Montgomery discusses scientific discourse in terms of rhetoric in his book The Chicago Guide to Communicating Science, where he claims that “Scientific writing is also engaged in rhetoric—it aims not just to tell you but to persuade you. It wants to convince us that the result not only has meaning but is meaningful” (Montgomery, 2017). Here, according to Montgomery, rhetoric has to do with science as a way to effectively communicate to a specific audience with a purpose to inform, educate, and persuade. I also agree with Montgomery in his statement that “scientific writing is storytelling” and that that rhetoric has to do with science as a means of providing research and data in a way that anyone can understand regardless if their professional field is biomedicine or agronomy. The following excerpt as seen on page twelve of his book highlights the relationship between rhetoric and science:
“Scientific communication is highly stylized- far more stylized, in fact, than forms such as the literary essay. When we look back at the past, say to the 17th century, and trace technical expression forward, we find that what we are doing when we write is telling very condensed, extremely formalized ‘stories’ to an equally particular audience” (Montgomery, 2017). Note the fact that Montgomery identifies that when scientist communicate their findings they are relaying “condensed” and “formalized” stories to a specific discourse community. I believe that the need to talk about rhetoric in a science writing course is necessary because it expands our knowledge and skills as a writer to effectively reach out and connect with a discourse community previously foreign to myself. I believe that the majority of students taking writing courses at college are steered towards technical and professional writing styles to be able to write memos, reports and presentations for the real world; however, if one was ever to write for the sciences, I expect most students to be unable to effectively communicate their thoughts. Looking at science through a rhetorical lens might be illuminating in the following two ways. To begin, you would have to take into account all audiences who will receive your text and think about how they might perceive your information. This opens one’s mind to think and analyze their information in different ways that can not only benefit their immediate communication technique, but benefit their future communication techniques as well. Second, I perceive looking at science through a rhetorical lens is an opportunity for myself to grow as a writer and develop skills that I have never before utilized. I have always written for the business world (i.g. writing memos, reports, presentations, letters of transmittal, etc.), and I believe that changing my rhetorical lens will open new doors for my writing career.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorLuke Grabowski Archives
April 2018
Categories |