|
Articles Conference Reviews |
A.19 Three Integrations of Science and CompositionA.19 Renovating Composition for the Twenty-first Century: Three Integrations of Science and Composition This panel was the highlight of Cs for me this year, and not only because of my own interest in rhetoric of science. The three panelists talked about writing in science and medicine, and how we can help improve writing and teaching in those areas. Michael Zerbe, “Of Pens and Paradigm Shifts: Scientific Discourse in Composition Studies” Michael Zerbe began with a discussion of “paralysis by analysis,” a phenomenon in which lack of certainty is used as a reason for inaction. He illustrated two ways that paralysis by analysis manifests itself:
Zerbe’s goal is twofold. First, he wants to combat paralysis by analysis through greater scientific literacy. For example, a key aspect of scientific literacy is the ability to identify variables that are relevant to a study, and to note which are not being considered. This kind of critical understanding is important in situations where important factors are being ignored. Second, he wants to balance the role of scientific argument by revalidating other forms of reasoning and argument. As he pointed out, historically, overcoming paralysis by analysis is harder in social sciences (e.g. education) than in physical sciences (e.g. smoking and cancer), and one solution to this difficulty is to start asking non-science questions. Zerbe’s talk was interesting to me for a couple of reasons. For one thing, I had just finished teaching a lower-division course on rhetoric of science that enrolled a mixture of science and non-science majors and was starting to reflect on how I will change it for next year. Zerbe’s talk inspired me to think about how I might use the concept of “paralysis by analysis” to help students understand that waiting is in itself a kind of action. In addition, because I was going to be quoting from his book in my own Cs talk, its contents were fresh in my mind. I enjoyed hearing Zerbe’s additional insights, especially given that Zerbe speaks as he writes: the talk was clear, organized and had a touch of humor. M. Isabel Gardett, “Student Logics and Contrived Situations: Writing in a Molecular Biology Lab” Isabel Gardett described how she helped two professors of microbiology figure out why their students’ writing was not meeting their expectations. Through this collaboration, Gardett identified a conflict between what the professors wanted and what they asked for. That is, the professors “wanted students to write as scientists,” but the nature of the professors’ feedback “put students back in student mode” of giving the professors what they want without necessarily understanding why the professors want it. Specifically, each professor asked students to use a different kind of logic—inductive reasoning in one case, deductive reasoning in the other—without helping students understand the rationale behind each approach. The students, having gotten used to Professor One’s preference for inductive reasoning (logic one), were stumped by Professor Two’s expectation that they would write deductively (logic two). Faced with what seemed like “idiosyncratic” demands from the professors, Gardett explained, the students fell back on another kind of logic: do what it takes to please the profs. Before their collaboration with Gardett, the professors did not have the meta-knowledge to know when to ask students to use logic one or logic two, nor did they have the meta-language to explain these two equally valuable logics to their students. The success of Gardett’s work nicely illustrated her conclusion that one of the most valuable things we can do for faculty in other disciplines is to “give others our language… provide language for what is going on, language for talking about language.” Back at my own science-heavy campus, I am already using Gardett’s ideas as a heuristic for diagnosing writing/communication problem when working with science and engineering faculty. More generally, I believe that Gardett’s work exemplifies I.A. Richards’ 1936 description of rhetoric as “the study of miscommunication and its remedies” (The Philosophy of Rhetoric, pg. 3). As such, it is an inspiring reminder of how valuable our specialized expertise can be. Susan Miller, “Composition Without Borders: A Medical Writing Group and Our Classrooms” The final panelist, Susan Miller (emerita, U. of Utah), discussed another kind of cross-disciplinary work by describing her experience leading a medical writing group made up of doctors. She began by referred to the “road between NEH and NSF” as a “road that, like love, has no signage,” and then proceeded to offer some signage. Unfortunately, my note-taking did not keep up with the richness of Miller’s talk, so I came away with only a few of her many interesting points. The one that struck me the most strongly has to do with time. At several points in the talk, Miller stressed the importance of “the time—not the talent or the will—that produces writing.” For her medical writers, the time to write provided at each meeting was not only the most important recruiting point, but also the main factor that “has most effectively disassembled inter- and intradisciplinary boundaries.” I heard this point—that time is of the essence—echoed several times at the conference, including in Christine Feak’s session I.14 talk titled “Academic Writing for Graduate Students: It’s Not Just for International Students Any More” and in the University of Michigan’s panel on their Dissertation Writing Institute (which occurred in session H.31). As I resumed my WAC work post-Cs, I found myself wondering how often I try by other means to solve problems that mainly need time. Conclusion All three panelists spoke articulately, and all three balanced conceptual and applied elements. In doing so, they offered both new insights about writing, and practical suggestions about how to encourage cross-disciplinary connections. During the weeks since Cs, I have already started integrating their ideas into my work. Sometimes those ideas manifest in course planning, sometimes in the informed questions I ask colleagues in other fields, and sometimes in simply bringing writers together and giving them time to write. |