@inbook{miller_2023, title={Genre Formation and Differentiation in New Media}, ISBN={9781642151800}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.37514/PER-B.2023.1800.2.16}, DOI={10.37514/PER-B.2023.1800.2.16}, abstractNote={The Perspectives on Writing series addresses writing studies in a broad sense.Consistent with the wide ranging approaches characteristic of teaching and scholarship in writing across the curriculum, the series presents works that take divergent perspectives on working as a writer, teaching writing, administering writing programs, and studying}, booktitle={Writing as a Human Activity: Implications and Applications of the Work of Charles Bazerman}, publisher={The WAC Clearinghouse; University Press of Colorado}, author={Miller, Carolyn R.}, editor={Rogers, Paul M. and Russell, David R. and Carlino, Paula and Marine, Jonathan M.Editors}, year={2023}, month={Feb}, pages={393–405} }
 @book{miller_fraley_summers_2022, title={How Do Genres, Media, and Platforms Shape Our Perception and Our Communication?}, url={https://tccamp.org/episodes/how-do-genres-media-and-platforms-shape-our-perception-and-our-communication/.}, journal={TC Camp}, author={Miller, C. and Fraley, L. and Summers, J.}, year={2022}, month={Jul} }
 @inbook{miller_2022, title={Understanding Failures in Organizational Discourse: The Accident at Three Mile Island and the Shuttle Challenger Disaster}, url={https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/books/textual_dynamics/chapter12.pdf}, booktitle={Textual Dynamics of the Professions: Historical and Contemporary Studies of Writing in Professional Communities}, publisher={The WAC Clearinghouse Landmark Publications in Writing Studies}, author={Miller, C.}, editor={Bazerman, Charles and Paradis, JamesEditors}, year={2022} }
 @article{miller_hartzog_2020, title={"Tree Thinking": The Rhetoric of Tree Diagrams in Biological Thought}, volume={15}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.13008/2151-2957.1290}, DOI={10.13008/2151-2957.1290}, abstractNote={Tree-like visualizations have played a central role in taxonomic and evolutionary biology for centuries, and the idea of a “tree of life” has been a pervasive notion not only in biology but also in religion, philosophy, and literature for much longer. The tree of life is a central figure in Darwin’s Origin of Species in both verbal and visual forms. As one of the most powerful and pervasive images in biological thought, what conceptual and communicative work has it enabled? How have the visual qualities and elements of the tree form interacted with biological thinking over time? This paper examines the pre-Darwinian history of tree images, the significance of Darwin’s use of such images, and the development of tree diagrams after Darwin. This history shows evidence of four separate traditions of visualization: cosmological, logicalphilosophical, genealogical, and materialist. Visual traditions serve as rhetorical contexts that provide enthymematic backing, or what Perelman calls “objects of agreement,” for interpretation of tree diagrams. They produce polysemic warrants for arguments in different fields. The combination of the genealogical tradition with the cosmological and the logical changed the framework for thinking about the natural world and made Darwin’s theory of evolution possible; the later materialist tradition represents the “modernization” of biology as a science.}, number={2}, journal={Poroi: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Rhetorical Analysis and Invention}, author={Miller, Carolyn R. and Hartzog, Molly}, year={2020}, month={May}, pages={1–61} }
 @inbook{miller_2020, place={Anderson, SC}, title={A History of RSA in Ten Minutes}, booktitle={Reinventing Rhetoric Scholarship: Fifty Years of the Rhetoric Society of America}, publisher={Parlor Press}, author={Miller, C.}, editor={Mountford, Roxanne and Tell, Dave and Blakesley, DavidEditors}, year={2020}, pages={19–23} }
 @article{miller_2020, title={Exercising Genres: A Rejoinder to Anne Freadman}, volume={30}, ISSN={2563-7320}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.31468/cjsdwr.843}, DOI={10.31468/cjsdwr.843}, abstractNote={Anne Freadman’s engagement with Rhetorical Genre Studies (RGS) is informed, generous, illuminating, and provocative. She does us the service of placing into a broad intellectual context the recent conversations about genre within the developing RGS tradition. She has done me the honour of reading my work thoroughly and carefully, more carefully in some cases than I wrote it. She has taken up Rhetorical Genre Studies in her own way and given us much in return. And in response, I feel … well … compelled to reply, to take up the conversation, to add to the chain of semiosis.}, journal={Discourse and Writing/Rédactologie}, publisher={Canadian Journal for Studies in Discourse Writing/Redactology}, author={Miller, Carolyn R.}, year={2020}, month={Aug}, pages={133–140} }
 @article{miller_2020, place={Berlin}, title={Gattung als soziale Handlung}, journal={Gattungsheorie}, publisher={Suhrkamp Verlag}, author={Miller, C.}, editor={Keckeis, Paul and Michle, WernerEditors}, year={2020}, pages={212–241} }
 @inbook{miller_2020, place={New York}, title={Kairos in the Rhetoric of Science}, booktitle={Landmark Essays on Rhetoric of Science: Theories, Themes, and Methods}, publisher={Routledge}, author={Miller, C.}, editor={Harris, Randy AllenEditor}, year={2020}, pages={184–202} }
 @article{miller_2020, title={Revisiting ‘A Humanistic Rationale for Technical Writing.’}, volume={85}, number={2}, journal={College English}, author={Miller, C.}, editor={Gonzalez, Laura and Shivers-McNair, Ann and Bawarshi, AnisEditors}, year={2020}, pages={443–448} }
