When Alan Gross published The Rhetoric of Science in 1990, he helped initiate a productive controversy concerning the place of rhetoric in science studies while arguing for the continued importance of the classical rhetorical tradition. However, in his 2006 revision, Starring the Text, Gross significantly draws back the classical emphasis while making more central the place of the American analytic philosophical tradition stemming from the foundational logical writings of W.V.O Quine. This essay interrogates this shift in Gross’s writings in order to find the working definition of rhetoric that threads throughout his work. This definition, I argue, turns out to be grounded more in Quine’s holistic theory of epistemology than in any sophistical or even Aristotelian conception of language as a vehicle for advocating judgment in times of deliberation and crisis. I argue that a return to the classical emphasis on situated practice can enrich the study of the rhetoric of science and build on the significant accomplishments of Gross’s work.

Enhancing the Epistemological Project in the Rhetoric of Science: Information Infrastructure as Tool for Identifying Epistemological Commitments in Scientific and Technical Communities. Article discusses how the STS concept of infrastructural provides a mesolayer approach to understand global issues in science with rhetorical methodology.

In The Rhetoric of Science rhetorical concepts can the persuasive work of scientific arguments Communicating Science the history of the scientific article as a genre, showing how it evolved in length, style through the nineteenth centuries Insight, with Harmon, communication and argues for the salience of visual modes of persuasion in scientifi illustrate Gross's mastery of different scholarly methodologies, from the theoretically and visuals, to the comparison of tactics across several works, to the compilation of large databases statistically sampled.Altogether Alan Gross's body of work, including seminal articles and significant anthologies, has established the field of the rhetoric of science and given it methods and a trajectory.No one after him has had to take this ground.The study presented here It applies classical analysis; it looks at historical practices texts as the initiating and formative precursors of later practices; and it considers visual persuasion.The particular case the renewal of botany in the sixteenth century and examined is how forms discourse arts of the time

This paper weaves together several elements to construct a reception study in the rhetoric of science, reflexively applied to the rhetoric of science itself as a field. This analysis supplements a reading of the criticial reception to Alan Gross’s The Rhetoric of Science and its transformation into Starring the Text (i.e., a renamed “third edition”) with an examination of citation data regarding Gross’s book. The citation data provide some support for the idea that many of Gross’s readers perceived him as taking a position in the “Science Wars” of the 1990s. The essay builds a theory of “citation contexts” (that is, how scholarly work is cited in text) out of Steve Fuller’s concept of interdisciplinary interpenetration, and shows that Gross’s work may be used differently within articles appearing in communication- and rhetoric-related journals than in those published in science studies and other journals. The analysis contributes to the ongoing project of disciplinary self-reflection in the rhetoric of science, and provides additional information about Alan Gross’s singular place in the field.

In 2012, the World Health Organization not only condoned the creation of “super-flus” (high lethality strains with heightened transmissibility), but also urged greater dispersal of these strains among research facilities around the globe. This essay analyzes that decision process using an updated theory of logos and pathos that incorporates contemporary understandings of emotion and the human brain into prescriptions for public deliberative decision-making processes. That analysis shows that, because the decision process was necessarily executed through the affective reasoning processes of the 22 narrowly-selected individuals invited to the meeting, it could not provide an optimal decision process. The essay therefore proposes that the World Health Organization should adopt an on-line, open-access discussion process for deliberating about major decisions about world health policies. The basis for the decision in affect (pathos) rather than in ostensible logos is demonstrated by textual and contextual evidence produced by the participants.

We report on the Teaching Responsible Communication of Science project at Iowa State University. This NSF-supported work will produce nine case studies focusing on the ethical challenges that arise when scientists communicate with the public. These case studies promise to add a normative dimension to the practical communication training offered to scientists, while at the same time contributing a rhetorical perspective to the interdisciplinary scholarship on science communication.

Responding to recent movements exploring <em>praxis</em> possibilities for rhetoric of science scholars, my presentation shows one potential way for a student of rhetoric to be situated in a large science grant project and laboratory. This essay explores the promising benefits for rhetoric of science scholarship and grant project administration.

Leaders of the science establishment are seeking help with communicating science to the public. Rhetoricians of science are eager to respond. The two communities, however, continue to have mismatched expectations of each other; while scientists are looking for quick communication fixes, rhetoricians want to make everything more complicated. These essays, originally presented at the 2013 preconference of the Association for the Rhetoric of Science & Technology, explore a variety of exemplary projects bringing scientists and rhetoricians into full collaborations with substantial benefits on both sides.

