Rhetorical Citizenship and the Science of Science Communication

Jeanne Fahnestock University of Maryland, College Park
Journal
Argumentation
Published
2020-09-01
DOI
10.1007/s10503-019-09499-7
CompPile
Open Access
Closed
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (1)

  1. Technical Communication Quarterly

References (89) · 3 in this index

  1. Allison, David B., Andrew W. Brown, Brandon J. George, and Kathryn A. Kaiser. 2016. Reproducibility: A traged…
    Nature  
  2. Baker, Monya, and Dan Penny. 2016. Is there a reproducibility crisis? Nature 533: 452–454.
    Nature  
  3. Begley, C.Glenn, and Lee M. Ellis. 2012. Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. N…
    Nature  
  4. Bem, Daryl. 2011. Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition…
    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology  
  5. Science, now under scrutiny itself
Show all 89 →
  1. Besley, John C., Anthony Dudo, and Martin Storksdieck. 2015. Scientists’ views about communication training. …
    Journal of research in science teaching  
  2. Besley, John C., Anthony D. Dudo, Shupei Yuan, and Niveen Abi Ghannam. 2016. Qualitative interviews with scie…
    Science Communication  
  3. Black, Steven, and Rino Rappuoli. 2010. A crisis of public confidence in vaccines. Science Translational Medi…
    Science Translational Medicine
  4. Bohannon, John. 2013. Who’s afraid of peer review. Science 342: 60–65.
    Science  
  5. Science and the internet: Communicating knowledge in a digital age
  6. Burdick, Alan. 2017. “Paging Dr. Fraud”: The fake publishers that are ruining science. The New Yorker https:/…
  7. Cacciatore, Michael A., Dietram A. Scheufele, and Shanto Iyengar. 2016. The end of framing as we know it ...a…
    Mass Communication and Society  
  8. Carpenter, Siri. 2012. Government sanctions Harvard psychologist. Science 337: 1283.
    Science  
  9. Check, Erika, and David Cyranoski. 2005. Korean scandal will have global fallout. Nature 438: 1056–1057.
    Nature  
  10. Rhetorica ad Herennium [Loeb Classics]
  11. Communicating science effectively: A research agenda
  12. Dahlstrom, Michael F. 2014. Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences…
    PNAS  
  13. de Vrieze, Jop. 2017. Science wars’ veteran has a new mission. Science 358: 159.
    Science  
  14. Downs, Julie S. 2014. Prescriptive scientific narratives for communicating usable science. PNAS 111(Supplemen…
    PNAS  
  15. The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication
  16. Fraud in the scientific literature
  17. Edwards, Tamsin. 2017. The perils of explaining science. BBC Inside Science [Radio 4: 12 January 2017]. https…
  18. Engber, Daniel. 2017. Is science broken? Or is it self-correcting? Slate (21 August).
  19. Enserink, Martin. 2012. Final report on Stapel also blames field as a whole. Science 338: 1270–1271.
    Science  
  20. Written Communication
  21. A rhetoric of argument
  22. Poroi
  23. Fang, Ferris C., R. Grant Steen, and Arturo Casadevall. 2012. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retract…
    PNAS  
  24. What happened in Barendrecht? Case study on the planned onshore carbon dioxide storage in…
  25. Science journal pulls 60 Papers in peer-review fraud
  26. Funk, Cary and Brian Kennedy. 2019. Public confidence in scientists has remained stable for decades. Fact Tan…
  27. Franzosi, Roberto and Stephanie Vicari. 2013. What’s in a text? Answers from frame analysis and rhetoric for …
  28. Rhetorica
  29. Hamilton, Walter, Trans. 1986. Plato: Gorgias. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.
  30. Journal retracts 1998 paper linking autism to vaccines
  31. Rigor mortis: how sloppy science creates worthless cures, crushes hope, and wastes billions
  32. Hilgard, Joseph and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. 2017. Science as ‘broken’ versus science as ‘self- correcting’: H…
  33. Holland, Earle M. 2007. The risks and advantages of framing science. Science 317: 1168.
    Science  
  34. Hoy, Anne Q. 2018. Engagement helps scientists tackle global challenges. Science 361: 372–373.
    Science  
  35. Ioannides, John P.A. 2005a. Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JA…
    JAMA  
  36. Ioannides, John P.A. 2005b. Why most published research findings are false. PloS medicine 2.8.e124: 0696-0701.
  37. Iyengar, Shanto, and Douglas S. Massey. 2019. Science communication in a post-truth society. PNAS 116(16): 76…
    PNAS
  38. Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. 2018. Crisis or self-correction: Rethinking media narratives about the well-being of…
    PNAS  
  39. Kahan, D.M. 2012. Why are we poles apart on climate change? Nature 488: 255.
