In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

NOTES INTRODUCTION 1. Huppauf and Weingart, Science Images. This edited collection contains essays representing all of the science image categories Huppauf and Weingart identify in their introduction. These studies present apt starting points for further research. 2. Ibid., 6. 3. Ibid. Huppauf and Weingart set up a taxonomy of public science images in their Introduction. They, too, make the distinction between visualizations and images aimed at broader public audiences. 4. Baigrie, Picturing Knowledge; Ellenius, The Natural Sciences; Fahnestock, Rhetorical Figures; Gross, “Toward a Theory”; Gross and Harmon, Science from Sight; Lynch and Woolgar, Representation in Scientific Practice; Pauwels, Visual Cultures; Rudwick, “The Emergence.” Of these studies, Gross and Harmon’s Science from Sight offers the most comprehensive framework for analyzing scientific visualizations in expert texts, solidifying the fact that visualizations are essential components of scientific argumentation. 5. Gross and Harmon, Science from Sight; Fahnestock, Rhetorical Figures. 6. Ceccarelli, “The Rhetoric of Science and Technology.” “Internal” and “external” rhetorics of science are Ceccarelli’s terms. 7. See, for example, Barton and Barton, “Modes of Power”; Dragga and Voss, “Cruel Pies”; Manning and Amare, “Visual-rhetoric Ethics”; Rawlins and Wilson, “Agency and Interactive Data”; Tufte, Envisioning Information. 8. Tufte, Beautiful Evidence; Tufte, Envisioning Information; Manning and Amare, “Visual-rhetoric Ethics.” 9. Frankel, Envisioning Science. 10. Bizony, “The Great Divide,” 43. 11. National Science Foundation, “About the Visualization Challenge.” 12. Strain, “Caption.” 13. Often, the term “the gap” is used to refer to the problematic relationship between science and society. The term is traced back to C. P. Snow’s famous Reed Lecture: Snow, “The Two Cultures.” 14. See, for example, Christensen, The Hands-On Guide; Kahlor and Stout, Communicating Science; Russell, Communicating Science. 15. See, for example, Borchelt and Hudson, “Engaging the Scientific Community”; Davies, “Constituting Public Engagement”; Priest, “Critical Science Literacy.” 102 • Notes to Pages 5–7 16. See, for example, Borchelt and Hudson, “Engaging the Scientific Community”; Davies, “Constituting Public Engagement.” See also Kohut et al., Scientific Achievements. The Pew Research Center Poll on Science and Society conducted in 2009 relied on a twelve-question quiz to determine how much of “the public” is “scientifically literate.” These questions ranged from subjects like “how a laser works” to whether or not electrons are smaller than atoms (Kohut et al., Scientific Achievements, 50). What is more, the Pew Research Center asked Alan I. Leshner, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), to write a commentary on the poll’s findings, and, in it, deficit-model rhetoric abounds: “As scientists we must resist the urge to wring our hands in defeat or recoil at evidence of the public’s lack of understanding about science” (56). Granted, Leshner made his remarks four years prior to the publication of the CUSP model. However, his comments were also published long after the Deficit model had already been repudiated and replaced by what is often called Public Engagement with Science. In the article in Science Communication, the theorist Sarah Davies confirms that, as of 2013, the shift away from the deficit model in the scientific community “has not been a homogeneous move” (690). 17. See Perrault, Communicating Popular Science, and Priest, “Critical Science Literacy ,” respectively. 18. Hill and Helmers, Defining Visual Rhetorics; Grabe and Bucy, Image Bite Politics. 19. Barry, Visual Intelligence; Grabe and Bucy, Image Bite Politics. 20. See, for example, Barthes, Image Music Text; Mitchell, Iconology. 21. According to research in visual literacy, however, that simply is not true. Visuals are processed cognitively, and work has been done to demonstrate their persuasive capacity . See especially Barry, Visual Intelligence, and Barry, “Science and Visual Communication .” See also Stephens, The Rise of the Image, and Grabe and Bucy, Image Bite Politics. 22. Barry, Visual Intelligence; Grabe and Bucy, Image Bite Politics; Stephens, The Rise of the Image. 23. This is an issue discussed extensively by Barry, Visual Intelligence. 24. See, for example, Dyehouse, “‘A Textbook Case’”; Northcut, “Images as Facilitators ”; Huppauf and Weingart, “Introduction.” 25. There are books that consider the merger of art and science from art historical and sociological perspectives, such as Ford, Images of Science; Ellenius, The Natural Sciences ; and Baigrie, Picturing Knowledge. These studies, though important in their own right, do not consider how popular science images are persuasive on behalf of science. Most recently, Huppauf and Weingart’s collection, Science Images and Popular Images of the Sciences, takes a range of perspectives on both popularizations and visualizations in research reports. From a specifically rhetorical perspective, there...

pdf

Additional Information

ISBN
9781611178753
Related ISBN
9781611178746
MARC Record
OCLC
1003267820
Pages
160
Launched on MUSE
2018-05-22
Language
English
Open Access
No
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.