Publishing scientific papers represents a core activity of researchers and, increasingly the career of young scholars is determined by their ability to publish in high-reputed outlets. The process has become more and more competitive with success rates on top-journals becoming extremely low and the publication process longer and extenuating in the extent of revisions needed. In such an environment, forging strong argument to convince reviewers of the novelty and robustness of your findings in order to get their support has become a core dimension of scientific writing.
The goal of this workshop is help PhD students to understand how to forge strong arguments in writing their own papers and to assess the extent to which they are likely to convince their readers and, specifically, journal editors and reviewers. Further, we will analyze how to engage in a (critical) discussion with reviewers and to answer effectively to their comments,
The course will build on two main pillars. On the one hand, an understanding of science as a community of practice, where scholars discuss their ideas in front of peers and engage in discussions about their validity, whose outcome determines whether these ideas are included as part of the accepted realm of knowledge. In such a perspective, activities such as presenting at conferences, writing scientific articles, submitting grant proposals are central to the development of science, as well as to the career of individual researchers. Scientific communication takes place largely through texts, which obey to specific literary conventions, but are also constructed in order to convince the reader and to refute objections using elements such as past authority (citations), logical argumentation, data, statistical analyses etc.
On the other hand, the course will build on theories of human communication, which extensively analyzed how argumentation can be used effectively to bring interlocutors, such as other scientists, to your side through strategic maneuvering. These theories lead to an understanding of scientific communication as a critical discussion, in which scientists advance and defend their ideas by respective a code of conduct that, for example, obliges them to take seriously the objection of peers and to respond through new valid arguments. In such a perspective, researchers are highly strategic in engaging in scientific debates and pursue multiple objectives, such as improving their work, getting their ideas accepted and enhancing the status in scientific communities. Conceptualizing scientific communication in these terms will help students to better understand how to manage their writings and how to avoid mistakes that might lead to a refusal of their ideas or results or to jeopardize their position within the community.
The workshop will be organized in face-to-face lectures and in practical exercises, in which students will analyze scientific texts for their argumentative content and simulate scientific debates playing both the proponent and opponent role. It will focus in this respect on two major forms of scientific communication, i.e. the scientific paper and the grant proposal.
1. The publishing process
- The process and the roles
- Journals and their differences
- Social communities
2. The literary genre of scientific papers
- The literary genre of the scientific paper.
- Scientific papers as argumentative documents: defending your truth.
- Disciplinary differences and discipline-specific arguments.
3. Argumentation in science writing
- What is a good argument?
- Argumentation and strategic maneuvering.
- The role of argumentation in science writing
- Forms and levels of argumentation.
4. Playing the game
- Targeting audiences.
- Crafting convincing arguments.
- Engaging in the discussion with reviewers.
- How to write effective papers: tips and tricks.
Benedetto Lepori and Andrea Rocci, Università della Svizzera italiana
Everyone who is interested; there are no formal requirement. Note that many workshops have some prerequisites.
This workshop aims to provide PhD student and young researchers with a deeper understanding of how novel ideas in science are communicated to peers in order to convince them of their validity. The workshop has both a theoretical orientation – i.e. better understanding communication practices within science – and a practical goal, i.e. helping prospective researchers to devise suitable argumentative strategies in order to defend their ideas.
The Summer School cannot grant credits. We only deliver a Certificate of attendance, i.e. we certify your presence
If you consider using Summer School workshops to obtain credits (ECTS), you will have to investigate at your home institution (contact the person/institute responsible for your degree) to find out whether they recognize the Summer School, how many credits can be earned from a workshop/course with roughly 35 hours of teaching, no graded work, and no exams.
CHF 700: Reduced fee: 700 Swiss Francs per weekly workshop for students (requires proof of student status).
CHF 1100: Normal fee: 1100 Swiss Francs per weekly workshop for all others.
For further information, please click the "LINK TO ORIGINAL" button below.