第8章:新的阅读方式:利用现有指南理解复杂的生物医学写作

L. DeTora
{"title":"第8章:新的阅读方式:利用现有指南理解复杂的生物医学写作","authors":"L. DeTora","doi":"10.37514/tpc-b.2022.1381.2.08","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Technical communication scholarship often seeks to critique or intervene in powerful medical and scientific discourses. Yet differences in what Carolyn Miller referred to as the communal rationality of scholarly fields may require new ways of reading to make such work possible. This chapter examines guidelines for regulatory documentation that make visible the intellectual framing of biomedical research. Regulatory documentation includes an array of materials that health authorities and government agencies use to authorize and evaluate biomedical research as well as the technical aspects of developing and manufacturing medicinal products. Publicly available guidelines illustrate how those who compose and evaluate regulatory documentation constitute communal rationality within their various specialty areas. Technical communication scholars can use such guidelines to examine the strengths and limitations of the discourses prescribed therein. The author outlines the current place of regulatory documentation relative to technical communication scholarship and offers methods for interpreting these complex discourses using theoretical framing from rhetorics of science, health, and medicine.","PeriodicalId":176047,"journal":{"name":"Assembling Critical Components: A Framework for Sustaining Technical and Professional Communication","volume":"124 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Chapter 8: New Ways of Reading: Making Sense of Complex Biomedical Writing Using Existing Guidelines\",\"authors\":\"L. DeTora\",\"doi\":\"10.37514/tpc-b.2022.1381.2.08\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Technical communication scholarship often seeks to critique or intervene in powerful medical and scientific discourses. Yet differences in what Carolyn Miller referred to as the communal rationality of scholarly fields may require new ways of reading to make such work possible. This chapter examines guidelines for regulatory documentation that make visible the intellectual framing of biomedical research. Regulatory documentation includes an array of materials that health authorities and government agencies use to authorize and evaluate biomedical research as well as the technical aspects of developing and manufacturing medicinal products. Publicly available guidelines illustrate how those who compose and evaluate regulatory documentation constitute communal rationality within their various specialty areas. Technical communication scholars can use such guidelines to examine the strengths and limitations of the discourses prescribed therein. The author outlines the current place of regulatory documentation relative to technical communication scholarship and offers methods for interpreting these complex discourses using theoretical framing from rhetorics of science, health, and medicine.\",\"PeriodicalId\":176047,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Assembling Critical Components: A Framework for Sustaining Technical and Professional Communication\",\"volume\":\"124 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Assembling Critical Components: A Framework for Sustaining Technical and Professional Communication\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.37514/tpc-b.2022.1381.2.08\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assembling Critical Components: A Framework for Sustaining Technical and Professional Communication","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37514/tpc-b.2022.1381.2.08","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

技术传播学术经常寻求批评或干预强大的医学和科学话语。然而,卡洛琳·米勒(Carolyn Miller)所说的学术领域的共同理性的差异,可能需要新的阅读方式,才能使这种工作成为可能。本章考察了使生物医学研究的知识框架可见的监管文件的指导方针。监管文件包括卫生当局和政府机构用于授权和评估生物医学研究以及开发和生产医药产品的技术方面的一系列材料。公开可用的指导方针说明了那些撰写和评估法规文件的人如何在其不同的专业领域内构成公共理性。技术传播学者可以使用这些指南来检查其中规定的话语的优势和局限性。作者概述了目前监管文件相对于技术交流学术的地位,并提供了从科学、健康和医学修辞学的理论框架来解释这些复杂话语的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Chapter 8: New Ways of Reading: Making Sense of Complex Biomedical Writing Using Existing Guidelines
Technical communication scholarship often seeks to critique or intervene in powerful medical and scientific discourses. Yet differences in what Carolyn Miller referred to as the communal rationality of scholarly fields may require new ways of reading to make such work possible. This chapter examines guidelines for regulatory documentation that make visible the intellectual framing of biomedical research. Regulatory documentation includes an array of materials that health authorities and government agencies use to authorize and evaluate biomedical research as well as the technical aspects of developing and manufacturing medicinal products. Publicly available guidelines illustrate how those who compose and evaluate regulatory documentation constitute communal rationality within their various specialty areas. Technical communication scholars can use such guidelines to examine the strengths and limitations of the discourses prescribed therein. The author outlines the current place of regulatory documentation relative to technical communication scholarship and offers methods for interpreting these complex discourses using theoretical framing from rhetorics of science, health, and medicine.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信