Vol. 14, Iss. 2;  pg. 185.

Prelli, LJ 1989. The Rhetorical Construction of Scientific Ethos, In Ed., HW Simons, Rhetoric in the human sciences, London: Sage Publications, 48-68.

Thompson, DK. 1993. Arguing for experimental facts in science: a study of research article results sections in biochemistry. Written Communication, 8:106-28.

Vande Kopple, W. J., 1998. Relative Clauses in Spectroscopic Articles in the Physical Review, Beginnings and 1980, Written Communication, April 1998 v15 i2 p170(1).

von Gunten, Charles F. 2000. Ensuring Competency in End-of-Life Care: Communication and Relational Skills. JAMA , volume:284, 3051

Weinberg, S. 1998. The revolution that didn't happen," The New York Review, October 8, 1998, pp. 48-52.

Wilkes, J., 1990. Scientists Should Spend More Time Communicating With The Public, The Scientist, 4[1]:15.