Association for the Rhetoric of Science, Technology, and Medicine
2019 National Communication Association Pre-Conference
Baltimore, MD – 13 November 2019
Call for Papers
Rhetorics of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Translation
Translation is a central component of conducting socially meaningful research in the rhetoric of science, technology, health, and medicine. RSTM scholars are perpetually charged with translating scientific knowledge into a rhetorical framework and, in turn, are often called to translate their insights into forms that can benefit a wide range of invested stakeholders. Translation within the context of science, technology, and medicine can be understood as operating in multiple registers. In one respect, translation is institutionally sanctioned to promote collective flourishing. Incentivizing translation within scientific communities seeking Federal funding for their research, Goodwin (2014) reminds us: “The NIH likewise has established a new emphasis on “translational research” to ensure that the science it funds pays off in terms of improved health.” Fahnestock (1986) explains the genre shifts that allow for not simply translation but accommodation of scientific facts into public discourse. In reflexive respect, translation can be the central object and methodology of rhetorical inquiry. Gruber (2014) has demonstrated how analyzing practices of knowledge translation can help to understand the sophisticated ways scientists maneuver epistemological, social, and institutional constraints when conducting transdisciplinary work. Yet, as Ceccearelli (2013) astutely notes, in addition to the generic writing constraints of scholarly production, there are few institutionalized apparatuses to promote the translation of knowledge between rhetorical scholars of RSTM and those the knowledge could directly impact and benefit. With the 2019 National Communication Association theme Communication as Survival, RSTM scholars face a similarly exigent moment to renew Ceccarelli’s (2013) exhortation: “doctor of rhetoric, heal thyself.”
We invite individual papers and panel discussions that theorize, advance, challenge, and complicate our understanding of translation as it relates to our research practices, theory building, methodological development, scholarly production, and engagement with various publics. Beyond disciplinary anxieties, we invite productive cases exploring—better still, illustrating—the role of translation in a range of rhetorical practices, their epistemological underpinnings, and their explanatory power in furthering RSTM research and productive relationships with the crucial stakeholders of our work.
We welcome abstracts and panel proposals that address questions including, but not limited to, the following:
- What potentially untapped theoretical resources might we bring to bear on the notion of translation in RSTM?
- What are the roles and responsibilities of rhetorical critics in attending to translation within rhetorics of science, technology, and medicine?
- What are some of the rhetorical, social, or material perils of translation within RSTM?
- How does the notion of translation inflect our assumptions about key rhetorical concepts such as: evidence, trust, agency, expertise, invention, and more?
- How can RSTM scholars think generatively, yet critically, about ethical translations with precarious stakeholders? How do we determine who has responsibility for translating and the right to translate?
- How does technology facilitate and/or constrain the translation of knowledge in RSTM? Do social media such as Twitter or Facebook change how we translate knowledge? What are the challenges to translation in these new media environments?
- How do heterogenous theories of nonhuman and distributed agency shape our understanding of translation?
Submissions may take the form of individual abstracts or panel proposals, and should detail in 300 words or fewer how they will further our understanding of translation in RSTM. Please do not include any identifying information in the abstract. Panel proposals may group up to four abstracts together, and should include a 100-word rationale for the panel. The panel must include speakers from multiple institutions.
Submissions should be sent as an attachment to ewinderm@umn.edu by April 20, 2019. Please use “ARSTM Preconference Submission” as your email subject, and provide preferred contact information, including your current affiliation, in the email. Any questions about this CFP and the ARSTM preconference at NCA may be addressed to Dr. Emily Winderman, ARSTM 1st Vice President, ewinderm@umn.edu
References:
Ceccarelli, Leah. “To Whom Do We Speak? The Audiences for Scholarship on the Rhetoric of Science and Technology,” POROI vol. 9 no. 1 (2013).
Fahnestock, Jeanne. “Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts.” Written Communication 3 (1986): 275–96. Print.
Goodwin, Jean. “Introduction: Collaborations Between Scientists and Rhetoricians of Science/Technology/Medicine,” POROI vol. 10 no. 1 (2014).
Gruber, David R. “Mirror Neurons in a Group Analysis “Hall of Mirrors:” Translation as a Rhetorical Approach to Disciplinary Writing,” Technical Communication Quarterly vol. 23 (2014): 207–226.