Lisa Keranen

3 articles
  1. Conspectus: Inventing Futures for the Rhetoric of Science, Technology, and Medicine
    Abstract

    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.

    doi:10.13008/2151-2957.1167
  2. The Rhetorics of Health and Medicine: Inventional Possibilities for Scholarship and Engaged Practice
    Abstract

    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.

    doi:10.13008/2151-2957.1157
  3. Rhetoric and the Neurosciences: Engagement and Exploration
    Abstract

    Few popular science news articles today attract as much attention or are communicated with as much flamboyance as those involving the neurosciences. Catchy but charged headlines such as "Obese Teens May Be Lacking in Brain Size, Not Willpower" These popular accounts present rhetoric scholars with numerous opportunities for interrogating scientific understandings of the brain and their development through the discourses, practices, and materials of neuroscience. However, a strictly deconstructive approach, as Bruno Latour (2004) notes, can be viewed as intellectually hostile to the efforts of scientific researchers (p. 225-228). Because neuroscience is a relatively new and diverse field, it is important to

    doi:10.13008/2151-2957.1084