This manuscript offers a critical rhetorical analysis of a multi-site, longitudinal study’s procedures in collecting and recording biomarkers. This manuscript opens new areas of exploration for the field of the rhetoric of health and medicine as the biomarker sampling for measures of stress, and resilience tie to critical rhetorical theories surrounding power and the body. The training manuals and protocols disseminated to the multi-site research team serve as rhetorical artifacts to examine questions of how the choices of biomarkers and the procedures employed to collect the samples needed to measure them are in and of themselves a production of health knowledge of the bodies and identities of transgender and gender diverse people. This manuscript presents an investigation of the processes of biomarker sample collection in conjunction with how the biomarkers are conceptualized as a means of deconstructing hegemonic assertions of gender and health normality.

This article analyzes psychiatrists’ metadiscourse about the textual standardiza­tion of discourse practices in the third edition of the American Psychiatric Asso­ciation’s diagnostic manual, DSM-III (1980). I argue that DSM-III’s “common language” represents the development of a professional style for American psy­chiatry, and I suggest that the codification of that style in DSM-III results in a handbook of usage. One of the professional aims of the textual standardization of the diagnostic manual is to position psychiatrists as scientists who use scientific standards of practice and scientific research methods to produce psychiatric knowledge. As a consequence, the chief style attributes of DSM-III help deter­mine the chief professional attributes such that the textual standardization of the profession’s diagnostic manual becomes inseparable from the standardization of psychiatric knowledge.

This dialogue is focused on community-based participatory research (CBPR) part¬nerships that can shape public health research in RHM and health communica¬tion. The dialogue is based on a roundtable discussion that was held at the 2019 meeting of the Central States Communication Association in Omaha, Nebraska. Based on our experiences conducting CBPR across different areas of communica¬tion and public health, we oriented our dialogue around four key themes that seemed central to understanding CBPR in rhetoric of health and medicine (RHM): 1) defining community and CBPR; 2) discussing research methods and engaging community stakeholders; 3) considering ethics, and; 4) assessing out¬comes of CBPR. Based on this dialogue, we conclude with implications and applications, as well as further references for interested RHM and health com¬munication scholars.