Journal of Technical Writing and Communication Jan 2003

The Peter Effect in Early Experimental Education Research

Joseph Little University of California, Santa Barbara

Abstract

One of the signatures of scientific writing is its ability to present the claims of science as if they were “untouched by human hands.” In the early years of experimental education, researchers achieved this by adopting a citational practice that led to the sedimentation of their cardinal method, the analysis of variance, and their standard for statistical significance, 0.05. This essentially divorces their statistical framework from its historical conditions of production. Researchers suppressed their own agency through the use of passive voice and nominalization. With their own agency out of the way, they imbued the methods, results, and presentational devices themselves with the active agency of the situation through the use of personification. Such a depiction creates the impression that the researchers and audience stand on equal epistemic ground as interested witnesses to the autonomous activity of a third party, the method, which churns out the brute facts of science.

Journal
Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
Published
2003-01-01
DOI
10.2190/j5cb-2qnk-jgkk-yhx0
CompPile
Open Access
Closed
Topics
Export
BibTeX RIS

Citation context

Cited by in this index (4)

  1. Moran et al. (2012)
    A Bibliography of Works Published in the History of Professional Communication …
    Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
  2. Malone (2007)
    Historical Studies of Technical Communication in the United States and England:…
    IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  3. Little (2007)
    Achieving Objectivity through Genred Activity: A Case Study
    Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
  4. Little (2007)
    Achieving Objectivity through Genred Activity: A Case Study
    Journal of Technical Writing and Communication

