Writing and Science Bibliography: Rhetorical Principles

Antilla, L. (2010). Self-censorship and science: A geographical review of media coverage of climate tipping points. Public Understanding of Science, 19(2), 240-256.

Baake, K. (2003). Metaphor and Knowledge: The Challenges of Writing Science. New York: State University of New York Press.

Baram-Tsabari, A., & Segev, E. (2011). Exploring new web-based tools to identify public interest in science. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 130-143.

Bentley, P., & Kyvik, S. (2011). Academic staff and public communication: A survey of popular science publishing across 13 countries. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 48-63.

Blakeslee, A.M. (1997). Activity, context, interaction, and authority: Learning to write scientific papers in situ. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 11(2), 125-169.

Bruce, I. (2008). Cognitive genre structures in Methods sections of research articles: A corpus study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 38-54,

Burns, T.W., O'Connor, D.J., & Stocklmayer, S.M. (2003). Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12(2), 183-202.

Ceccarelli, L. (2004). Neither confusing cacophony nor culinary complements: A case study of mixed metaphors for genomic science. Written Communication, 21(1), 92-105.

Charney, D. (2003). Lone geniuses in popular science: The devaluation of scientific consensus. Written Communication, 20(3), 215-241.

Chimba, M., & Kitzinger, J. (2010). Bimbo or boffin? Women in science: An analysis of media representations and how female scientists negotiate cultural contradictions. Public Understanding of Science, 19(5), 609-624.

Clark, I.L., & Fischbach, R. (2008). Writing and learning in the health sciences: Rhetoric, identity, genre, and performance. The WAC Journal, 19, 15-28.

Clarke, C.E. (2011). A case of conflicting norms? Mobilizing and accountability information in newspaper covers of the autism-vaccine controversy. Public Understanding of Science, 20(5), 609-626.

Critchley, C.R., & Nicol, D. (2011). Understanding the impact of commercialization on public support for scientific research: Is it about the funding source or the organization conducting the research? Public Understanding of Science, 20(3), 347-366.

Davies, S.R. (2008). Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication, 29(4), 413-434.

Falchetti, E., Caravita, S., & Sperduti, A. (2007). What do laypersons want to know from scientists? An analysis of a dialogue between scientists and layperson on the web site Scienzaonline. Public Understanding of Science, 16(4), 489-506.

Gauchet, G. (2011). The cultural authority of science: Public trust and acceptance of organized science. Public Understanding of Science, 20(6), 751-770.

Gauthier, E. (2011). Foodborne microbial risks in the press: The framing of listeriosis in Canadian newspapers. Public Understanding of Science, 20(2), 270-286.

Gigante, M.E. (2012). Accommodating scientific illiteracy: Award-winning visualizations on the covers of Science. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 42(1), 21-38.

Gould, S.J. (1992). Prologue. Bully for Brontosaurus. W.W. Norton & Company.

Gould, S.J. (1988). The View of Life - The case of the creeping fox terrier clone. Natural History, 97(1), 16-24.

Gorton, W., & Diels, J. (2011). Is political talk getting smarter? An analysis of presidential debates and the Flynn effect. Public Understanding of Science, 20(5), 578-594.

Hess, D.J. (2011). To tell the truth: On scientific counterpublics. Public Understanding of Science, 20(5), 627-641.

Joffe, H. (2011). Public apprehension of emerging infectious diseases: Are changes afoot? Public Understanding of Science, 20(4), 446-460.

Journet, D. (2005). Metaphor, ambiguity, and motive in evolutionary biology: W.D. Hamilton and the gene's point of view. Written Communication, 22(4), 379-420.

Kim, K.S. (2011). Public understanding of the politics of global warming in the news media: The hostile media approach. Public Understanding of Science, 20(5), 690-705.

LaFollette, M.D. (2006).Taking science to the marketplace: Examples of science service’s presentation of chemistry during the 1930s. HYLE: International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, 12(1), 67-97. http://www.hyle.org.

Locke, S. (2002). The public understanding of science - A rhetorical invention. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 27(1), 87-111.