 @misc{miller_2020, title={Scholarly Interview with Carolyn Rae Miller, Ph.D. from North Carolina State University on Genre and Rhetorical Studies}, url={https://www.mastersincommunications.com/scholarly-interviews/dr-carolyn-rae-miller-rhetorical-studies.}, journal={Master's in Communication}, author={Miller, C.}, year={2020}, month={Apr} }
 @inbook{miller_2020, title={Some Perspectives on Rhetoric, Science, and History}, ISBN={9781315231433}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315231433-7}, DOI={10.4324/9781315231433-7}, booktitle={Humanistic Aspects of Technical Communication}, publisher={Routledge}, author={Miller, Carolyn R.}, editor={Dombrowski, Paul M.Editor}, year={2020}, month={Nov}, pages={111–123} }
 @misc{miller_simonson_2019, title={Interview for Rhetoric Society of America Oral History Initiative}, url={http://rheteric.org/oralhistory/items/show/13.}, author={Miller, C. and Simonson, Peter}, year={2019}, month={Oct} }
 @inbook{reid_miller_2018, place={Louisville, CO}, title={Classification and Its Discontents: Making Peace with Blurred Boundaries, Open Categories, and Diffuse Disciplines}, booktitle={Composition, Rhetoric, and Disciplinarity}, publisher={Utah State University Press}, author={Reid, Gwendolynne and Miller, Carolyn R.}, editor={Melencyzk, Rita and Miller-Cochran, Susan and Wardle, Elicabeth and Yancey, Kathleen BlakeEditors}, year={2018}, pages={87–110} }
 @inbook{miller_2018, place={Tuscaloosa, AL}, chapter={8}, title={Genre in Ancient and Networked Media}, booktitle={Ancient Rhetorics & Digital Networks}, publisher={University of Alabama Press}, author={Miller, Carolyn R.}, editor={Kennerly, Michelle and Pfoster, Damien SmithEditors}, year={2018}, pages={176–204} }
 @article{miller_devitt_gallagher_2018, title={Genre: Permanence and Change}, volume={48}, ISSN={0277-3945 1930-322X}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02773945.2018.1454194}, DOI={10.1080/02773945.2018.1454194}, abstractNote={During the past 30 years, genre conceptualized as social action has been a generative framework for scholars, teachers, and rhetors alike. As a mid-level, mediating concept, genre balances stability and innovation, connecting theory and practice, agency and structure, form and substance. Genre is multimodal, providing an analytical and explanatory framework across semiotic modes and media and thus across communication technologies; multidisciplinary, of interest across traditions of rhetoric, as well as many other disciplines; multidimensional, incorporating many perspectives on situated, mediated, motivated communicative interaction; and multimethodological, yielding to multiple empirical and interpretive approaches. Because genre both shapes and is shaped by its communities, it provides insight into both ideological conformity and resistance, lends itself to multiple pedagogical agendas, and provokes questions about media, materiality, ethics, circulation, affect, and comparison.}, number={3}, journal={Rhetoric Society Quarterly}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Miller, Carolyn R. and Devitt, Amy J. and Gallagher, Victoria J.}, year={2018}, month={May}, pages={269–277} }
 @book{miller_devitt_murphy_ratcliffe_2018, place={New York}, title={Landmark Essays in Rhetorical Genre Studies}, url={https://www.routledge.com/Landmark-Essays-on-Rhetorical-Genre-Studies/Miller-Devitt/p/book/9781138047709}, journal={Routledge}, publisher={Routledge}, year={2018} }
 @inbook{miller_2018, place={New York}, edition={2nd}, title={Scientific and Parascientific Communication on the Internet}, booktitle={Landmark Essays on Rhetoric of Science: Case Studies}, publisher={Routledge}, author={Miller, C.}, editor={Harris, Randy AllenEditor}, year={2018}, pages={239–260} }
 @inbook{miller_2018, title={What Can Automation Tell Us About Agency?}, ISBN={9781315108889}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315108889-17}, DOI={10.4324/9781315108889-17}, booktitle={Fifty Years of Rhetoric Society Quarterly}, publisher={Routledge}, author={Miller, Carolyn R.}, year={2018}, month={May}, pages={183–200} }
 @inbook{miller_2017, place={London}, title={"Where Do Genres Come From?"}, booktitle={Emerging Genres in New Media Environments}, publisher={Palgrave Macmillan}, author={Miller, Carolyn R.}, editor={Miller, Carolyn R. and Kelly, Ashley R.Editors}, year={2017}, pages={1–34} }
 @inbook{boe_masiel_schroeder_sperber_2017, title={Carolyn Miller}, ISBN={9781315267852}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315267852-36}, DOI={10.4324/9781315267852-36}, booktitle={Teachers on the Edge}, publisher={Routledge}, author={Boe, John and Masiel, David and Schroeder, Eric and Sperber, Lisa}, year={2017}, month={Feb}, pages={462–471} }
 @book{miller_kelly_2017, place={London}, title={Emerging Genres in New Media Environments}, ISBN={9783319402949 9783319402956}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40295-6}, DOI={10.1007/978-3-319-40295-6}, abstractNote={This volume explores cultural innovation and transformation as revealed through the emergence of new media genres. New media have enabled what impresses most observers as a dizzying proliferation of n}, publisher={Springer International Publishing}, author={Miller, Carolyn R. and Kelly, A. R.}, editor={Miller, Carolyn R. and Kelly, Ashley R.Editors}, year={2017} }
