Running head: THE HIDDEN SCIENCE 1

The Hidden Science: An Analysis of Writing and Rhetoric Use in the Sciences

Devon Pearce

Professor Mooney

ENC 1102

10-25-19
THE HIDDEN SCIENCE 2

The sciences are fascinating fields of study that provide opportunities to change the world

with a single thought. Each new idea can lead to the invention of a life-saving device, the

creation of technology to ease our lives, or a greater understanding of our universe. This is

important to me, because I want everyone to have the best possible life they can, and science is

one of the major ways we can help those who are less fortunate. When new scientific ideas are

written down and communicated, the opportunity for them to change the world becomes even

greater as many more people can be exposed to and collaborate on these ideas. The sciences are a

perfect example of a discourse community as described by Ann Johns, being a community of

people with similar goals, who have their own genres and language to communicate effectively.

They are also linked through their use of rhetoric as described by Doug Downs, with the authors

and scientists present their ideas through various methods and try to convince the others of their

validity.

One source I found gave immense detail on how writing is taught within collegiate

classrooms, with biology students submitting their papers to English students for review. While

this gave great insight into how science students become better writers, it does not give much

thought to how writing is used already (Kokkala & Gessell, 2002). Similar sources describe how

writing and rhetoric are taught within graduate classrooms, facing the same problems as the

previous source (Druschke et al, 2018). Another source describes how the language used within

the sciences has changed, becoming more complex over time (Freddi, Korte & Schmied, 2013).

This source does provide a deeper look into how writing is used but is still incomplete in its

analysis. A final source simply provides ten commonly used rules when writing in the sciences,

providing little to no insight as to how the writing and rhetoric itself is used

(Weinberger, Evans, & Allesina, 2015).

THE HIDDEN SCIENCE 3

The secondary research I have conducted indicated a major gap in research on how

writing and rhetoric is already being used within the sciences. I intend to fill create the missing

research in the article, by analyzing the use of writing and rhetoric along with its impact on the

fields. Using this article, I hope to reveal that the use of writing and rhetoric within the sciences

is far more extensive than most people, even those within the community, believe. I plan to

prove that this use has a profound impact on the community, allowing many more community

members to enter and engage into the research, and present their own ideas.

In this article, I will review the results of a survey conducted between October 6th, 2019

and October 25th, 2019. I will also analyze multiple scientific research papers to help provide a

better understanding of the specialized language used, and the effects it has on the community.

While the results of the study suggest that the use of writing and rhetoric is not as extensive as I

previously believed, they do still show that what is conducted has a major impact.

Overall, the paper is structured with my reasoning for conducting the research at the

beginning. I will then move on to my methods for this research, describing them in detail. Next, I

will give more detail on my secondary research, and why it led me to choosing my research

question. Finally, I will provide a detailed analysis of the results of my research and discuss their

impact on what I had initially thought I would find when conducting it.
THE HIDDEN SCIENCE 4

References

Ahmadi, F., ValizadehKaji, B., & Abbasifar, A. (2019). The Effect of Air Pollution on

Developmental Stages and Pollen Germination, Pollen Tube Growth and Fruit Set of the

Apple Cultivars ‘Golden Delicious’ and ‘Golab’. Gesunde Pflanzen, 71(4), 237-247.

doi:10.1007/s10343-019-00468-4 This is a source I used to analyze the abstract, in order

to gain more data for how writing and rhetoric are used within the sciences. I found that

the authors used formal and advanced language to describe how they conducted their

study, along with the results of said study. This seems to indicate that the primary use of

writing within scientific studies is to communicate results, whether simply to publish

them or to have others reproduce the results for validity. This source relates to my other

sources as it provides an example of writing in the sciences, both showing how they are

used, and how the methods of teaching scientific writing can affect published results later

in the careers of students. This source more complete data on writing and rhetoric use in

the sciences, allowing for a greater understanding of what makes it effective. The source

relates to my research question as it provides concrete evidence of how writing is used

within the sciences, showing that it is used to communicate the reasoning behind a study,

and the results of the study. This source will enable me to provide greater evidence for

my claims and gain a better understanding of the use of writing and rhetoric within the

scientific discourse community.

