Rhetorical Citizenship and the Science of Science Communication

Jeanne Fahnestock University of Maryland, College Park
Journal
Argumentation
Published
2020-09-01
DOI
10.1007/s10503-019-09499-7
CompPile
Open Access
Closed
Topics
Export

Citation context

Cited by in this index (1)

  1. Technical Communication Quarterly

References (89) · 3 in this index

  1. Allison, David B., Andrew W. Brown, Brandon J. George, and Kathryn A. Kaiser. 2016. Reproducibility: A traged…
    Nature  ↗
  2. Baker, Monya, and Dan Penny. 2016. Is there a reproducibility crisis? Nature 533: 452–454.
    Nature  ↗
  3. Begley, C.Glenn, and Lee M. Ellis. 2012. Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. N…
    Nature  ↗
  4. Bem, Daryl. 2011. Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition…
    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology  ↗
  5. Science, now under scrutiny itself
Show all 89 →
  1. Besley, John C., Anthony Dudo, and Martin Storksdieck. 2015. Scientists’ views about communication training. …
    Journal of research in science teaching  ↗
  2. Besley, John C., Anthony D. Dudo, Shupei Yuan, and Niveen Abi Ghannam. 2016. Qualitative interviews with scie…
    Science Communication  ↗
  3. Black, Steven, and Rino Rappuoli. 2010. A crisis of public confidence in vaccines. Science Translational Medi…
    Science Translational Medicine
  4. Bohannon, John. 2013. Who’s afraid of peer review. Science 342: 60–65.
    Science  ↗
  5. Science and the internet: Communicating knowledge in a digital age
  6. Burdick, Alan. 2017. “Paging Dr. Fraud”: The fake publishers that are ruining science. The New Yorker https:/…
  7. Cacciatore, Michael A., Dietram A. Scheufele, and Shanto Iyengar. 2016. The end of framing as we know it ...a…
    Mass Communication and Society  ↗
  8. Carpenter, Siri. 2012. Government sanctions Harvard psychologist. Science 337: 1283.
    Science  ↗
  9. Check, Erika, and David Cyranoski. 2005. Korean scandal will have global fallout. Nature 438: 1056–1057.
    Nature  ↗
  10. Rhetorica ad Herennium [Loeb Classics]
  11. Communicating science effectively: A research agenda
     ↗
  12. Dahlstrom, Michael F. 2014. Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences…
    PNAS  ↗
  13. de Vrieze, Jop. 2017. Science wars’ veteran has a new mission. Science 358: 159.
    Science  ↗
  14. Downs, Julie S. 2014. Prescriptive scientific narratives for communicating usable science. PNAS 111(Supplemen…
    PNAS  ↗
  15. The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication
  16. Fraud in the scientific literature
  17. Edwards, Tamsin. 2017. The perils of explaining science. BBC Inside Science [Radio 4: 12 January 2017]. https…
  18. Engber, Daniel. 2017. Is science broken? Or is it self-correcting? Slate (21 August).
  19. Enserink, Martin. 2012. Final report on Stapel also blames field as a whole. Science 338: 1270–1271.
    Science  ↗
  20. Written Communication
  21. A rhetoric of argument
  22. Poroi
  23. Fang, Ferris C., R. Grant Steen, and Arturo Casadevall. 2012. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retract…
    PNAS  ↗
  24. What happened in Barendrecht? Case study on the planned onshore carbon dioxide storage in…
  25. Science journal pulls 60 Papers in peer-review fraud
  26. Funk, Cary and Brian Kennedy. 2019. Public confidence in scientists has remained stable for decades. Fact Tan…
  27. Franzosi, Roberto and Stephanie Vicari. 2013. What’s in a text? Answers from frame analysis and rhetoric for …
  28. Rhetorica
  29. Hamilton, Walter, Trans. 1986. Plato: Gorgias. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.
  30. Journal retracts 1998 paper linking autism to vaccines
  31. Rigor mortis: how sloppy science creates worthless cures, crushes hope, and wastes billions
  32. Hilgard, Joseph and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. 2017. Science as ‘broken’ versus science as ‘self- correcting’: H…
     ↗
  33. Holland, Earle M. 2007. The risks and advantages of framing science. Science 317: 1168.
    Science  ↗
  34. Hoy, Anne Q. 2018. Engagement helps scientists tackle global challenges. Science 361: 372–373.
    Science  ↗
  35. Ioannides, John P.A. 2005a. Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JA…
    JAMA  ↗
  36. Ioannides, John P.A. 2005b. Why most published research findings are false. PloS medicine 2.8.e124: 0696-0701.
     ↗
  37. Iyengar, Shanto, and Douglas S. Massey. 2019. Science communication in a post-truth society. PNAS 116(16): 76…
    PNAS
  38. Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. 2018. Crisis or self-correction: Rethinking media narratives about the well-being of…
    PNAS  ↗
  39. Kahan, D.M. 2012. Why are we poles apart on climate change? Nature 488: 255.