 @article{walsh_latour_rivers_rice_gries_bay_rickert_miller_2017, title={Forum: Bruno Latour on Rhetoric}, volume={47}, ISSN={["1930-322X"]}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02773945.2017.1369822}, DOI={10.1080/02773945.2017.1369822}, abstractNote={It used to be that only rhetoricians of science and technology read Bruno Latour. However, Paul Lynch and Nathaniel Rivers’s 2015 collection Thinking with Bruno Latour in Rhetoric and Composition demonstrates how widely the appeal of his work has spread in recent years. I read this influence not as a fad for one scholar’s work but rather as an indication that we have all sensed a change in the temperature of late-modern argumentation and persuasion. Arguing in the anthropocene is qualitatively and quantitatively different than arguing in the Classical agora. Now, no matter which direction we turn, we find the forum crowded not only with human speakers of all stripes but also with an awesome flotsam of nonhumans: computer models, polar bears, FitBits, genes, Tweets, YouTube videos, viruses, cookbooks, nebulae, and iPhones. Whatever our area of research, things whine, clamor, and jostle us. And weary of squinting around them to try to make out the dim, dotted outline of the public sphere, we have finally started to look right at them. There is no doubt that Latour constitutes a major pivot in the materialist, postcritical, and post-humanist turns—for reasons amply explained in the Lynch and Rivers volume. My purpose in this introduction is not to rehearse that genealogy but rather to explain to readers who do not consider themselves invested in the material turn why they, too, may wish to attend to Latour’s most recent work and his thoughts on rhetoric. My argument lies in a symmetry half-revealed by the influence of Latour on new rhetorics: because even as rhetoricians are coming around to post-critical theory, those theorists (Latour among them) are coming around toward rhetoric. This rapprochement presents rhetoricians with an unprecedented opportunity to enter and shape the intellectual conversation about how best to live together in the anthropocene. To best demonstrate this meeting of minds, we should begin at the end, with Latour’s An Inquiry into Modes of Existence (AIME; modesofexistence.org), in part because Latour himself presents AIME as the culmination of his scholarly endeavors. In AIME he subsumes anthropology, sociology, and even philosophy under a new, prospective discipline he calls “diplomacy.” He does so, he says, because of the exigence of facing Gaia—his name, borrowed from James Lovelock, for our threatening and threatened anthropocene. Gaia, our hybrid terrestrial cyborg, “the Möbius strip of which we form both the inside and the outside” (AIME 9), has both exceeded the paradigm of cause and effect—the founding myth of academic}, number={5}, journal={RHETORIC SOCIETY QUARTERLY}, author={Walsh, Lynda and Latour, Bruno and Rivers, Nathaniel A. and Rice, Jenny and Gries, Laurie E. and Bay, Jennifer L. and Rickert, Thomas and Miller, Carolyn R.}, year={2017}, pages={403–462} }
 @inbook{miller_2017, title={The Aristotelian Topos:}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1f5g5j7.9}, DOI={10.2307/j.ctt1f5g5j7.9}, booktitle={Foundations for Sociorhetorical Exploration}, publisher={SBL Press}, author={Miller, Carolyn R.}, year={2017}, month={Sep}, pages={95–118} }
 @inbook{miller_kelly_2016, place={Berlin, Boston}, title={14. Discourse Genres}, ISBN={9783110255478}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110255478-015}, DOI={10.1515/9783110255478-015}, booktitle={Verbal Communication}, publisher={De Gruyter}, author={Miller, Carolyn R. and Kelly, Ashley R.}, editor={Rocci, Andrea and Saussure, LouisEditors}, year={2016}, month={Mar}, pages={269–286} }
 @article{miller_2016, title={Genre Innovation: Evolution, Emergence, or Something Else?}, volume={3}, url={http://www.journals.uio.no/index.php/TJMI/article/view/2432}, DOI={10.5617/jmi.v3i2.2432}, abstractNote={In trying to understand genre innovation and the appearance of what seem to be “new genres” in both new and old media, researchers have relied heavily on the concepts of “evolution” and “emergence,” without theorizing these concepts. These terms are usually associated with science, to analyze biological and physical processes, and both carry entailments worth examining. What work does each model of change do and what work does each keep us from doing? When we adopt the language of evolution or emergence, what do we import to our conceptualization of genres, of large-scale rhetorical action, and of the rhetorical organization of culture? Evolution is anti-essentialist, while emergence allows for the phenomenology of essence; both are terministic screens in Burke’s sense and thus incomplete and partial. There may be no general conceptual model adequate to the variety of cultural phenomena and domains in which genres are of interest, but we can continue to learn by testing our observations of particular examples against these useful concepts. We should be conscious of the assumptions we make about essences and relationships, of how and why we identify something as a genre; we should also be alert to the differences between classification by abstraction and classification by descent.}, number={2}, journal={Journal of Media Innovations}, author={Miller, Carolyn R.}, year={2016}, pages={4–19} }
 @inbook{miller_kelly_2016, place={Amityville, NY}, title={Intersections: Scientific and Parascientific Communication on the Internet}, booktitle={Science and the Internet: Communicating Knowledge in a Digital Age}, publisher={Baywood Press}, author={Miller, Carolyn and Kelly, Ashley}, editor={Gross, Alan G. and Buehl, JonathanEditors}, year={2016}, pages={221–246} }
 @article{rinard_masiel_miller_2016, title={’A Set of Shared Expectations’: An Interview with Carolyn Miller}, volume={27}, number={1}, journal={WOE: Writing on the Edge}, author={Rinard, Brenda and Masiel, David and Miller, C.}, year={2016}, pages={6–16} }
 @article{kelly_miller_fanning_kessler_graham_card_2015, title={Expertise and Data in the Articulation of Risk}, volume={11}, ISSN={2151-2957}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.13008/2151-2957.1224}, DOI={10.13008/2151-2957.1224}, number={1}, journal={Poroi}, publisher={The University of Iowa}, author={Kelly, Ashley Rose and Miller, Carolyn R. and Fanning, Shannon N and Kessler, Molly M and Graham, S. Scott and Card, Daniel J.}, year={2015}, month={May}, pages={1–9} }
