Writing in the Sciences: Exploring Conventions Of Scientific Discourse (part Of The Allyn & Bacon Series In Technical Commun by Ann M. PenroseWriting in the Sciences: Exploring Conventions Of Scientific Discourse (part Of The Allyn & Bacon Series In Technical Commun by Ann M. Penrose

Writing in the Sciences: Exploring Conventions Of Scientific Discourse (part Of The Allyn & Bacon…

byAnn M. Penrose, Steven B. Katz

Paperback | February 23, 2009

Pricing and Purchase Info


Earn 764 plum® points

Prices and offers may vary in store

Out of stock online

Not available in stores


A rhetorical, multi-disciplinary guide, Writing in the Sciences discusses the major genres of science writing including research reports, grant proposals, conference presentations, and a variety of forms of public communication. Multiple samples from real research cases illustrate a range of scientific disciplines and audiences for scientific research along with the corresponding differences in focus, arrangement, style, and other rhetorical dimensions. Comparisons among disciplines provide the opportunity for students to identify common conventions in science and investigate variation across fields.

Title:Writing in the Sciences: Exploring Conventions Of Scientific Discourse (part Of The Allyn & Bacon…Format:PaperbackDimensions:448 pages, 9.1 × 7.4 × 1 inPublished:February 23, 2009Publisher:Pearson EducationLanguage:English

The following ISBNs are associated with this title:

ISBN - 10:0205616712

ISBN - 13:9780205616718

Look for similar items by category:


Table of Contents


List of stylistic features.





1. Science as a Social Enterprise.


1.1 The shaping of knowledge in science.


1.2 The social nature of science.


1.3 The centrality of communication in science.


1.4 The role of persuasion in scientific communication.


1.5 Scientific communication and convention.


1.6 The role of collaboration in scientific communication.

2. Exploring Technology in Scientific Communication.


2.1 Science and Technology.


2.2 Technology and Collaboration in Science.


2.3 Technology and Publication in Science.


2.4 Technology and the Public Audience for Science.


2.5 Technology’s Material Advantages.


2.6 Technology and the Visual Dimension of Science.


2.7 Technology and Paradigms.


2.8 Technology and the Rhetorical Challenge of Communicating Science.

3. Considering Ethics in Scientific Communication.


3.1 Social Contexts of Scientific Communication Ethics.


3.2 Ethical ‘Mechanisms’ in Science.


3.3 The Ethics of Authorship.


3.4 Scientific Communication as Moral Responsibility.


3.5 Ethical “Costs” of Communication Technology in Science.


3.6 Scientific Communication and Public Communication: An Ethical Conflict?


3.7 Scientific Style and Social Responsibility: A Two-Way Channel.


3.8 The Ethics of Style as Socialization.




4. Reading and Writing Research Reports.

4.1 Research Journals and Their Readers.


4.2 Argumentation in Science.


4.3 The Logic(s) of Scientific Inquiry.


4.4 Introducing the Research Problem.


4.5 Describing Methods.


4.6 Reporting Results.


4.7 Discussing Trends and Implications.


4.8 The Research Report Abstract.


4.9 Brief Report Genres: Research Letters and Notes.


4.10 How Scientists Write Reports.


4.11 How Scientists Read Reports.


4.12 How Reviewers Evaluate Reports.



5. Reviewing Prior Research.

5.1 The role of Prior Research in Scientific Argument.


5.2 Reviewing as a Genre: The Review Article.


5.3 Locating the Literature.


5.4 Reading Previous Research.


5.5 Identifying Trends and Patterns.


5.6 Organizing the Review.


5.7 Citing Sources in the Text.


5.8 Preparing the List of Works Cited.


5.9 The Research Review Abstract.


6. Preparing Conference Presentations.

6.1 The Role of Research Conferences in the Sciences.


6.2 Writing Conference Proposal Abstracts.


6.3 Organizing the Research Talk.


6.4 Methods of Oral Presentation.


6.5 Delivering Conference Presentations.


6.6 The Use of Graphics in Oral Presentations.


6.7 Preparing Research Posters.


7. Writing Research Proposals.

7.1The Role of the Proposal in Science.