Losh, S. C. (2010) Stereotypes about scientists over time among US adults: 1983 and 2001. Public Understanding of Science, 19(3), 372-382.

MacDonald, S.P. (2005). The language of journalism in treatments of hormone replacement news. Written Communication, 22(3), 275-297.

MacDonald, T., & Bean, A. (2011). Adventures in the subatomic universe: An exploratory study of a scientist-museum physics education project. Public Understanding of Science, 20(6), 846-862.

Maillé, M., Saint-Charles, J., & Lucotte, M. (2010). The gap between scientists and journalists: The case of mercury science in Québec's press. Public Understanding of Science, 19(1), 70-79.

Myers, G. (1994). Narratives of science and nature in popularizing molecular genetics. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis, 179-190. New York: Routledge.

Nerlich, B., & James, R. (2009). "The post-antibiotic apocalypse" and the "war on superbugs": Catastrophe discourse in microbiology, its rhetorical form and political function. Public Understanding of Science, 18(5), 574-590.

Nisbet, M.C. & Mooney, C. (2006). Framing science. Science, 316(5821), 56ff.

Paul, D. (2004). Spreading chaos: The role of popularizations in the diffusion of scientific ideas. Written Communication, 21(1), 32-68.

Reeves, C. (1998). Rhetoric and the AIDS virus hunt. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 84(1), 1-22.

Rickard, L.N. (2011). In backyards, on front lawns: Examining informal risk communication and communicators. Public Understanding of Science, 20(5), 642-657.

Riesch, H. (2011). Changing news: Re-adjusting science studies to online newspapers. Public Understanding of Science, 20(6), 771-777.

Rogers, C.L. (2000). Making the audience a key participant in the science communication process. Science and Engineering Ethics, 6(4), 553-557.

Rowe, G., Rawsthorne, D., Scarpello, T., & Dainty, J.R. (2010). Public engagement in research funding: A study of public capabilities and engagement methodology. Public Understanding of Science, 19(2), 225-239.

Segal, J.Z. (2009). Internet health and the 21st-century patient: A rhetorical view. Written Communication, 26(4), 351-369.

Shapin, S. (1984). Pump and circumstance: Robert Boyle's literary technology. Social Studies of Science, 14(4), 481-520.

Siemsen, H. (2010). The Mach-Planck debate revisited: Democratization of science or elite knowledge? Public Understanding of Science, 19(3), 293-310.

Stekolschik, G., Draghi, C., Adaszko, D., & Gallardo, S. (2010). Does the public communication of science influence scientific vocation? Results of a national survey. Public Understanding of Science, 19(5), 625-637.

Suleski, J., & Ibaraki, M. (2010). Scientists are talking, but mostly to each other: A quantitative analysis of research represented in mass media. Public Understanding of Science, 19(1), 115-125.

Turney, J. (2004). Accounting for explanation in popular science texts - an analysis of popularized accounts of superstring theory. Public Understanding of Science, 13(4), 331-346.

Wagner-Egger, P., Bangerter, A., Gilles, I., Green, E., Rigaud, D., Krings, F., Staerklé, C., & Clémence, A. (2011). Lay perceptions of collectives at the outbreak of the H1N1epidemic: Heroes, villains, and victims. Public Understanding of Science, 20(4), 461-476.

Washer, P. (2011). Lay perceptions of emerging infectious diseases: A commentary. Public Understanding of Science, 20(4), 506-512.

Wynn, J. (2007). Alone in the garden: How Gregor Mendel's inattention to audience may have affected the reception of his theory of inheritance in "Experiments in Plant Hybridization." Written Communication, 24(1), 3-28.

Yore, L.D., Hand, B.M., & Florence, M.K. (2004). Scientists' views of science, models of writing, and science writing practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 338-369.

Yore, L.D., Hand, B.M., & Prain, V. (2002). Scientists as writers. Science Education, 86, 672-692.

Yore, L.D., Florence, M.K., Pearson, T.W., & Weaver, A.J. (2006). Written discourse in scientific communities: A conversation with two scientists about their views of science, use of language, role of writing in doing science, and compatibility between their epistemic views and language. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 109-141.