Alluqmani, A., & Shamir, L. (2018). Writing styles in different scientific disciplines: a data

science approach. Scientometrics, 115(2), 1071-1085. doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2688-8

This source describes the differences between writing four different fields of study, with

three of them being sciences. The authors describe that while certain words can be
THE HIDDEN SCIENCE 5

attributed to fields of study, each seems to have their own writing style that makes it

unique from the others. The study analyzed parts of papers such as their word diversity or

the use of quotations within the paper. The results of their study showed that each field

indeed has its own unique writing style, far different from the others, which makes it

somewhat difficult for communication between the fields. This article relates to the other

sources I am citing as it shows that even though the sciences may have its own general

writing style, the different fields within the sciences further define their own writing

styles. The study shows that each has their own unique language and ways to use

rhetoric, that set it apart from another field. This source connects to my research question

as it enables me to better understand how writing is used within the sciences. While it

does not give a clear understanding, there is enough information to be able to understand

how each field uses writing and rhetoric in their own way. This source will also enable

me to better analyze different scientific texts to gain even further insight into the use of

writing and rhetoric and its impact on the sciences.

Deng, Y., Kelly, G. J., & Deng, S. (2019). The influences of integrating reading, peer evaluation,

and discussion on undergraduate students’ scientific writing. International Journal of

Science Education, 41(10), 1408-1433. doi:10.1080/09500693.2019.1610811 This article

provides an explanation of how the implementation of reading, peer evaluation and

discussion, can greatly benefit a student's scientific literacy. The authors describe how an

important part of scientific learning is not only being able to perform various

experiments, but also understanding how to communicate results, particularly through

writing. They then go on to describe several possible methods they tested to increase

scientific literacy among their students, such as choosing four papers that had been
THE HIDDEN SCIENCE 6

published and assigning them to students for analysis. The results of their study showed a

clear increase in the student’s scientific literacy, with them learning how to communicate

their ideas at a much higher professional level, especially through writing. This source

connects to my other sources because it provides greater understanding of how writing is

taught within the sciences. This allows better understanding of how writing is used in the

sciences, though it still does not provide a complete picture. This source connects to my

research question because it can help provide a context for why writing has an impact for

scientific communication. The article can also provide a backing for the claim that

writing is an important part of the sciences, with a far greater impact than many people

believe.

Downs, D. (2017). Rhetoric: Making Sense of Human Interaction and Meaning-Making. Writing

About Writing, 3(1), 457-481. This article gives a detailed explanation of rhetoric and

rhetorical situations. It provides easy to understand definitions for each and provides

many examples for how they are used. It explains how rhetoric connects much of our

communication, interactions, and other experiences. The article also provides

explanations on how there are no set rules for writing that apply within all situations. It

helps explain how rhetoric can help us make up our minds, while changing the minds of

others. Overall, the article explains the many different elements that make up rhetoric,

along with how they connect communication within different discourse communities, as

well as communication that occurs between the communities. This article connects to the

other sources I am referencing as it provides a context for what rhetoric is and how its

effects communication practices. It provides details that are not present in the other

articles that will help readers understand what I am trying to find and explain in my
THE HIDDEN SCIENCE 7

research. The source connects to my research question as it provides context for my

research in the use of rhetoric in science. It allows me to better understand what I am

trying to research myself, which enables me to gain more valuable data.

Druschke, C. G., Reynolds, N., Morton-Aiken, J., Lofgren, I. E., Karraker, N. E., & McWilliams,

S. R. (2018). Better science through rhetoric: A new model and pilot program for training

graduate student science writers. Technical Communication Quarterly, 27(2), 175-190.

doi:10.1080/10572252.2018.1425735 This article explains how even though there is an

ever-increasing need for science experts to engage with the public, other experts, or those

who can provide funding, there are very little resources available for graduate students to

learn scientific writing. The source explains how there are foundations such as the

National Science Foundations (NSF) calling for the implementation of more scientific

communication training, however it remains difficult to achieve this. The article

describes the current method of this communication training, with how it is mainly meant

to teach students how to craft short, persuasive thoughts about their research, to be given

to passive rather than engaged audiences. The article finishes by providing ideas to

correct this lack of training, giving a possibility of a stronger future for scientific writing.

