Projects

The written projects for this course will require you to familiarize yourself with the discourse of scientists. For each project select one of the options below and submit via e-mail two weeks in advance of the project due date a proposal outlining specifically how you will respond to the guidelines of the project option. All projects should be between 1,000 to 1,500 words.

Project 1

Select a piece of science writing from your collection and examine it through the lens of some concept or principle from classical rhetoric. Try to find specific examples of the sorts of thing that Wander, Gross, Casper, or Sovacool describe. Begin your project with an introduction in which you explain why you think this piece of writing is worthy of your analysis. In the body of your project illustrate any claim, observation, or judgment you make about rhetoric with specific examples from the text of your piece of science writing. Then, in your conclusion explain how your analysis helps to understand more fully the work of scientists.

 

Project 2

The second project will use one of the focused methodologies from our readings. All projects should conform to the following structure:

1. Introduction, in which you:

2. Critical Method, in which you:

3. Analysis, in which you:

4. Conclusion, in which you:

 

Option 1: Genre

Using Jordan as a model, conduct your own analysis of a piece of scientific discourse in your collection.

 

Option 2: Informal Logic

Using Jackson as a model, conduct your own analysis of a piece of scientific discourse in your collection.

 

Option 3: Narrative

Using Jorgensen as a model, conduct your own analysis of a piece of scientific discourse in your collection.

 

Option 4: Feminist Critique

Using Lippincott as a model, conduct your own analysis of a piece of scientific discourse in your collection.

 

Option 5: Metaphor

Using Jack as a model, conduct your own analysis of a piece of scientific discourse in your collection.

 

Option 6: Ideal Speech

Using Koerber as a model, conduct your own analysis of a piece of scientific discourse in your collection.