Scientists usually acknowledge the role persuasion plays in writing proposals for funding. Much less visible is the role persuasion plays in writing scientific articles. Yet in some ways, persuasion in scientific articles is even more pervasive and important than it is in proposals, for scientific articles purport to report the results of objective experiments, the purpose of which is validation by peers. But if simply reporting results were the case, one might begin by asking why scientific articles need Introductions, Methods, or Discussion (IMD) sections? It has been said that the “rhetoric of science” is the best rhetoric because it is almost invisible. This discussion will seek to make the rhetoric of the scientific article opaque by examining IMRaD, and its contexts and content, as argumentative structures. Some of the corresponding forms and conventional stylistic moves in each section will be touched on in the presentation, and the focus of workshops and/or breakout sessions. The purpose of these workshops will give interested attendees a greater awareness of and facility with the rhetorical structures deeply embedded in scientific articles (and found elsewhere in scientific discourse), with the goals of improving both teaching and writing scientific articles.

Special Seminar on Wednesday, November 8 @ 3:30 p.m. [Location: CCT Digital Media Center, Main Lecture Hall]
Limited Workshop Session for Teachers Engaging with Scientific Writing on Friday, November 10 @ 10:30 a.m. [Location: 113 Allen Hall]
Limited Workshop Session for Scientific Writers and Practitioners on Friday, November 10 @ 3:00 p.m. [Location: CCT, Digital Media Center, Room 1034]

Scientific Articles as Arguments