Contemporary concerns about public engagement in science communication collaboratives are a pressing area of praxis in rhetoric of science, technology, and medicine. This short paper describes the rhetorical engagements in a science and environmental communication program at the University of Arizona called the Carson Scholars Program. I argue an applied research program on the rhetorical properties of scientific uncertainties is one angle of inquiry where rhetoricians can make valuable contributions in these outreach efforts.

In 2003,<strong> </strong>National Institutes of Health director Elias A. Zerhouni called for the development of innovative research methods that more effectively connect medical research findings to clinical care. His call and the transformative institutional and funding changes it has wrought have opened up an exciting opportunity for rhetorical scholars to join the interdisciplinary project of improving medical research and delivery. Responding to this opportunity, this paper articulates one vision for the rhetorician turned <em>health services researcher</em>. This vision is rooted in Richard McKeon’s insight that in addition to the analysis of discourse and the promotion of good communication practices, the art of rhetoric may also play a role in <em>arranging</em> human knowledge to catalyze the transformation of larger social, political, and scientific enterprises. His work suggests that this “architectonic” function of rhetoric is suited to the highly complex and technological modes of knowledge creation now prevalent in medicine and other artistic and scientific domains. Following his lead, this paper builds the case for an “architectonic” view of the role of rhetoric in interdisciplinary collaboration that is responsive to the “rhetorical situation” emerging from the problems and possibilities of 21^st century healthcare.

This article investigates rhetorical methods for establishing notions of common sense, especially the common sense that makes technological choices take on an aura of inevitability. I rely on a rhetorical framework drawn from Aristotle and Perelman \& Olbrechts-Tyteca, as well as the philosophers Charles Taylor and Andrew Feenberg.

<strong>Abstract: </strong>The set of rhetorical engagements in science, technology and medicine presented at the 2013 ARST preconference panel provide case studies of the value the rhetorician offers science outreach programs. As an invited respondent from the scientific community, I took this opportunity to provide a critical perspective to the panel. In my opinion, the rhetorical contributions the panelists delivered through their collaborations with scientists make a compelling case for strategically incorporating more practitioners in the science outreach workforce.

The practices of architecture and rhetoric have been closely entwined since antiquity. University of Chicago philosopher Richard McKeon mobilized this conceit to identify architectonic rhetoric as giving rise to the communication arts. State of the art communication practices would construct a pluralistic, global world for the twentieth century. The contemporary digital revolution has transferred the communication arts into information control systems through polytechtonic rhetorics. This essay calls for critique where communication is at issue for a control society.

There is a necessary and growing preoccupation in rhetoric of science with the real-world consequences of our work and with the mediating role rhetoric should play at the nexus of science-publics-policy. Emerging from these discussions are calls by Gross, Ceccarelli, and Herndl for thoughtful and practical action. This paper builds from this preoccupation with thoughtful praxis, highlighting three funded collaborations that offer a vision for engaged, mutually beneficial, consequential collaborations in rhetoric of science. Taken together, these collaborations constitute an argument for Herndl’s “applied rhetoric of science.” They move beyond transactional models of collaboration and posit a transdisciplinary vision for rhetoric of science as an integral part of the practice of science itself.

Rhetoricians involved in funded collaborative research with scientists have discussed some of their own rhetorical choices in conveying to their research partners the unique and valuable contributions made by rhetorical inquiry. But different definitions of what expertise is offered by someone trained in rhetoric as a field of study shape their conclusions, as does the fact that most are in the early stages of this collaborative work. They have provided an energetic start to what promises to be a spirited, valuable, and lengthy conversation about how rhetoricians of science might think about the broader impacts of their research.

Introducing the root trope in my title requires recognizing those responsible for giving rise to and nourishing the metaphorical root in rhetorical studies. We are a better discipline for the service and scholarship of John Waite Bowers, Donovan J. Ochs,

Unlike the others in this collection of articles, I was Don Ochs' classmate for three years. When taking classes in classical rhetorical theory or practice, he tended to share instructional tasks with the professor-ofrecord. His classical education was exemplary. He had drunk deeply of the Greco-Roman brew. He was a man whom you could ask, "So what are you doing at 2:34 p.m. tomorrow?" and get a precise reply-the most totally organized doctoral student I've ever met (so unlike the rest of us).