 @inbook{miller_2015, place={Edmonton, AB}, chapter={7}, title={Genre Change and Evolution}, booktitle={Genre Studies around the Globe: Beyond the Three Traditions}, publisher={Trafford Publishing}, author={Miller, Carolyn R.}, editor={Artemeva, Natalia and Freedman, AvivaEditors}, year={2015}, pages={154–185} }
 @article{miller_2015, title={Genre as Social Action (1984), Revisited 30 Years Later (2014)}, volume={31}, url={http://www.seer.ufu.br/index.php/letraseletras/article/view/30580/16706}, DOI={10.14393/LL63-v31n3a2015-5}, abstractNote={The article “Genre as Social Action” was published 30 years ago and has been taken up in numerous conversations about genre in the time since then. This paper reviews the main ideas in that article, the ways those ideas were taken up in North American Rhetorical Genre Studies, and the ways that genre theory and research have been extended since then, particularly with the advent of the new digital media. Central issues in current research are identified: the relationship between stability and change and the ways in which genres are or are not regulated. The adaptation to digital media has expanded genre theory to become a multidimensional concept, with genre as a structurational nexus mediating not only intention and exigence, form and substance, but also action and structure, medium and product, the material and the symbolic.}, number={3}, journal={Letras & Letras}, author={Miller, Carolyn R.}, year={2015}, pages={56–72} }
 @inbook{de p. cavalcanti_araújo_hoffnagel_miller_2015, place={Recife, Brazil}, title={Gêneros evoluem? Deveríamos dizer que sim?}, booktitle={Gêneros na Linguística e na Literatura: Charles Bazerman: 10 anos de incentivo à pesquisa no Brasil}, publisher={Editora Universitária UFPE e Pipa Comunicação}, author={de P. Cavalcanti, L. and Araújo, R.P. and Hoffnagel, J. and Miller, C.}, editor={Dionisio, A.P. and de P. Cavalcanti, L.Editors}, year={2015}, pages={23–61} }
 @inbook{de pinho cavalcanti_miller_2015, place={Recife, Brazil}, title={Gêneros evoluem? Deveríamos dizer que sim? = Do Genres Evolve? Should We Say that They Do?}, booktitle={Gêneros na Linguística e na Literatura: Charles Bazerman: 10 anos de incentivo à pesquisa no Brasil}, publisher={Editora Universitária UFPE e Pipa Comunicação}, author={de Pinho Cavalcanti, Larissa and Miller, C.}, editor={Dionisio, Angela Paiva and de Pinho Cavalcanti, LarissaEditors}, year={2015}, pages={23–61} }
 @article{dryer_miller_2015, title={The Fact That I Could Write About It Made Me Think It Was Real}, volume={31}, url={http://compositionforum.com/issue/31/carolyn-miller-interview.php;}, journal={Composition Forum}, author={Dryer, Dylan and Miller, C.}, year={2015} }
 @article{hartelius_mitchell_miller_2014, title={NCA-Forum Double Session on Scholarly Metrics in a Digital Age}, volume={3}, number={6}, journal={Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective}, author={Hartelius, E.Johanna and Mitchell, Gordon R. and Miller, C.}, year={2014}, pages={1–29} }
 @article{miller_2013, title={Audiences, Brains, Sustainable Planets, and Communication Technologies: Four Horizons for the Rhetoric of Science and Technology}, volume={9}, ISSN={2151-2957}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.13008/2151-2957.1159}, DOI={10.13008/2151-2957.1159}, abstractNote={These papers show us several horizons, one deep inside the brain, one beyond the ivory tower, and a third as wide as the ecosphere. All offer promising agendas, all challenge our habitual modes of scholarship, and all make me somewhat uneasy, in different but not unrelated ways. Possibly I’m simply not up to their challenges. In any case, this response may come across as curmudgeon-ish, but I offer it in the spirit of provoking discussion. new procedures of peer review, open access, data visualization, new}, number={1}, journal={Poroi}, publisher={The University of Iowa}, author={Miller, Carolyn R.}, year={2013}, month={Apr}, pages={1–6} }
 @article{miller_fahnestock_2013, title={Genres in Scientific and Technical Rhetoric}, volume={9}, ISSN={2151-2957}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.13008/2151-2957.1161}, DOI={10.13008/2151-2957.1161}, abstractNote={The idea of genre marks large-scale repeated patterns in human symbolic production and interaction, patterns that are taken to be meaningful. They thus can be defined by reference to pattern, or form, and by reference to theories of meaning and interaction. As a consequence, there are many ways to define genres, with some looking internally, to linguistic features and clusters of features, and others externally, to discourse communities and social interactions or recurrent rhetorical situations. Our discussion covered differences and difficulties with alternate ways of defining genres, their relevance to science and technology, explorations of the ways genres change or evolve, and pedagogical applications of genre analysis in scientific and technical discourse. 1 What follows is an outline of the issues and questions that our discussion raised. We had insufficient time to consider technology separately from science, even as we recognized that it would be different.}, number={1}, journal={Poroi}, publisher={The University of Iowa}, author={Miller, Carolyn R. and Fahnestock, Jeanne}, year={2013}, month={Apr}, pages={1–4} }
 @book{miller_2012, title={An Interview with Dr. Carolyn Miller}, url={http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pz_rN8g8WN0.}, journal={ARST Oral History Project}, institution={Science and Technology}, author={Miller, C.}, year={2012}, month={Nov} }
 @article{miller_mascarenhas_2012, title={Carolyn A. Miller}, journal={Figure/Ground Communication}, author={Miller, C. and Mascarenhas, M.A.}, year={2012}, month={Jul} }
 @book{new genres, now and then_2012, year={2012} }