7.2 Multiple Audiences of the Proposal.


7.3 Logic and Organization in the Research Proposal.


7.4 Introducing the Research Problem and Objectives.


7.5 Providing Background.


7.6 Describing Proposed Methods.


7.7 The Research Proposals Abstract.


7.8 How Scientists Write Research Proposals.


7.9 How Reviewers Evaluate Research Proposals.


7.10 Accountability in the Research Process.


8. Communicating with Public Audiences.

8.1 Why Do Scientists Communicate with Public Audiences?


8.2 Understanding “General” Audiences.


8.3 Adapting Through Narration.


8.4 Adapting Through Examples.


8.5 Adapting Through Definition.


8.6 Adapting Through Analysis.


8.7 Adapting Through Comparison.


8.8 Adapting Through Graphics.


8.9 Logic and Organization in Writing for Public Audiences.




Chapter 9: Research on the “Ulcer Bug”: From Theory to Clinic Application



Warren and Marshall, “Unidentified curved bacilli...,” Lancet, 1983


Blaser, “Gastric Campylobacter-like organisms...,” Gastroenterology, 1987


Graham et al., “Effect of treatment...,” Annals of Internal Medicine, 1992


Chiba et al., “Treating Helicobacter pylori...,” British Medical Journal, 2002


Shah, “Dyspepsia and helicobacter pylori,” British Medical Journal, 2007 


Blaser, “An endangered species...,” Scientific American, February 2005


Marshall, “Helicobacter Connections,” Nobel Lecture, December 8, 2005


Chapter 10: Research on Predatory Algae: From Environmental Event to Environmental Policy



Burkholder et al., “New ‘phantom’ dinoflagellate...,” Nature,1992


Huyghe, “Killer Algae...,” Discover, April 1993


National Sea Grant College Program, Call for Proposals, 1994


Burkholder and Rublee, Sea Grant proposal, 1994


Burkholder et al., “Demonstration of toxicity...,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2005


Rublee et al., “Detection of the Dinozoans..,” The Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology, 2005


Engelhaupt, “New Pfiesteria toxin identified,” Environmental Science & Technology Online News, January 10, 2007


North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, “Safety and Personal Protection,” April 21, 2008


North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, “DWQ Pfiesteria analysis,” April 26, 2008


Maryland Department of Natural Resources, “Protocol for Closing...,” April 18, 2008


Chapter 11: Research on the Oracle at Delphi: From Ancient Myth to Modern Interdisciplinary Science




De Boer and Hale, “Proposal,” 1996      


De Boer et al., “New Evidence...,” Geology, 2001  


Spiller et al., “Multidisciplinary Defense...,” Journal of Toxicology–Clinical Toxicology, 2002


Broad, “For Delphic oracle, fumes and visions,” New York Times, 2002


Hale et al., “New Evidence...Temple of Apollo” (Conference Abstract), American Journal of Archeology, 2002


Etiope et al., “The geological links...,” Geology, 2006


Foster and Lehoux, “The Delphic Oracle...,” Clinical Toxicology, 2007


Chapter 12: Research on Kepler’s Supernova: From Satellite Image to Public Knowledge Space



O’Dell, “Chandra X-ray Observatory,” NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center, 1997


CXO Research Program, “Call for Proposals,” NASA/Chandra X-ray Center, 2007

Reynolds et al., “Kepler’s Supernova Remnant...,” NASA proposal, 2005  


Reynolds et al., “A Deep Chandra Observation” (Conference Abstract), American Astronomical Society, 2007


Roy and Watzke, “A Star's Death...,” NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center, January 9, 2007


Cowen, “Solving a 400-year-old Supernova Riddle” Science News Online, January 27, 2007


Naeve, “Kepler Saw a White Dwarf Explode,” Sky & Telescope, April 2007  


Reynolds et al., “A Deep Chandra Observation...,” The Astrophysical Journal, 2007


Chapter 13: Research on Katrina’s Carbon Footprint: From Science to Public Debate



DOE National Institute for Climatic Change Research, Request for Proposals, February 28, 2008


Chambers and Hurtt, “Hurricane Impacts on Structure...,” NICCR Project Summary, 2006


Chambers et al., “Hurricane Katrina’s Carbon Footprint...,” Science, November 16, 2007


Cook-Anderson, “Forests Damaged by Katrina...,” NASA, November 15, 2007


Kaufman, “Katrina, Rita Caused Forestry Disaster,” The Washington Post, November 16, 2007


Shogren, “Trees Lost to Katrina...,” NPR’s All Things Considered, January 21, 2008


Knutson et al., “Simulated reduction...,” Nature Geoscience, May 18, 2008


Associated Press, “Study Says Global Warming...,” The New York Times, May 19, 2008


Revkin, “A New Middle Stance...,” The New York Times, January 1, 2007


Works Cited.


Index of Names and Titles.


Subject Index.