The Rhetoric of Agitation and Control was first published in 1971 by Bowers and Ochs. The text was revised in 1993 adding Richard Jensen as an author and in 2010 adding David Schulz as the fourth author. This paper addresses impact of this text by examining the number of times the work has been referred to in other scholarly works from 1971 until September 2012 using Google Scholar as the database. Citations were analyzed to determine how many works cited The Rhetoric of Agitation and Control, what types of publications they were, the general theme of the scholarly work in which the reference was made, and how The Rhetoric of Agitation and Control has been used in scholarly works.

Poroi 9,2 (

This response to papers by Leah Ceccarelli, Randy Harris, and Carl Herndl and Lauren Cutlip in the “Horizons of Possibility” panel at the 2012 ARST Vicentennial conference raises questions about each of the visions as they relate, respectively, to ARST audiences, brain science, and sustainable planets and programs. It also suggests renewed attention to communication technologies by scholars studying the rhetoric of science and technology, maintaining that rhetoricians need to come to terms with emerging twenty-first century communicative forms.

This paper discusses three position papers presented at the vicentennial conference of the Association for the Rhetoric of Science and Technology (ARST) concerning the disciplinary prospects of rhetoric of science and technology as a field. It identifies common themes among the three papers, including a theoretical focus on rhetorical invention, the prospects for viable responses to institutional changes and pressures in the academy, and the possibilities for interdisciplinary and public engagement by rhetoricians of science. It also identifies points of departure among the three papers, including their respective foci on globalization, the place of style in invention, and the interaction of the technical and public spheres.

The idea of genre marks large-scale repeated patterns in human symbolic production and interaction, patterns that are taken to be meaningful. Genre thus can be defined by reference to pattern, or form, and by reference to theories of meaning and interaction. This report on a discussion of scientific and technical genres at the 2012 Vicentennial meeting of the Association for the Rhetoric of Science & Technology (ARST) briefly considers the differences and difficulties with different ways of defining genres and their relevance to science and technology, explorations of the ways genres change or evolve, and pedagogical applications of genre analysis in scientific and technical discourse.

We argue that the rhetoric of science occupies an important niche in contemporary science studies. Although we are pluralistic about how different rhetoricians of science can and do conduct their inquiries, we assert that their disciplinarily distinctive approach is to treat argumentation as a constituent of context. From this perspective, we observe various interacting forms of rationality at work in the controversies that constitute science in society. We argue that modes of discovery and modes of proof are mutually engaged in the process of rhetorical invention. We identify a variety of topics or commonplaces that show invention as we conceive it at work. We take a pro-science attitude toward the role of science in finding the truth and in sustaining democratic institutions.

Thirty years before the beginning of the still ongoing cognitive revolution, Kenneth Burke articulated a universalist program of verbal resources that falls into close synch with many of the findings and principles of that revolution. In this paper, I connect Burke’s program to the insights of Jeanne Fahnestock in her work on figuration and argumentation and argue that cognitive rhetoric in this mode can undergird rhetoric of science.

Since 1984, academic essays addressing the public rhetorics of science and technology have embodied at least four purposes: theory-building, discounting scientific representations, deprecating scientific influence, and strategizing to improve the efficacy of scientific rhetorics. Some of these purposes are in conflict with each other, but there has been little explicit discussion about the purposes for ARST studies. This essay argues in favor of a synthetic vision that places humanistic, social scientific, and natural science endeavors as part of an over-lapping set of practices, each of which demonstrably makes distinctive positive contributions to globalizing human consciousness. The essay argues that the few existing studies illustrate how increased internationalism in ARST studies is not only important in its own right, but also could provide one academic route for expanding the imagined relational possibilities among humanistic "critics," the natural or social sciences, and broader societies.

This essay discusses the major themes that emerged as part of an Octavian roundtable discussion on the topics of science, publics and controversy at the Association of Rhetoric of Science and Technologies’ (ARST) 2012 Vicentennial preconference. Participants expressed interest in developing research exploring the differing scales and types of scientific controversies and the roles that rhetoricians might play as interveners in public disagreements on techno-scientific issues. Participants also explored the emerging phenomenon—such as the role of the internet in facilitating interaction between lay publics, science, and scientists—that they believed would provide fertile sites of investigation for scholars in rhetoric and communication interested in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine.