 @inbook{new genres, now and then_2012, booktitle={Literature, Rhetoric, and Values}, year={2012} }
 @inbook{hoffnagel_miller_2012, place={Recife, Brazil}, title={Rhetórica, Tecnologia e o Pushmi-Pullyu}, booktitle={Gêneros Textuais: Práticas de Pesquisa e Práticas de Ensino}, publisher={Universidade Federal de Pernambuco Press}, author={Hoffnagel, J. and Miller, C.}, editor={Reinaldo, Maria Augusta and Marcuschi, Betj and Dionisio, AngelaEditors}, year={2012}, pages={15–20} }
 @inbook{miller_bazerman_2011, place={Recife, Brazil}, title={Textual Genres}, volume={1}, url={http://www.nigufpe.com.br/serie-bate-papo-academico-vol-1-generos-textuais/.}, booktitle={Série Bate-papo Acadêmico}, publisher={Universidade Federal de Pernambuco}, author={Miller, C. and Bazerman, C.}, year={2011}, month={Aug} }
 @inbook{casper_miller_2010, title={Digital Rhetoric and Science}, ISBN={9781412959209 9781412959216}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412959216.n82}, DOI={10.4135/9781412959216.n82}, booktitle={Encyclopedia of Science and Technology Communication}, publisher={SAGE Publications, Inc.}, author={Casper, Christian F. and Miller, Carolyn R.}, editor={Priest, S.H.Editor}, year={2010}, month={Oct} }
 @inbook{foreword: rhetoric, technology, and the pushmi-pullyu_2010, booktitle={Rhetorics and Technologies: New Directions in Writing and Communication}, year={2010} }
 @book{rhetorics and technologies: new directions in writing and communication_2010, year={2010} }
 @book{should we name the tools? concealing and revealing the art of rhetoric_2010, year={2010} }
 @inbook{should we name the tools? concealing and revealing the art of rhetoric_2010, booktitle={The Public Work of Rhetoric}, year={2010} }
 @inbook{miller_2009, place={New York}, title={Blogging as Social Action: A Genre Analysis of the Weblog}, booktitle={The Norton Handbook of Composition Studies}, publisher={W. W. Norton}, author={Miller, C.}, editor={Miller, SusanEditor}, year={2009}, pages={1450–1473} }
 @book{miller_2009, place={Recife, Brazil}, title={Estudos sobre Gênero Textual, Agência e Tecnologia}, publisher={Editora Universidade Federal de Pernambuco}, author={Miller, CR}, editor={Dionisio, Angela Paiva and Hoffnagel, Judith ChamblissEditors}, year={2009} }
 @article{miller_hoffnagel_2009, place={Recife, Brazil}, title={Gênero como ação social}, journal={Estudos sobre Gênero Textual, Agência, e Tecnologia}, publisher={Editora Universitária UFPE}, author={Miller, C. and Hoffnagel, J.}, year={2009}, pages={21–44} }
 @inbook{miller_shepherd_2009, place={Amsterdam}, title={Questions for genre theory from the blogosphere}, ISBN={9789027254337}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pbns.188.11mil}, DOI={10.1075/pbns.188.11mil}, abstractNote={The blog illustrates well the constant change that characterizes electronic media. With a rapidity equal to that of their initial adoption, blogs became not a single genre but a multiplicity. To explore the relationship between the centrifugal forces of change and the centripetal tendencies of recurrence and typification, we extend our earlier study of personal blogs with a contrasting study of the kairos, technological affordances, rhetorical features, and exigence for what we call public affairs blogs. At the same time, we explore the relationship between genre and medium, examining genre evolution in the context of changing technological affordances. We conclude that genre and medium must be distinguished and that the aesthetic satisfactions of genre help account for recurrence in an environment of change.}, booktitle={Genres in the Internet: Issues in the Theory of Genre}, publisher={Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.}, author={Miller, Carolyn R. and Shepherd, D.}, editor={Giltrow, J. and Stein, D.Editors}, year={2009}, pages={263–290} }
 @inbook{lyne_miller_2009, title={Rhetoric, disciplinarity, and fields of knowledge}, ISBN={9781412909501}, booktitle={The Sage handbook of rhetorical studies}, publisher={Los Angeles: Sage}, author={Lyne, J. and Miller, C. R.}, year={2009}, pages={167–174} }
 @article{miller_2008, title={Concealing and Revealing the Art of Rhetoric in Science and Technology}, volume={47}, journal={Rhetorica Scandinavica}, author={Miller, Carolyn Rae}, year={2008}, pages={30–54} }
 @book{persuasion, audience, and argument_2008, year={2008} }
 @inbook{miller_charney_2008, place={New York}, title={Persuasion, Audience, and Argument}, booktitle={Handbook of Research on Writing: History, Society, School, Individual, Text}, publisher={Lawrence Erlbaum Associates}, author={Miller, Carolyn R. and Charney, Davida}, editor={Bazerman, CharlesEditor}, year={2008}, pages={583–598} }
 @inbook{miller_2008, title={What's Practical about Technical Writing?}, booktitle={Readings for Technical Communication}, publisher={Oxford University Press}, author={Miller, C.}, editor={MacLennan, JenniferEditor}, year={2008} }
 @inbook{miller_charney_2007, title={Audience, persuasion, argument}, ISBN={080584869X}, booktitle={Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, individual, text}, publisher={New York: L. Erlbaum Associates}, author={Miller, C. R. and Charney, D.}, year={2007}, pages={583–598} }
 @misc{miller_2007, title={Tracing Genres Through Organizations: A Sociocultural Approach to Information Design</i>. Clay Spinuzzi. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003. 246 pp}, volume={16}, ISSN={1057-2252 1542-7625}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10572250701551432}, DOI={10.1080/10572250701551432}, abstractNote={In 1974, the traffic-accident data archive maintained by the Department of Transportation for the state of Iowa was transferred from a primarily paper-based system to a mainframe computer. Data reg...}, number={4}, journal={Technical Communication Quarterly}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Miller, Carolyn R.}, year={2007}, month={Aug}, pages={476–480} }
