The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts
Abstract
This article studies the fate of scientific observations as they pass from original research reports intended for scientific peers into popular accounts aimed at a general audience. Pairing articles from two AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) publications reveals the changes that inevitably occur in “information” as it passes from one rhetorical situation to another. Scientific reports belong to the genre of forensic arguments, affirming the validity of past facts, the experimental data. But a change of audience brings a change of genre; science accommodations are primarily epideictic, celebrations of science, and shifts in wording between comparable statements in matched articles reveal changes made to conform to the two appeals of popularized science, the wonder and the application topoi. Science accommodations emphasize the uniqueness, rarity, originality of observations, removing hedges and qualifications and thus conferring greater certainty on the reported facts. Such changes could be formalized by adopting the scale developed by sociologists Bruno Latour and Steven Woolgar for categorizing the status of claims. The alteration of information is traced not only in articles on bees and bears, and so on, but also on a subject where distortions in reporting research can have serious consequences—the reputed mathematical inferiority of girls to boys. The changes in genre and the status of information that occur between scientific articles and their popularizations can also be explained by classical stasis theory. Anything addressed to readers as members of the general public will inevitably move through the four stasis questions from fact and cause to value and action.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Bazerman, C. (1984) · Social Studies of Science · doi:10.1177/030631284014002001 · Cited by 152
Cited by
Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse
Salager-Meyer, F. (1994) · English for Specific Purposes · doi:10.1016/0889-4906(94)90013-2 · Cited by 699
Testing Public (Un)Certainty of Science: Media Representations of Global Warming
Corbett, J. B., & Durfee, J. L. (2004) · Science Communication · doi:10.1177/1075547004270234 · Cited by 432
An exploration of a genre set: Research article abstracts and introductions in two disciplines
Samraj, B. (2005) · English for Specific Purposes · doi:10.1016/j.esp.2002.10.001 · Cited by 396
Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2008) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20278 · Cited by 317
Caulfield, T., Clark, M. I., McCormack, J. P., Rachul, C., & Field, C. J. (2014) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006395 · Cited by 41
Metadata
- Authors
- FAHNESTOCK, J.
- Venue
- Written Communication
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1986-07
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 275-296
- ISSN
- 0741-0883 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-8472
- OpenAlex
- W2163299928
- Cited by
- 380
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 75.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0741088386003003001
- The paper
- FAHNESTOCK, J. (1986). Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts. Written Communication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088386003003001
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.