This article connects to my other sources because it explains how writing is important

within the scientific discourse community, while giving a reason as to why it should be

given more priority in scientific studies. It deepens the article by Kokkala and Gessell by

explaining the lack of teaching in graduate level classes and providing possible solutions.

This article connects to my research question as it provides backing to the claim that

writing has a major impact on the sciences. The advocacy for greater communication
THE HIDDEN SCIENCE 8

training for graduate students shows that writing indeed has an immense impact on the

scientific community, even though many tend to believe otherwise.

Freddi, M., Korte, B., & Schmied, J. (2013). Developments and trends in the Rhetoric of

Science. European Journal of English Studies, 17(3), 221-234.

doi:10.1080/13825577.2013.867184 This article explains the development of rhetoric in

the sciences, from rhetoric styled after the teachings of Aristotle, to the increasingly

blurring lines between scientific genres. It highlights how before the nineteenth century;

scientific communication was easily accessible to someone outside of the community.

However, the language used more recently is becoming increasingly complex, making

discoveries less accessible to the general population. The source further explains how this

complication of the language has affected the use of educated language in other fields,

causing a dissociation between the two. Finally, the article goes on to explain how the

change in the use of rhetoric in science has gone on to affect the popularity of science,

and various literary genres, both in fiction and nonfiction. This article connects to the

other articles I am citing as it explains how the use of rhetoric affects the scientific

discourse community, along with brief explanations of how it effects external

communities. It helps highlight the importance of rhetoric in the sciences, along with

their changes over time. The article connects to my research question as it helps reveal

the gap in research on how writing and rhetoric are currently used in scientific fields.

While the article does provide some insight, there is very little, as it mainly focuses on

the complexity of the language and how it affects scientific communication.

Johns, A. M. (2017). Discourse Communities and Communities of Practice. Writing About

Writing, 3(1), 320-341. This article explains discourse communities and communities of
THE HIDDEN SCIENCE 9

practice, explaining what constitutes each, and discussing how each use writing and

rhetoric. The piece explains the general set of principles that make up a discourse

community and the differences between voluntary and involuntary communities. The

article details how each community has its own way of writing that may not be

acceptable in other communities. This work provides a clear and effective explanation on

the differences between communities, that greatly help the reader understand said

differences. This article connects to the other sources as it, like the article by Downs,

provides a context for my research that enables readers to understand what a discourse

community is, and specifically how the scientific discourse community works. It enables

the reader to understand why certain writing strategies are taught the way they are, or

why communication methods within the community are becoming increasingly complex.

This article connects to my research question as it provides a frame for my research,

allowing me to better define a discourse community as it relates to the sciences. It

provides a context for me to do my research, as I am better able to understand what to

look for when doing research related to writing in the sciences.

Kokkala, I., & Gessell, D. A. (2002). Writing Science Effectively: Biology and English Students

in an Author-Editor Relationship. Journal of College Science Teaching, 32(4), 252-257.

Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/42992285 This source provides a detailed

explanation on how writing is taught within some collegiate science classes, with this

article focusing on biology. It details the steps taken by both English and Biology

students to improve their skills in writing and rhetoric, and what the full effects of these

steps were. The article highlights the learning process of both sets of students, explaining

how each learned a great amount about their own writing processes, as well as how
THE HIDDEN SCIENCE 10

writing is used in their fields. The focus of the article was how each set of students

developed their authorial and editorial skills, with the English students reviewing the

work of the biology students, then the biology students reviewing the feedback of the

English students when editing their work. This article connects to the other articles I am

writing as it describes how writing is taught, giving an early insight into how writing will

be used in the field later. This insight helps connect to the effects of writing in the field,

as it can help to predict how these effects might change, or if they will largely remain the

same. The article connects to my research question as it provides a better insight into how

writing is currently used within the sciences; however, it does not provide complete

information. This also helps reveal the gap in research related to the current use of

writing and rhetoric in the different scientific fields.

