Approaching the Rhetoric of Science

Rhetoric is Widespread and Contextual

We have entered into the age in our reading when the rhetoric of science begins to emerge (Herrick, 2005, p. 209). Herrick talks quite well about how this came to be. As I read through the timeline, complete with specified authors, I was terribly opposed to the some of the assumptions underlying Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s universal audience. Herrick states that these author “seek an imagined audience of reasonable people available at all times, and not subject to the limitations and biases of any particular audience” (Herrick, 2005, p. 202). As Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca explain the self audience, they want rhetors to come up with arguments that are “timeless, thus independent of local concerns” (Herrick, 2005, p. 203). It’s a lovely notion, really, but it is also quite useless because we are never without context. To me, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca try valiantly to avoid what they see as unsolidified truths that are connect to God or revealed in some other manner; however, they only return to the notion of absolute truth. I wanted to ask them, “Why not consider context?” Classmates, you may recall an earlier post where I discussed Nazi Germany. We have situations in life where we must consider context before, during, and after we think, speak, and persuade. I do not believe we are ever free from the situation. Absolutist and atomistic thinking might only work for hermits.

As could logically follow, I did agree with Billig, especially in his notion against absolutism. He believed, as Herrick said, that “the rules of rhetoric must always be provisional, never absolute” (Herrick, 2005, p. 212). As Herrick continued with the development (and critiques) of the rhetoric of science, I thought to ways in which my husband and I both see rhetoric integral with science: grants. There are a number of articles that address the rhetoric of science in grant writing. I am going to draw on one below that really pulls the “approach” piece out when student scientists are seeking money to fund their projects.

Rhetoric of Science: Grants

Students express concern regarding seeking grants because they are unsure on the approach for the proposal. What is appropriate? What is overconfident? What is too timid? Students can confidently learn to intrigue potential paying readers into their area of intellectual subject by suggesting ways that the student is the scholar is best suited for a particular research issue, thereby most suited for grants to pursue this project (Gillis, 2009, p. 4).

Administration and faculty can teach students that preparing the proposal may require speaking to audiences across multiple fields. Hence, jargon is inappropriate and can hinder application acceptance. Speaking to a varied audience does not require “dumbing down” the proposal content. Instead researchers can explain using a tactic that presents “the issues at a level of generality sufficient to making them clear to the general scholarly reader” (Gillis, 2009, p. 2). “This is something of an exercise in translation and, as such, a classical element of proposal writing that transcends the technical nature characteristic of such proposed projects…..avoiding language that seems purpose­fully to obfuscate or exclude” (Gillis, 2009, p. 2). Going into forming proposal, researchers should have an attitude of being intriguing enough to spark interest and maintain and stretch intelligible thought and problem solving.

In this vein, students can advance their voice confidently. In developing a rhetorical strategy that is not too cocky and not too meek, students can employ “sureness of voice” for their intended audience that clarifies the research focus and develops expectations to be fulfilled (Gillis, 2009, p. 2).

If a student has had a grant proposal rejected in the past, faculty can serve that student well by revisiting the old proposal. By teaching students that it is “not sufficient to identify an important question that has not been asked before or that has been inadequately answered, or to propose a new perspective on an old problem: one must note why the question has been inadequately answered to date, or why a new perspective is needed” (Gillis, 2009, p. 5). In other words, researchers can alter their words and their rhetoric in hopes of persuading funding institutions.

One concern regarding grant writing is the ties that bind a researcher to a project. The strings are certainly attached in grant-receiving. The ethical researcher should utilize the funds appropriate. Still, apply for funding and doing a particular research project “need not wed the applicant to a particular intellectual frame­work or disciplinary outlook” (Gillis, 2009, p. 4). Researchers can pursue many courses of action. In fact, researchers with such a fearful attitude toward the results of grant receiving may be surprised to see the flexibility in using grant funds. One of the grant proposal’s purposes is for the researcher to demonstrate his or her grasp of the field and confidence in self. This way, grant application readers can also gain confidence that if a research project were to change direction, the researcher would still responsibly use the funds (Gillis, 2009, p. 4).

Concluding Remarks:

The last few paragraphs show how even the values of researching student scientists can be changing. For example, on the one hand, scientists will claim that they are completely nonbiased and nonchanging. But when a new topic or a better way to say something is presented, that same scientist is often willing to use that persuasively. And, that’s okay! Context, persuasion, and being able to express oneself is not only part of science, it’s part of life. I see the words “bias” and “change” are coming to be looked at differently (and not so negatively) in the scientific world.

References Beyond Class Textbooks:

Gillis, C. (2009). Writing proposals for ACLS fellowship competitions. Retrieved 3 November 2010 from http://www.acls.org/uploadedFiles/Publications/Programs/Writing_Fellowship_Proposals.pdf