Building Better Bridges: Toward a Transdisciplinary Science Communication

References

• Beam, E., Appelbaum, L. G., Jack, J., Moody, J., & Huettel, S. A. (2014). Mapping the semantic structure of cognitive neuroscience. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(9), 1949–1965. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00604
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black, E. (1980). A note on theory and practice in rhetorical criticism. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 44(4), 331–336. doi:10.1080/10570318009374018
   Google Scholar
• Burke, K. (1951). Rhetoric—Old and new. Journal of General Education, 45(3), 202–209. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/27795349
   Google Scholar
• Ceccarelli, L. (2001). Shaping science with rhetoric: The cases of Dobzhansky, Schrodinger, and Wilson. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ceccarelli, L. (2005). A hard look at ourselves: A reception study of rhetoric of science. Technical Communication Quarterly, 14(3), 257–265. doi:10.1207/s15427625tcq1403_3
   Google Scholar
• Ceccarelli, L. (2014). Where’s the rhetoric? Broader impacts in collaborative research. POROI, 10(1). Article 12. doi:10.13008/2151-2957.1182
   Google Scholar
• Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. (2002). The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32(2), 235–296. doi:10.1177/0306312702032002003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Condit, C. M. (1999). The meanings of the gene: Public debates about human heredity. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
   Google Scholar
• Defila, R., & Di Giulio, A. (2017). Managing consensus in inter- and transdisciplinary teams: Tasks and expertise. In R. Frodeman, J. T. Klein, & R. C. S. Pacheco (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp. 332–337). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Depew, D. J., & Lyne, J. (2013). The productivity of scientific rhetoric. POROI, 9(1). Article 4. doi:10.13008/2151-2957.1153
   Google Scholar
• Druschke, C. G. (2014). With whom do we speak? Building transdisciplinary collaborations in rhetoric of science. POROI, 10(1). Article 10. doi:10.13008/2151-2957.1175
   Google Scholar
• ENSN. (2008). Neuroschools. Retrieved from http://www.neurosocieties.eu/Neuroschools/neuroschools_main.htm
   Google Scholar
• Farrell, T. B. (1995). Norms of rhetorical culture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fitzgerald, D., Littlefield, M. M., Knudsen, K. J., Tonks, J., & Dietz, M. J. (2014). Ambivalence, equivocation and the politics of experimental knowledge: A transdisciplinary neuroscience encounter. Social Studies of Science, 44(5), 701–721. doi:10.1177/0306312714531473
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frodeman, R., Klein, J. T., & Pacheco, R. C. S. (Eds.). (2017). The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Galison, P. (1997). Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Graham, S. S., Kessler, M. M., Kim, S.-Y., Ahne, S., & Card, D. (2018). Assessing perspectivalism in patient participation: An evaluation of FDA patient and consumer representative programs. Rhetoric of Health & Medicine, 1(1–2), 58–89. doi:10.5744/rhm.2018.1006
   Google Scholar
• Graham, S. S., Kim, S. Y., DeVasto, D. M., & Keith, W. (2015). Statistical genre analysis: Toward big data methodologies in technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 24(1), 70–104. doi:10.1080/10572252.2015.975955
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gruber, D. (2017). Experiments in rhetoric: Invention and rhetorical play. In L. Meloncon & J. B. Scott (Eds.), Methodologies for the rhetoric of health & medicine (pp. 276–295). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Hawhee, D. (2009). Moving bodies: Kenneth Burke at the edges of language. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
   Google Scholar
• Herndl, C., & Cutlip, L. (2013). How can we act? A praxiographical program for the rhetoric of technology, science, and medicine. POROI, 9(1). Article 9. doi:10.13008/2151-2957.1163
   Google Scholar
• Jack, J., & Appelbaum, L. G. (2010). “This is your brain on rhetoric”: Research directions for neurorhetorics. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 40(5), 411–437. doi:10.1080/02773945.2010.516303
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jack, J., Appelbaum, L. G., Beam, E., Moody, J., & Huettel, S. A. (2017). Mapping rhetorical topologies in cognitive neuroscience. In L. Walsh & C. Boyle (Eds.), Topologies as techniques for a post-critical rhetoric (pp. 125–150). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Jamieson, K. H. (2017). The need for a science of science communication: Communicating science’s values and norms. In D. Kahan & D. A. Scheufele (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication (pp. 15–24). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, J. M., & Littlefield, M. M. (2011). Lost and found in translation: Popular neuroscience in the emerging neurodisciplines. In M. Pickersgill & I. Van Keulen (Eds.), Sociological reflections on the neurosciences (pp. 279–297). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
   Google Scholar
• Keränen, L. (2010). Scientific characters: Rhetoric, politics, and trust in breast cancer research. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
   Google Scholar
• Keränen, L. (2013). Conspectus: Inventing futures for the rhetoric of science, technology, and medicine. POROI, 9(1). Article 1. doi:10.13008/2151-2957.1167
   Google Scholar
• Klein, J. T. (2004). Prospects for transdisciplinarity. Futures, 36(4), 515–526. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2003.10.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein, J. T. (2017). Typologies of interdisciplinarity: The boundary work of definition. In R. Frodeman, J. T. Klein, & R. C. S. Pacheco (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp. 21–34). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. (1977). The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Leff, M. C. (1980). Interpretation and the art of the rhetorical critic. Western Journal of Communication, 44(4), 337–349. doi:10.1080/10570318009374019
   Google Scholar
• Littlefield, M. M., Fitzgerald, D., Knudsen, K., Tonks, J., & Dietz, M. (2014). Contextualizing neuro-collaborations: Reflections on a transdisciplinary fMRI lie detection experiment. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 149. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00149
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lynch, J. A., & Zoller, H. (2015). Recognizing differences and commonalities: The rhetoric of health and medicine and critical- interpretive health communication. Communication Quarterly, 63(5), 498–503. doi:10.1080/01463373.2015.1103592
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merton, R. K. (1942/1973). The normative structure of science (1942). In N. Storer (Ed.), The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 267–280). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mitroff, I. (1974). Norms and counter-norms in a select group of the Apollo moon scientists: A case study of the ambivalence of scientists. American Sociological Review, 39(4), 579–595. doi:10.2307/2094423
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nisbet, M. C., Brossard, D., & Kroepsch, A. (2003). Framing science: The stem cell in an age of press/politics. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 8(2), 36–70. doi:10.1177/1081180X02251047
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plato, Gorgias, (1937). In The Dialogues of Plato. Trans. B. Jowett. New York, NY: Random House.
   Google Scholar
• Prelli, L. J. (2013). The prospect of invention in rhetorical studies of science, technology, and medicine. POROI, 9(1). Article 2. doi:10.13008/2151-2957.1164
   Google Scholar
• Priest, S., Goodwin, J., & Dahlstrom, M. F. (2018). Ethics and practice in science communication. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rabinow, P., & Bennett, G. (2012). Designing human practices: An experiment with synthetic biology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Roco, M., & Bainbridge, W. (2002). Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 4, 281. doi:10.1023/A:1021152023349
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogers, E. M. (1994). History of communication study. New York, NY: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Scheufele, D. A. (2014). Science communication as political communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Supplement 4), 13585–13592. doi:10.1073/pnas.1317516111
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, K. C. (2014). Rhetorical properties of scientific uncertainties: Public engagement in the Carson Scholars Program. POROI, 10(1). Article 6. doi:10.13008/2151-2957.1178
   Google Scholar