This introduction to the Association for the Rhetoric of Science & Technology’s (ARST) twentieth anniversary special issue of Poroi reflects on the inventional resources for scholarship concerning the rhetoric of science, technology, and medicine (RSTM). After previewing the essays in the special issue, it outlines four questions facing RSTM scholars. These questions concern how to discern the purposes of our scholarship, how to reach the multiple audiences for our work, how to use multiple methods while retaining our rhetorical core, and how to orient our work theoretically. The essay concludes by briefly discussing how these questions present both challenges and opportunities for future RSTM inquiry and engagement.

A review of work being published in our journals establishes that we most often think of ourselves as passive intellectuals, engaged in critical reflection about rhetorics of science and technology. But another persona lurks in that scholarship as well—the rhetorician as agent of change making the world a better place. This paper argues that rhetoricians of science and technology need to think harder about how we take the academic understandings developed in our primary internal discursive genre and transform them into productive engagements with external publics. Whether we encounter those publics in the classroom or in civic forums or in scientific or technical organizations, we need to be able to translate our research findings to these empowered stakeholders in ways that are meaningful and constructive. By sharing best practices for pedagogy and public engagement, rhetoricians of science and technology can improve our chances of making an impact with our research.

Condit, Prelli, and Depew and Lyne offer useful taxonomies of scholarship in the rhetoric of science, technology and medicine (RSTM), and once again provoke questions about the distinctiveness of a rhetorical approach. Rhetorical studies examine the choices rhetors make at all levels of invention (e.g., lines of argument, arrangement, terminology, visuals). But rhetoricians have not been clear in defining the distinctive contribution of their approach, and scholars in related fields do not routinely access or acknowledge rhetorical studies. There are also impediments to framing rhetorical studies for scientists and practitioners: the term rhetoric still has negative connotations in science publications, and rhetorical concepts like cooperation and reputation are addressed by other fields, creating a competing discourse. Nevertheless, RSTM will expand, and new directions for scholarship include visual rhetoric and the new persuasive practices brought about by online publication.

The future of the rhetoric of science—which will increasingly take the form of a rhetoric of technology, science, and medicine (RTSM)—will be shaped by its move away from its modernist, humanistic roots in response to institutional pressures and historical contingencies. This paper advocates a “praxiographical” emphasis on the ability to intervene in science policy and other STEM-related discourses for the field of RTSM. It describes four research foci emerging from this emphasis to be used as areas of programmatic concern at an Institute for Applied Rhetoric of Science and Sustainability at the newly organized Patel College of Global Sustainability at the University of South Florida.

Scholarship concerning visual representations in science, technology, and medicine is in a preliminary phase. This essay surveys selected areas where visually-oriented rhetorical studies of science, technology and medicine are emerging. It examines the relationships between visual and verbal dimensions of scientific, technical, and medical texts; raises questions concerning the appropriateness of using concepts from the linguistic tradition to analyze visuals; and outlines fruitful areas for further study, ranging from studies of the truth-value of images through public communication about visualizations.

This brief article examines the scholarship of propaedeutics, which is involved when teasing meaning from cutting-edge scientific and technological fields that are often in flux. Because these fields are plagued with uncertainty, mired in shifting jargon, highly controversial, and often politicized, the scholar who studies these areas must build texts in order to approach the claims and counterclaims made by proponents and opponents and offer rhetorical critical insight. The term fringe science is used to describe three sub-fields that have been the subject of work by the author and his team. Nanotechnology, synthetic biology, and geo-engineering are three highly interdisciplinary technological fields that offer many opportunities for rhetoricians of science and technology as well as pose risks. To critique them demands a basic understanding of what they are and what they purport to be.

This paper recommends three general lines of inquiry concerning rhetorical invention as alternative ways to advance work in rhetorical studies of science, technology, and medicine. One line of inquiry involves the study of the creative processes and imaginative practices involved in the invention of perspectives in discourses of and about science, technology, and medicine. This line of inquiry is elaborated with attention to the master tropes, dramatism, argument, and visual representations. The second general line of inquiry involves identification, analysis, and critique of the commonplaces that are deployed as authoritative in discourses about purportedly “expert” matters. The third line of inquiry concerns articulation of the distinctive place of a rhetorical perspective, informed by an emphasis on invention, in cross-disciplinary projects involving science, technology and medicine.

This essay argues that rhetoricians of health of medicine should continue to carve out an expansive focus on the exigencies, functions, and impacts of health-related discourse; attend to the movement, surrounding networks, and ecologies of this discourse; and work with other scholars/researchers, both inside and outside disciplinary rhetorical studies, toward a variety of goals.