Personal survey conducted between October 6, 2019 and October 26, 2019. Retrieved from

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/NF666CY This is a personal survey I conducted using

the website Survey Monkey, in order to determine a general sense of how writing and

rhetoric are used within the sciences. The results of the survey go against my original

beliefs that writing and rhetoric were a major part of the sciences, as most of the

respondents said they do not believe they are used extensively. However, they also back

up my claim that the use of writing and rhetoric has a major impact on the scientific

discourse community, with only one respondent claiming they did not believe it had such

an effect. Overall, the results point to writing and rhetoric mainly being used to gain

research funding and to communicate research results with others in the field. These

primary data pieces connect with my secondary sources as they can help provide more

complete data on how writing and rhetoric are used within the sciences, as many of the
THE HIDDEN SCIENCE 11

secondary sources indirectly touch on these possible uses, but do not explicitly address

them. The data connects to my research question as it provides general data from others

within the community on how writing and rhetoric are used, revealing just how extensive

or minimal the use of writing is, and how impactful it is on the community.

Snyder, J. E., Walsh, D., Carr, P. A., & Rothschild, L. J. (2019). A Makerspace for Life Support

Systems in Space. Trends in Biotechnology, 37(11), 1164-1174.

doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2019.05.003 This is an abstract I analyzed to gain a better insight

into how people published their ideas, rather than the results of a study. This source is

used to present the opinion that new life support systems that rely on either nonrenewable

resource packed on Earth and sent to space, or renewable resources found locally while in

space. The author invites others in the community to present their ideas and create a new

conversation on how to keep those we send to space safer than we ever have before. This

source shows that while the main purpose of writing and rhetoric in the sciences is to

present the results of a study, they can also be used to present new ideas or start a new

conversation in the sciences. This source connects to my other sources as it shows that

writing and rhetoric is not only used to present scientific findings, it can also be used to

help foster new ideas. It shows that the simple guidelines presented in other articles can

be used to help make new discoveries that could change the world. This source relates to

my research question as it provides data on how writing and rhetoric is used to present

new ideas rather than discoveries. It shows that the use of writing and rhetoric within

science is far more extensive than many people seem to believe.

Weinberger, C. J., Evans, J. A., & Allesina, S. (2015). Ten Simple (Empirical) Rules for Writing

Science. PLOS Computational Biology, 11(4), e1004205.

THE HIDDEN SCIENCE 12

doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004205 This article lists ten general rules that writers in the

sciences tend to follow. These rules enable scientific communication to become less

complex between the scientists themselves and can also allow the same between experts

and the general public. While these are not necessarily accepted by the entire scientific

community, they are based on the general similarities between different genres in the

sciences. The establishment of these rules can help many people, both inside the

community and outside, understand general scientific writing, enabling anyone to

understand how the discoveries that are made can impact their lives. Overall, this source

is a great way to understand the basics of writing in the sciences, without needing to have

any formal background in the field. This source relates to my other sources as can

provide both context for them, and insight into them. The rules listed in the article enable

people to better understand why writing is taught the way it is, as discussed in the article

by Kokkala & Gessell. This source relates to my research question with the same reasons,

as it provides a context for how writing is used within the sciences. The article can

provide a context of general writing that can help analyze what is more specific. It will

enable me to better understand the results of my research, and help provide a more

specialized analysis, because this source is so general in its discussion.

Wu, J., Li, M., Tang, H., Su, J., He, M., Chen, G., … Tian, J. (2019). Portable paper sensors for

the detection of heavy metals based on light transmission-improved quantification of

colorimetric assays. The Analyst, 144(21), 6382-6390. doi:10.1039/c9an01131e This is

another primary source, used to analyze the abstract of the full article. The source shows

many similar qualities to that of the other abstract I am analyzing, specialized language,

the audience being the scientific discourse community, specifically in chemistry, and the
THE HIDDEN SCIENCE 13

initial presentation of the findings of the research. This supports the claim that the

primary use of writing within the sciences is to present new results, along with the claim

that using writing and rhetoric has a major impact on the scientific discourse community,

as this article presents a new discovery that could revolutionize how other discoveries are

made in chemistry. This source connects to my other sources as it provides even further

insight into the use of writing and rhetoric in the sciences. It shows that writing is more

formalized in the sciences, relating back to the articles about how it is taught, as this more

formal language use would be taught to those looking to go into a scientific field. This

source relates to my research question as it provides evidence for both of my claims that

writing, and rhetoric is used to present new findings and has a far greater impact than

many people believe. Overall, this source provides a great amount of data to show the use

of writing and rhetoric.