References (80) · 5 in this index

  1. Hagner D. A. (1995)
    Word Biblical Commentary, 33B
  2. Cullmann O. (1962)
    Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr
  3. Davies W. D. (1988)
    A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 1–3
  4. Megill A. (1997)
    Rethinking Objectivity
  5. Rorty R. (1987)
    The Rhetoric of the Human Sciences
Show all 80 →
  1. 10.1086/349468
     ↗
  2. 10.7208/chicago/9780226458106.001.0001
     ↗
  3. Gould S. J. (1981)
    The Mismeasure of Man
  4. Porter T. M. (1995)
    Trust in Numbers
  5. Bodewitz H. J. H. W. (1987)
    The Social Construction of Technological Systems
  6. 10.1037/0033-2909.87.1.166
     ↗
  7. 10.1037/h0043943
     ↗
  8. Skipper J. K. (1970)
    The Significance Test Controversy
  9. 10.1080/00220973.1993.10806593
     ↗
  10. Lagemann E. C. (2000)
    An Elusive Science
  11. 10.1017/CBO9780511524059
     ↗
  12. Fisher R. A. (1925)
    Statistical Methods for Research Worker
  13. Howie D. J. H. (1999)
    Interpretations of Probability, 1919–1939
  14. Bazerman C. (1988)
    Shaping Written Knowledge
  15. 10.1177/030631277800800305
     ↗
  16. Cozzens S. E., Life History of a Knowledge Claim, Atlanta, paper presented at the Sixth Annual Meeting of the…
  17. Zuckerman H. (1973)
    The Sociology of Science
  18. Latour B. (1986)
    Laboratory Life
  19. Berger P. L. (1966)
    The Social Construction of Reality
  20. Latour B. (1987)
    Science in Action
  21. 10.1080/00220973.1934.11009960
     ↗
  22. 10.1080/00220973.1940.11010165
     ↗
  23. 10.1080/00220973.1940.11010166
     ↗
  24. 10.1080/00220973.1940.11010204
     ↗
  25. 10.1080/00220973.1941.11010215
     ↗
  26. 10.1080/00220973.1941.11010221
     ↗
  27. 10.1080/00220973.1941.11010242
     ↗
  28. 10.1080/00220973.1942.11010257
     ↗
  29. 10.1080/00220973.1942.11010264
     ↗
  30. 10.1080/00220973.1943.11010286
     ↗
  31. 10.1080/00220973.1943.11010287
     ↗
  32. 10.1080/00220973.1943.11010295
     ↗
  33. 10.1080/00220973.1944.11010302
     ↗
  34. Fleck L. (1979)
    Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact
  35. Merton R. (1972)
    The Sociology of Science
  36. Bazerman C. (1994)
    Constructing Experience
  37. Snedecor G. W. (1937)
    Statistical Methods
  38. Lindquist E. F. (1940)
    Statistical Analysis in Educational Research
  39. 10.2307/2094370
     ↗
  40. McCloskey D. N. (1998)
    The Rhetoric of Economics
  41. Berkenkotter C. (2000)
    Inventinga Discipline
  42. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.012
     ↗
  43. Zuckerman H. (1973)
    The Sociology of Science
  44. Mittag K. C. (2000)
    Educational Researcher
  45. Hogben L. (1970)
    The Significance Test Controversy
  46. Little (2001)
    Understanding Statistical Significance: A Conceptual History
    Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
  47. 10.1080/00220973.1932.11009894
     ↗
  48. 10.1080/00220973.1933.11009938
     ↗
  49. 10.1080/00220973.1934.11009961
     ↗
  50. 10.1080/00220973.1938.11010099
     ↗
  51. 10.1080/00220973.1941.11010246
     ↗
  52. 10.1080/00220973.1942.11010259
     ↗
  53. 10.1080/00220973.1942.11010270
     ↗
  54. 10.1080/00220973.1942.11010271
     ↗
  55. 10.1080/00220973.1942.11010272
     ↗
  56. 10.1080/00220973.1943.11010281
     ↗
  57. 10.1080/00220973.1943.11010296
     ↗
  58. 10.1080/00220973.1944.11010298
     ↗
  59. 10.1080/00220973.1944.11010311
     ↗
  60. 10.1080/00220973.1944.11010313
     ↗
  61. 10.1080/00220973.1944.11010315
     ↗
  62. 10.1080/00220973.1944.11010317
     ↗
  63. 10.1080/00220973.1944.11010318
     ↗
  64. Fisher R. A. (1930)
    Statistical Methods for Research Workers
  65. Cohen J. (1997)
    What if There Were No Significance Tests?
  66. National Center for Educational Statistics, National Center for Education Statistics [Online]. Available: htt…
  67. (2000)
    Education Statistics Quarterly
  68. Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482, 1977.
  69. Hazelwood School District v. United States, 433 U.S. 299, 1977.
  70. Segar v. Smith, 738 F.2d 1282, D.C. Cir. 1984.
     ↗
  71. Kaye D. H. (1986)
    Washington Law Review
  72. Little (2001)
    Understanding Statistical Significance: A Conceptual History
    Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
  73. Little (2001)
    Toward Sociocultural Sensitivity in Rhetorical Studies of Analogy: Theoretical …
    Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
  74. Little (2000)
    Analogy in science: Where do we go from here?
    Rhetoric Society Quarterly
  75. Little (1999)
    Confusion in the Classroom: Does Logos Mean Logic?
    Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
CrossRef global citation count: 3 View in citation network → Build reading path →

Related articles

  1. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication Jun 2026
    The Sonic Aesthetics of Science Communication Podcasts ↗
    Caroline Koons; Amelia Chesley
    argument technical communication scientific writing artificial intelligence grammar and mechanics
  2. Written Communication Jul 2025
    Women Scientists’ Digitally Mediated Activity, Genres and Digital Tools: A Cross-sectional Survey Across the Disciplines ↗
    Carmen Pérez-Llantada; Oana Maria Carciu; Rosana Villares
    rhetorical criticism genre theory writing pedagogy collaborative writing professional writing scientific writing
  3. Technical Communication Quarterly Oct 2024
    Social Justice and “Harmful Tech”: Dis-Orienting Militarized Research ↗
    Calvin Pollak; Sanvi Bhardwaj
    rhetorical criticism discourse analysis writing pedagogy teacher development technical communication scientific writing race and writing disability studies editorial matter
  4. Journal of Academic Writing Sep 2024
    Communicative Awareness is the Key: Using The Rhetorical Triangle for Improving STEM Graduate Academic Writing ↗
    Tzipora Rakedzon; Orit Rabkin
    rhetorical criticism writing pedagogy graduate education argument scientific writing
  5. Technical Communication Quarterly Jan 2024
    Reddit and Engaged Science Communication Online: An Examination of Reddit’s R/Science Ask-Me-Anythings and Science Discussion Series ↗
    Devon Moriarty; Ashley Rose Mehlenbacher
    genre theory service learning scientific writing