    Nature  ↗
  40. Katz, Yarden. 2013. Against storytelling of scientfic results. Nature Methods 10(11): 1045.
    Nature Methods  ↗
  41. Kennedy, George, Trans. 1991. Aristotle: On rhetoric. New York: Oxford University Press.
  42. Kennedy, George, Trans. 2003. Progymnasmata: Greek textbooks of prose composition and rhetoric. Atlanta: Soci…
  43. Kim, Sei-Hill, Ed. 2019. Beyond framing: A forum for framing researchers. Journalism & mass communication qua…
     ↗
  44. Bending opinion: essays on persuasion in the public domain
  45. Kock, Christian. 2017. Gorgias reloaded: A new-found dialogue between Gorgias and Socrates. Deliberative rhet…
     ↗
  46. Scientific articles accepted (personal checks, too)
  47. His promise to heal bad hearts relied on a mountain of false data
  48. ‘Predatory publisher’ is fined $50 million
  49. Krippendorff, Klaus. 2017. Three concepts to retire. Annals of the international communication association 41…
    Annals of the international communication association  ↗
  50. Kuijper, I.Margriet. 2011. Public acceptance challenges for onshore CO2 storage in Barendrecht. Energy Proced…
    Energy Procedia  ↗
  51. Doing news framing analysis
  52. Leshner, Alan I. 2006. Science and public engagement. The chronicle of higher education 53(8): 65.
    The chronicle of higher education
  53. Leshner, Alan I. 2012. Capably communicating science. Science 337: 777.
    Science  ↗
  54. Leshner, Alan I. 2013. Communication challenges in the life sciences. PILS Roundtable (3 June 2013).
  55. Leshner, Alan I. 2015. Bridging the opinion gap. Editorial. Science 347: 459.
    Science  ↗
  56. Lewis, Simon L. 2014. Scientist-versus-activist debates mislead the public.” Nature 506: 409.
     ↗
  57. Public outreach approaches for carbon capture storage projects
  58. Makri, Anita. 2017. Give the public the tools to trust scientists. Nature 541: 261.
    Nature  ↗
  59. Mellor, Felicity. 2018. Review: The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication. Public understan…
    Public understanding of science  ↗
  60. Moylan, Elizabeth C., and Maria K. Kowalczuk. 2016. Why articles are retracted: A retrospective cross-section…
    British Medical Journal Open
  61. National Academy of Sciences. 2018. The science of science communication III. Stephen Olson, Rapporteur. Wash…
  62. Science and engineering indicators 2018
  63. National Science Foundation. 2017. InfoBrief. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. NSF 18-300.
  64. Communicating Science
  65. Nisbet, Matthew C. and Chris Mooney. 2007. Framing science. Science 316:56.
    Science  ↗
  66. Houston, we have a narrative: why science needs story
     ↗
  67. Open Science Collaborative. 2015. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349: 940–944.
    Science
  68. The new rhetoric: a treatise on argumentation
  69. Stem cell research papers are retracted
  70. Prinz, Florian, Thomas Schlange, and Khusru Asadullah. 2011. Believe it or not: How much can we rely on publi…
    Nature Reviews Drug Discovery  ↗
  71. Roston, Michael. 2015. Retracted scientific studies: A growing list. New York Times (28 May): https://www.nyt…
  72. Rowland, F. Sherwood. 1993. President’s lecture: The need for scientific communication with the public. Scien…
    Science  ↗
  73. Salomon, Jean-Jacques. 2001. Society talks back. Nature 412: 585–586.
    Nature  ↗
  74. Schenkel, Roland. 2010. The challenge of feeding scientific advice into policy-making. Science 330: 1749–1751.
    Science  ↗
  75. Sheldon, Tom. 2018. Preprints could promote confusion and distortion. Nature 559: 445.
    Nature  ↗
  76. Simmons, Joseph P., Leif D. Nelson, and Uri Simonsohn. 2011. False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibili…
    Psychological Science  ↗
  77. Światkowski, Wojciech, and Benoît Dompnier. 2017. Replicability crisis in social psychology: Looking at the p…
    International review of social psychology  ↗
  78. Trafimow, David, and Michael Marks. 2015. Editorial. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 37: 1–2.
    Basic and Applied Social Psychology  ↗
  79. Fallout from fatigue syndrome retraction is wide
  80. van der Linden, Sander, Anthony Leiserowitz, Seth Rosenthal, and Edward Maibach. 2017. Inoculating the public…
     ↗
  81. Van Noorden, R. 2011. The trouble with retractions”. Nature 478: 26–28.
    Nature  ↗
  82. Wasserstein, Ronald L., and Nicole A. Lazar. 2016. The ASA’s statement on p-values: Context, process and purp…
    The American statistician  ↗
  83. Whitmarsh, Lorraine, Dimitrios Xenias, and Christopher R. Jones. 2019. Framing effects on public support for …
    Palgrave Communications  ↗
  84. A sharp rise in retractions prompts calls for reform