Scientific writing has many genres, and each brings unique challenges that differ from general technical writing. Research articles, for example, require planning that would typically happen before writing to happen before the study, and general scientific writing requires understanding the scientific field and data being written about. Scientific writing still requires key elements of technical writing, however. For example, news articles and educational assignments each require rhetorical elements, such as emotional appeals or cultural references. Scientific writing is a unique subset of technical writing, containing requirements unique to the field but also benefiting from key features of technical writing.
In WRIT 1001 class, guest speaker Kim Thomas-Pollei (2020) describes the field of scientific writing and the unique challenges that come with it. She explains that although scientific writing is a subset of the technical writing field, it has many genres. These genres and their unique needs are often distinguished by the audience; for example, one could write a report on a case study for other scientists in the field or an article on the study for the general public, and these would be structured differently. She notes that one universal need is to understand the field and data you are writing about; she stays informed by reading articles and attending conferences and ensures she understands the data she is writing about. Thomas-Pollei explains that scientific writing is a broad field, and each genre has different audiences and needs. However, understanding the field and data you are writing about is universally important.
In their article, Moriarty et al. (2019) offer recommendations on how to make case studies more effective and generalizable. They emphasize planning; this includes considering how the case study connects to previous research, how and why the case study is being used, and the nuances of the data collection methods employed. They explain that this planning impacts its strength and generalizability. For example, employing more data collection methods can improve both the study’s strength and audience size. This article demonstrates that the applicability and strength of scientific writing are not only dependent on planning the article/report but also on planning the study. Some of what would typically be planned before writing, such as audience, instead needs to be considered while planning the study.
In his article, Michael Zerbe (2019) offers recommendations on how to write persuasive and clear science articles for the general public. He focuses on the writing of Paul Krugman, a Nobel laureate. After analyzing a corpus of Krugman’s NYT articles, Zerbe concludes that Krugman’s use of “rhetorical strategies… (is) what make(s) Krugman so effective” (p. 71). Zerbe contends that public audiences are no longer convinced purely with data and ethos; emotional appeals, repetition, and culture references are required to convince the audience of the writer’s view. This article demonstrates that scientific writing isn’t purely objective; it employs subjective technical writing strategies as well.
In their article, Anne Gere et al. (2018) offer recommendations on how to maximize learning in science writing assignments. They review 46 published studies, looking for common threads in their findings. Gere et al. find that “specific components of writing assignments (such as interactivity and clear expectations) correlate highly with the greatest learning gains.” They recommend that science educators collaborate with writing specialists; writing specialists bring an understanding of cultural meanings, rhetorical context, and genre “that are major factors in creating clear expectations for students.” Writing specialists introduce elements of technical writing into assignments, maximizing learning. This article demonstrates that features of technical writing, such as rhetoric and genre, are key in creating science writing assignments that foster learning.