 @article{miller_2007, title={What Can Automation Tell Us about Agency?}, volume={37}, DOI={10.1080/02773940601021197}, abstractNote={Computerized systems for automated assessment of writing and speaking create a situation in which Burkean symbolic action confronts nonsymbolic motion. What is at stake in such confrontations is rhetorical agency. In this article, an informal survey that asked teachers of writing and speaking about automated assessment informs an analysis of agency that contrasts writing and speaking along the dimensions of performance, audience, and interaction. The analysis suggests that agency can be understood as the kinetic energy of performance that is generated through a process of mutual attribution between rhetor and audience. Agency is thus a property of the rhetorical event, not of agents, and can best be located between the two traditional ways of defining agency: as rhetorical capacity and as rhetorical effectivity. Unwillingness to attribute agency to automated assessment systems makes them rhetorically ineffective and morally problematic.}, number={2}, journal={Rhetoric Society Quarterly}, author={Miller, Carolyn R.}, year={2007}, pages={137–157} }
 @article{miller_2006, title={The rhetoric of RHETORIC: The quest for effective communication.}, volume={39}, ISSN={["0031-8213"]}, DOI={10.1353/par.2006.0025}, abstractNote={Reviewed by: The Rhetoric of RHETORIC: The Quest for Effective Communication Carolyn R. Miller The Rhetoric of RHETORIC: The Quest for Effective Communication. Wayne C. BoothMalden, Mass: Blackwell, 2004. Pp. xvi + 206. $20.95, paperback. By using the traditional word rhetoric I want to suggest a whole philosophy of how men succeed or fail in discovering together, in discourse, new levels of truth (or at least agreement) that neither side suspected before. —Wayne C. Booth, 1974 Listening-Rhetoric is what I most long to celebrate and practice—the kind that is sadly rare. . . . Here both sides join in a trusting dispute, determined to listen to the opponent's arguments, while persuading the opponent to listen in exchange. . . . Both sides are pursuing not just victory but a new reality, a new agreement about what is real. —Wayne C. Booth, 2004 By the evidence of these two quotations, the late Wayne Booth sustained a passionate interest in a constructivist, cooperative rhetoric for at least thirty years. His 1974 Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent first sounds many of the themes that are rearticulated in his 2004 The Rhetoric of RHETORIC, a volume in the Blackwell Manifestos series. Both books were motivated by evident failures of public discourse, the earlier one by those emanating from the Vietnam War, including student protests at the University of Chicago, and the recent one by multiple rhetorical sins of the Bush administration and the national media, especially those concerning the war in Iraq. Indeed, Booth confesses here that his distress dates at least to 1963, when he lamented that "the debate about the [Kennedy] assassination [may be] a greater national disgrace than the assassination itself" (109). What animates Booth in both books is the conviction not that only we can do better in conducting our discursive relationships as a nation, as institutions, as families, but that we must do so. We must do so because our ability to live and progress together depends on our talking rather than resorting to force and on our talking in a way that engenders trust and enables continued debate, rather than provoking mistrust and disrespect. The two enemies he has always in sight are violence and deception. These are two forms of rhetorical failure, but the two become entangled when "violence and the threat of violence corrupt rhetoric," particularly during times of war (118), and when corrupt rhetoric itself becomes a kind of violence (48). [End Page 261] As a "manifesto" addressed to a non-specialist audience, The Rhetoric of RHETORIC is relatively brief, engagingly written, and passionately argued. It includes chapters on definitions of rhetoric (good and bad), the history of rhetorical studies, the difficulties of judging rhetoric (i.e., the disjunction between instrumental and ethical effectiveness), the dispersal of rhetoric to multiple disciplines and forums, the condition of rhetorical education today, the dangers of bad rhetoric in politics and in the media, and a demonstration of how our many intractable debates might be improved with "listening-rhetoric," using as a case example the "warfare" between science and religion. Throughout, Booth dramatizes his ideal of listening-rhetoric by engaging in frequent proleptic questioning and refutation as well as reflexive commentary. Anyone who heard Booth talk at a conference within the past decade or more has first-hand knowledge of his predilection for neologism, and he indulged himself in this book (though he resisted in 1974; see Modern Dogma, 11n5). His term for bad rhetoric, the rhetoric that exacerbates misunderstanding or seeks victory through deception, is "rhetrickery"; his term for the best rhetoric, a kind of critical consciousness that seeks to find common ground and to remove misunderstanding, is "rhetorology." We are also introduced to LR (listening-rhetoric), WR (win-rhetoric), BR (bargain-rhetoric), Rhet-Ed (rhetorical education), P-Rhet (political rhetoric), and MR (media rhetoric). Rhetorology, or listening-rhetoric, is Booth's solution to our rhetorical woes, a solution that admittedly has both philosophical and practical limitations. Rhetorology opposes rhetrickery and some versions of win-rhetoric. He is at some pains to explain and sequester these damaging capabilities so that the unsavory aspects of rhetoric's reputation do not obscure its positive potential. Readers familiar with recent rhetorical theorizing...}, number={3}, journal={PHILOSOPHY AND RHETORIC}, author={Miller, Carolyn R.}, year={2006}, pages={261–263} }
