Includes bibliographical references (pages 183-197) and index
1 - Inspiring Interdisciplinarity - 1 -- - Texts That Seek to Catalyze Community: An Unexamined Genre of Science - 3 -- - Close Textual-Intertextual Analysis: Combining Rhetorical Criticism and Historical Research - 6 -- - I - Theodosius Dobzhansky's Genetics and the Origin of Species -- - 2 - Initiator of the Evolutionary Synthesis: Historians and Scientist Weigh In - 13 -- - Conflict between Disciplines and Theories - 15 -- - Evolutionary Synthesis - 19 -- - What Launched the Synthesis? - 21 -- - Influence of Dobzhansky's Genetics and the Origin of Species - 24 -- - Prelude to a Rhetorical Reading - 29 -- - 3 - A Text Rhetorically Designed to Unite Competing Fields - 31 -- - Simplifying Theory - 31 -- - Surveying the Results of Research - 37 -- - Using Language That Promotes Conceptual Change - 41 -- - Addressing Social Concerns - 45 -- - II - Erwin Schrodinger's What Is Life? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell -- - 4
- "Uncle Tom's Cabin" of the Molecular Biology Revolution: Assessing the Place of a Text in History - 61 -- - Influence of Schrodinger's Text - 63 -- - Value of Untrue, Unoriginal Science - 67 -- - Other Laws of Physics - 75 -- - Prelude to a Rhetorical Reading - 80 -- - 5 - A Text Rhetorically Designed to Negotiate Different Interests and Beliefs - 82 -- - Comparison with Other Attempts at Inspiring Interdisciplinary Work - 83 -- - Negotiating Common Ground: The Value of Precision - 89 -- - Negotiating Professional Goals: The Appeal to Ambition - 90 -- - Negotiating Disciplinary Linguistic Practices: Conceptual Chiasmus - 92 -- - Negotiating Ideological Commitments: Strategic Ambiguity - 97 -- - III - Edward O. Wilson's Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge -- - 6 - Controversy over Sociobiology: Scholars Offer Conflicting Explanations - 113 -- - Wilson's Purpose - 113 -- - Effect of Wilson's Interdisciplinary Appeals - 116 --
- Explanation 1: Wilson Is Wrong; The Cultural Divide Should Not Be Bridged - 119 -- - Explanation 2: Critics Are Unable to See the Truth Because of Political Bias - 121 -- - Prelude to a Rhetorical Reading - 124 -- - 7 - A Text Rhetorically Designed to Fuel Interdisciplinary Hostilities - 128 -- - A Rhetoric of Conquest, Not Negotiation - 129 -- - An Explicit Commitment to Reductionism - 139 -- - Equivocation Rather Than Productive Polysemy - 145 -- - What Wilson's Consilience Could Have Been - 148 -- - IV - Speaking to Multiple Audiences -- - 8 - Genre - 157 -- - Comparison of Dobzhansky and Schrodinger - 158 -- - Wilson's Participation in the Genre - 164 -- - 9 - Contributions to Four Ongoing Conversations - 168 -- - Rhetoric of Science - 168 -- - Rhetorical Inquiry - 170 -- - History of Science - 177 -- - Interdisciplinarity - 179
How do scientists persuade colleagues from diverse fields to cross the disciplinary divide, risking their careers in new interdisciplinary research programmes? Why do some attempts to inspire such research win widespread acclaim and support, while others do not? Leah Ceccarelli addresses such questions through close readings of three scientific monographs in their historical contexts. She examines the rhetorical strategies used in each book and evaluates which worked best, based on the reviews and scientific papers that followed in their wake