    Nature  
  40. Katz, Yarden. 2013. Against storytelling of scientfic results. Nature Methods 10(11): 1045.
    Nature Methods  
  41. Kennedy, George, Trans. 1991. Aristotle: On rhetoric. New York: Oxford University Press.
  42. Kennedy, George, Trans. 2003. Progymnasmata: Greek textbooks of prose composition and rhetoric. Atlanta: Soci…
  43. Kim, Sei-Hill, Ed. 2019. Beyond framing: A forum for framing researchers. Journalism & mass communication qua…
  44. Bending opinion: essays on persuasion in the public domain
  45. Kock, Christian. 2017. Gorgias reloaded: A new-found dialogue between Gorgias and Socrates. Deliberative rhet…
  46. Scientific articles accepted (personal checks, too)
  47. His promise to heal bad hearts relied on a mountain of false data
  48. ‘Predatory publisher’ is fined $50 million
  49. Krippendorff, Klaus. 2017. Three concepts to retire. Annals of the international communication association 41…
    Annals of the international communication association  
  50. Kuijper, I.Margriet. 2011. Public acceptance challenges for onshore CO2 storage in Barendrecht. Energy Proced…
    Energy Procedia  
  51. Doing news framing analysis
  52. Leshner, Alan I. 2006. Science and public engagement. The chronicle of higher education 53(8): 65.
    The chronicle of higher education
  53. Leshner, Alan I. 2012. Capably communicating science. Science 337: 777.
    Science  
  54. Leshner, Alan I. 2013. Communication challenges in the life sciences. PILS Roundtable (3 June 2013).
  55. Leshner, Alan I. 2015. Bridging the opinion gap. Editorial. Science 347: 459.
    Science  
  56. Lewis, Simon L. 2014. Scientist-versus-activist debates mislead the public.” Nature 506: 409.
  57. Public outreach approaches for carbon capture storage projects
  58. Makri, Anita. 2017. Give the public the tools to trust scientists. Nature 541: 261.
    Nature  
  59. Mellor, Felicity. 2018. Review: The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication. Public understan…
    Public understanding of science  
  60. Moylan, Elizabeth C., and Maria K. Kowalczuk. 2016. Why articles are retracted: A retrospective cross-section…
    British Medical Journal Open
  61. National Academy of Sciences. 2018. The science of science communication III. Stephen Olson, Rapporteur. Wash…
  62. Science and engineering indicators 2018
  63. National Science Foundation. 2017. InfoBrief. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. NSF 18-300.
  64. Communicating Science
  65. Nisbet, Matthew C. and Chris Mooney. 2007. Framing science. Science 316:56.
    Science  
  66. Houston, we have a narrative: why science needs story
  67. Open Science Collaborative. 2015. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349: 940–944.
    Science
  68. The new rhetoric: a treatise on argumentation
  69. Stem cell research papers are retracted
  70. Prinz, Florian, Thomas Schlange, and Khusru Asadullah. 2011. Believe it or not: How much can we rely on publi…
    Nature Reviews Drug Discovery  
  71. Roston, Michael. 2015. Retracted scientific studies: A growing list. New York Times (28 May): https://www.nyt…
  72. Rowland, F. Sherwood. 1993. President’s lecture: The need for scientific communication with the public. Scien…
    Science  
  73. Salomon, Jean-Jacques. 2001. Society talks back. Nature 412: 585–586.
    Nature  
  74. Schenkel, Roland. 2010. The challenge of feeding scientific advice into policy-making. Science 330: 1749–1751.
    Science  
  75. Sheldon, Tom. 2018. Preprints could promote confusion and distortion. Nature 559: 445.
    Nature  
  76. Simmons, Joseph P., Leif D. Nelson, and Uri Simonsohn. 2011. False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibili…
    Psychological Science  
  77. Światkowski, Wojciech, and Benoît Dompnier. 2017. Replicability crisis in social psychology: Looking at the p…
    International review of social psychology  
  78. Trafimow, David, and Michael Marks. 2015. Editorial. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 37: 1–2.
    Basic and Applied Social Psychology  
  79. Fallout from fatigue syndrome retraction is wide
  80. van der Linden, Sander, Anthony Leiserowitz, Seth Rosenthal, and Edward Maibach. 2017. Inoculating the public…
  81. Van Noorden, R. 2011. The trouble with retractions”. Nature 478: 26–28.
    Nature  
  82. Wasserstein, Ronald L., and Nicole A. Lazar. 2016. The ASA’s statement on p-values: Context, process and purp…
    The American statistician  
  83. Whitmarsh, Lorraine, Dimitrios Xenias, and Christopher R. Jones. 2019. Framing effects on public support for …
    Palgrave Communications  
  84. A sharp rise in retractions prompts calls for reform