 @inbook{miller_2005, title={Novelty and heresy in the debate on nonthermal effects of electromagnetic fields}, ISBN={1932559493}, booktitle={Rhetoric and incommensurability}, publisher={West Lafayette, Ind.: Parlor Press}, author={Miller, C. R.}, year={2005}, pages={464–505} }
 @article{miller_2005, title={Risk, Controversy, and Rhetoric: Response to Goodnight}, volume={42}, ISSN={1051-1431 2576-8476}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2005.11821638}, DOI={10.1080/00028533.2005.11821638}, abstractNote={It makes sense to use controversy as a way for argumentation and rhetorical studies to contribute to the study of science and technology, for controversy is central to both. Controversy provides occasions and strategies for rhetoric. "Contrarianism is of the essence in rhetoric," according to Thomas Sloane (3), and he draws out its presence throughout the rhetorical tradition--in disputation, Ciceronian controversia, pro and con thinking, the dissoi logoi, the Erasmian via diversa, argument in utramque partem, and so forth. Burke puts the idea a little differently, emphasizing the divisions that make rhetoric necessary: "the Scramble, the Wrangle of the MarketPlace, the flurries and flare-ups of the Human Barnyard, the Give and Take, ... the Logomachy" (23). Although traditional views of science held that scientific method obviates controversy, more recent views put controversy at the center of scientific progress. (1) Karl Popper, for example, characterized science as "conjectures and refutations," reasoning that because we cannot verify a proposition by any number of observations, we instead conjecture, or "jump to conclusions" from a limited number of observations and then subject the conclusion to subsequent observations in an attempt to falsify or refute it. Thomas Kuhn described science as a sequence of activities, from normal puzzle-solving and the accumulation of anomalies to crisis and revolution, with controversy characterizing the last two of these. As Professor Goodnight notes, other STS scholars have emphasized the policy issues and public controversies that science and technology can instigate. Controversy thus can be seen both as an engine internal to science and as an external consequence of its epistemic innovations (and the artifactual innovations of technology) as they diffuse beyond the forums and enclaves of the scientific community and the skunk-works of technological RD lawsuits and public hearings open the files; disagreements between experts disturb the seamless surface of unquestioned facts; competition between proprietors or between products challenges culturally embedded technical systems. But Professor Goodnight means to point out more than these possibly commonplace notions about how controversy makes the rhetorical study of science and technology possible. Controversy, he emphasizes, also is the persistent condition that makes such studies useful and important, both in understanding the continuing operations of modernity and in addressing critical public problems. In what follows, I offer some observations based on two recent studies of my own that substantiate some of Professor Goodnight's contentions and suggest some additions to his agenda. I've looked in some detail at the nuclear power controversy of the 1970s and at the more recent controversy about the biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs) ("Presumptions"; "Novelty"). The early controversy over nuclear power is represented in the 1975 Reactor Safety Study, also known as the Rasmussen report, prepared for the Atomic Energy Commission. Now understood as the first real risk analysis, it was begun in anticipation of Congressional controversy over the renewal of the Price-Anderson Act, which protected electric utilities from liability in the case of a nuclear reactor accident. The report, however, did little to quell controversy, but rather became a subject of controversy itself, both inside and outside the expert community. In one sense, this controversy was lost by the experts to public opinion and economic conditions: although the Price-Anderson Act was renewed in late 1975, nuclear power became a moribund technology, with no new plants ordered after 1978 and all 41 orders placed after 1973 canceled or rejected by state regulators. (3) In another sense, however, experts prevailed in making the risk analysis methods of the Rasmussen report the basis for decision making in a large number of other areas of science-based controversy. …}, number={1}, journal={Argumentation and Advocacy}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Miller, Carolyn R.}, year={2005}, month={Jun}, pages={34–37} }
 @inbook{miller_2004, title={A Humanistic Rationale for Technical Writing}, booktitle={Teaching Technical Communication}, publisher={Bedford/St. Martin’s}, author={Miller, C.}, editor={Dubinsky, James M.Editor}, year={2004}, pages={15–23} }
 @inbook{miller_shepherd_2004, place={Minneapolis}, title={Blogging as Social Action: A Genre Analysis of the Weblog}, booktitle={Into the Blogosphere: Rhetoric, Community, and Culture of Weblogs}, publisher={University of Minnesota Libraries}, author={Miller, CR and Shepherd, D}, editor={Gurak, Laura and Antonijevic, Smiljana and Johnson, Laurie and Ratliff, Clancy and Reyman, JessicaEditors}, year={2004} }
 @inbook{miller_2004, title={Expertise and Agency: Transformations of Ethos in Human-Computer Interaction}, ISBN={1570035385}, booktitle={The Ethos of Rhetoric}, publisher={Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press}, author={Miller, C. R.}, year={2004}, pages={197–218} }
 @book{expertise and agency: transformations of ethos in human-computer interaction_2004, year={2004} }
