• Complain

Ann M. Blakeslee - Interacting With Audiences: Social Influences on the Production of Scientific Writing (Rhetoric, Knowledge, and Society Series)

Here you can read online Ann M. Blakeslee - Interacting With Audiences: Social Influences on the Production of Scientific Writing (Rhetoric, Knowledge, and Society Series) full text of the book (entire story) in english for free. Download pdf and epub, get meaning, cover and reviews about this ebook. year: 2000, publisher: Routledge, genre: Romance novel. Description of the work, (preface) as well as reviews are available. Best literature library LitArk.com created for fans of good reading and offers a wide selection of genres:

Romance novel Science fiction Adventure Detective Science History Home and family Prose Art Politics Computer Non-fiction Religion Business Children Humor

Choose a favorite category and find really read worthwhile books. Enjoy immersion in the world of imagination, feel the emotions of the characters or learn something new for yourself, make an fascinating discovery.

No cover
  • Book:
    Interacting With Audiences: Social Influences on the Production of Scientific Writing (Rhetoric, Knowledge, and Society Series)
  • Author:
  • Publisher:
    Routledge
  • Genre:
  • Year:
    2000
  • Rating:
    4 / 5
  • Favourites:
    Add to favourites
  • Your mark:
    • 80
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5

Interacting With Audiences: Social Influences on the Production of Scientific Writing (Rhetoric, Knowledge, and Society Series): summary, description and annotation

We offer to read an annotation, description, summary or preface (depends on what the author of the book "Interacting With Audiences: Social Influences on the Production of Scientific Writing (Rhetoric, Knowledge, and Society Series)" wrote himself). If you haven't found the necessary information about the book — write in the comments, we will try to find it.

This distinctive monograph examines the dynamic rhetorical processes by which scientists shape, negotiate, and position their work within an interdisciplinary community. Author Ann M. Blakeslee studies the everyday rhetorical practices of a group of condensed matter theoretical physicists, and presents here the first substantial qualitative study of the planning and implementation of discursive practices by a group of scientists. This volume also represents one of the first studies to use situated cognition and learning theory to study how knowledge of a domains discursive practices is acquired by newcomers. Unlike previous studies of scientists rhetorical practices, which have focused primarily on the finished or published texts, Blakeslees involvement with the physicists as they engaged in the composing processes--from jotting down planning notes through publishing a scientific paper--suggests an alternative view of audience based on cooperative interaction between authors and their interlocutors. From this innovative perspective, functional knowledge of audiences comes only by entering into some community of practice, in which readers also become self-defining interlocutors and even participants in joint projects. Blakeslees research follows the physicists work into communal, interactive dynamics, looking at their overt attempts to get feedback from members of their audiences, what that feedback was, and how they responded to it. This work addresses and extends a model for audience analysis that consists of two primary operations: getting to know and understand ones interlocutors, and determining how to reach and influence them. In doing so, it offers important insights into the dissemination of scientific information, and thus will be of great interest to scholars and students in the areas of rhetoric of science and technology, composition, rhetorical theory, and scientific writing.

Ann M. Blakeslee: author's other books


Who wrote Interacting With Audiences: Social Influences on the Production of Scientific Writing (Rhetoric, Knowledge, and Society Series)? Find out the surname, the name of the author of the book and a list of all author's works by series.

Interacting With Audiences: Social Influences on the Production of Scientific Writing (Rhetoric, Knowledge, and Society Series) — read online for free the complete book (whole text) full work

Below is the text of the book, divided by pages. System saving the place of the last page read, allows you to conveniently read the book "Interacting With Audiences: Social Influences on the Production of Scientific Writing (Rhetoric, Knowledge, and Society Series)" online for free, without having to search again every time where you left off. Put a bookmark, and you can go to the page where you finished reading at any time.

Light

Font size:

Reset

Interval:

Bookmark:

Make
page_1
Page 1
1
Scientific Rhetoric in Interactive Practice:
Physicists Getting to Know and Speak to Real Audiences
A physicist, Robert Swendsen, his graduate student, Djamal Bouzida, and a postdoctoral fellow, Shankar Kumar, saw an opportunity in their research to provide a useful and effective simulation tool for the members of their own field, as well as two other scientific fields. Aware of the difficulty of addressing and persuading their new audiences in these other fields, these three physicists used several strategies to analyze and try to dominate their readers, but also to gain information about and to understand these new constituents. They engaged in an energetic program of rhetorical strategizing through which they sought to learn about and even to obtain feedback from the scientists they were addressing with their work.
Looking at these scientists' attempts to get to know and speak to their unfamiliar constituents helps with exploring the conundrum of audience in science. In my research with these three physicists, I explored the question, ''How do scientific authors get to know and interact with their audiences in real practice ?" In investigating this question, I examined the audience complexities and problems the physicists encountered as they attempted to cross disciplinary boundaries with their research. I also examined the negotiations and tasks they engaged in as they planned to address these scientists. More specifically, I examined the process through which the physicists learned about their audiences, and the manner in which they negotiated meaning and persuasion among these heterogeneous groups. I also examined the dynamic process by which the physicists negotiated relationships, standings, identities, and expertise (with issues such as status, authority, and
page_1
page_10
Page 10
Another important work in the rhetoric of science, Gross's The Rhetoric of Science: The Rhetorical Analysis of Scientific Texts (1990), seemed to go a bit further in acknowledging interactions and the social character of scientific knowledge. Gross viewed science as a rhetorical enterprise centered on persuasion (p. 49). He also viewed science as a product of human interactions, and he argued that scientific knowledge is social and the result of persuasion (p. 20). He said that a rhetoric of science is thus concerned with studying persuasive structures in the sciences (p. 49). In addition, Gross argued that just looking at scientific texts in isolation is insufficient and that investigators need to examine the earlier stages of the complex persuasive process by which new science passes from private to public (p. 129).
However, for Gross these earlier stages encompass the peer review process and not the planning and composing processes that precede it (p. 129). In addition, rather than examining in his work the ways in which strategies, courses of action, textual choices, false starts, dead ends, and reconceptions of plans and goals incrementally shape texts and forums, often in unpredictable ways, Gross inferred only one seeming set path to finished texts from already positioned and established works. He focused, like Prelli and Bazerman, on finished and historically significant scientific works rather than examining the processes by which scientists employ these various rhetorical tools and strategies in the works that they are planning or currently developing. Gross also portrayed scientific audiences primarily in abstract terms. He addressed how "all scientists attribute to imagined colleagues standards of judgment presumed to be universal... in the sense that anyone, having undergone scientific training, must presuppose them as a matter of course" (pp. 1819).
Myers and Winsor made somewhat larger strides in moving beyond such text-and intention-of-the-author views of scientific rhetoric. Myers (1990), in Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge, captured the dynamics that occur during the planning and preparation of scientific papers. Myers viewed texts as structures for thinking and social interaction; he viewed them as a means for investigating social negotiations in science. In fact, he even criticized traditional literary, sociological, and historical analyses 0f scientific texts for not addressing the dynamic relation between knowledge and its textual representation (p. 8).
Winsor, the author of Writing Like an Engineer: A Rhetorical Education (1996), said scholars investigating the rhetoric of science and technology are engaged in a joint endeavor of understanding how specialists construct knowledge in their fields. Winsor corroborated Myers when she said, "Knowledge is formed in interpersonal negotiation over interpretations of evidence rather than simply in the close individual examination of an unambiguous reality" (p. 5). She likewise viewed language as the means by
page_10
page_100
Page 100
than just defining and describing them, as Bouzida had (see paragraph 18 in Appendix A), he presents them more in terms of an argument by developing them and focusing on the significance of the information. For example, he emphasizes the efficiency of an MC simulation and what that efficiency is determined by and depends on. Where Bouzida says ''finally, the r.m.s and absolute displacements are also important quantities" (draft 1 of the DOMC paper, March 5, 1991, paragraph 23), Swendsen says, "The simplest measures of efficiency are the r.m.s and average absolute displacements," followed by an explication of why this is so (draft 4 of the DOMC paper, April 24, 1991, paragraph 20).
The potential energy of a d = 1 SHO is given by V(x) = 1/2 kx2. The efficiency of an MC simulation is determined by the choice of maximum step size D , which depends on both the coupling constant k and the temperature through the scaling relation
Interacting With Audiences Social Influences on the Production of Scientific Writing Rhetoric Knowledge and Society Series - image 1
where Picture 2. If we can determine the optimal scale factor F for any SHO, we have solved the problem for all such models. (Bouzida, Kumar, & Swendsen, draft 4 of the DOMC paper, April 24, 1991, paragraph 17)
An important quantity for understanding the efficiency of MC simulations is the average acceptance ratio <P>, which is defined as the ratio of accepted moves to trial moves during a simulation. The acceptance ratio decreases monotonically (and approximately exponentially) as a function of step size D . This occurs because small trial step sizes produce correspondingly small energy changes and high acceptance ratios, while large moves have a high probability of being rejected due to a large energy increase. In both extremes, the sampling is expected to be inefficient. (Bouzida, Kumar, & Swendsen, draft 4 of the DOMC paper, April 24, 1991, paragraph 18)
Next page
Light

Font size:

Reset

Interval:

Bookmark:

Make

Similar books «Interacting With Audiences: Social Influences on the Production of Scientific Writing (Rhetoric, Knowledge, and Society Series)»

Look at similar books to Interacting With Audiences: Social Influences on the Production of Scientific Writing (Rhetoric, Knowledge, and Society Series). We have selected literature similar in name and meaning in the hope of providing readers with more options to find new, interesting, not yet read works.


Reviews about «Interacting With Audiences: Social Influences on the Production of Scientific Writing (Rhetoric, Knowledge, and Society Series)»

Discussion, reviews of the book Interacting With Audiences: Social Influences on the Production of Scientific Writing (Rhetoric, Knowledge, and Society Series) and just readers' own opinions. Leave your comments, write what you think about the work, its meaning or the main characters. Specify what exactly you liked and what you didn't like, and why you think so.