 @inbook{miller_2004, title={Reuniting wisdom and eloquence within the engineering curriculum}, booktitle={Liberal education in twenty-first century engineering: responses to ABET/EC 2000 criteria  (WPI studies ; v. 23)}, publisher={New York: Peter Lang}, author={Miller, C. R.}, editor={D. F. Ollis, K. A. Neeley and Luegenbiehl, H. C.Editors}, year={2004}, pages={41–50} }
 @inbook{miller_2004, title={What's Practical about Technical Writing?}, booktitle={Teaching Technical Communication}, publisher={Bedford/St. Martin’s}, author={Miller, C.}, editor={Dubinsky, James M.Editor}, year={2004}, pages={154–164} }
 @article{carter_anson_miller_2003, title={Assessing Technical Writing in Institutional Contexts: Using Outcomes-Based Assessment for Programmatic Thinking}, volume={12}, DOI={10.1207/s15427625tcq1201_7}, abstractNote={Technical writing instruction often operates in isolation from other components of students' communication education, partly as a consequence of assessment practices that lead to a narrow perspective. We argue for altering this isolation by moving writing instruction into a position of increased programmatic perspective, which may be attained through a means of assessment based on educational outcomes. Two models of technical writing instruction, centralized and diffused, are discussed, and we show how outcomes-based assessment provides for the change in perspective we seek.}, number={1}, journal={Technical Communication Quarterly}, author={Carter, M. and Anson, C. and Miller, Carolyn R.}, year={2003}, pages={101–114} }
 @inbook{miller_carter_gallagher_2003, place={Albany, NY}, title={Integrated Approaches to Teaching Rhetoric: Unifying a Divided House}, ISBN={0791458091}, booktitle={The Realms of Rhetoric: The Prospects for Rhetoric Education}, publisher={Albany: State University of New York Press}, author={Miller, C. R. and Carter, M. and Gallagher, V.}, editor={J. Petraglia and Bahri, D.Editors}, year={2003}, pages={209–228} }
 @book{integrated approaches to teaching rhetoric: unifying a divided house_2003, year={2003} }
 @article{miller_2003, title={The presumptions of expertise: The role of ethos in risk analysis}, volume={11}, ISSN={["1080-6520"]}, DOI={10.1353/con.2004.0022}, abstractNote={3. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, Monthly Energy Review, September, September 26, 2003, PDF file, U.S. Department of Energy, available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/mer/ (October 11, 2003); Robert J. Duffy, Nuclear Politics in America: A History and Theory of Government Regulation, Studies in Government and PubThe civilian nuclear power enterprise in the United States has had a short and not very happy life. There was an initial period of slow development from the late 1940s through the late 1960s, a very brief period of rapid growth that lasted less than ten years, and then an unforeseen rapid decline beginning in the mid-1970s that was only hastened by the Three Mile Island accident in 1979; this decline has been called “one of the most stunning reversals of fortune in the history of American capitalism.”1 A Forbes article declared in 1985 that “for the U.S., nuclear power is dead,” and the scientist who chaired the National Research Council’s 1992 report on nuclear power declared a year later that the future of nuclear power in the U.S. “looks grim.”2 Although some 20 percent of the nation’s electric power in 2003 was supplied by 104 nuclear plants, nuclear power has not been prominent on the public agenda: in the 1990s, a slowed growth in the demand for energy, reduced funds for R&D, the deregulation of the power industry in 1992, and reduced prices for fossil fuels made the nuclear option less important.3 There has been some}, number={2}, journal={CONFIGURATIONS}, author={Miller, CR}, year={2003}, pages={163–202} }
 @inbook{miller_2003, title={What's practical about technical writing?}, booktitle={Professional writing and rhetoric: readings from the field}, publisher={New York: Longman}, author={Miller, C.}, year={2003}, pages={61–70} }
 @book{writing in a culture of simulation: ethos online_2003, year={2003} }
 @inbook{miller_2003, place={Madison, WI}, title={Writing in a Culture of Simulation: Ethos Online}, booktitle={Towards a Rhetoric of Everyday Life: New Directions in Research on Writing, Text, and Discourse}, publisher={University of Wisconsin Press}, author={Miller, Carolyn R.}, editor={Nystrand, Martin and Duffy, JohnEditors}, year={2003}, pages={58–83} }
 @book{larsen_miller_huyck_2002, place={Raleigh, NC}, title={Communication in the Workplace 2002: What Can NC State Students Expect?}, institution={Professional Writing Program, Department of English, North Carolina State University}, author={Larsen, J. and Miller, C. and Huyck, A.}, year={2002} }
 @inbook{miller_2002, place={Albany, NY}, title={Foreword}, booktitle={Rhetoric and Kairos: Essays in History, Theory and Praxis}, publisher={Albany, NY: State University of New York Press}, author={Miller, C.}, editor={Sipiora, P. and Baumlin, J. S.Editors}, year={2002}, pages={xi-} }
 @book{rhetoric and kairos: essays in history, theory and praxis_2002, year={2002} }
 @misc{miller_2002, title={Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences by Geoffrey C. Bowker and Susan Leigh Star [review]}, volume={11}, number={1}, journal={Technical Communication Quarterly: TCQ}, author={Miller, C.}, year={2002}, pages={113–115} }
 @article{miller_2001, title={Genre som social handling}, volume={18}, number={2001}, journal={Rhetorica}, author={Miller, C.}, year={2001}, pages={19?35} }
 @article{geisler_bazerman_doheny-farina_gurak_haas_johnson-eilola_kaufer_lunsford_miller_winsor_et al._2001, title={IText - Future directions for research on the relationship between information technology and writing}, volume={15}, number={3}, journal={Journal of Business and Technical Communication}, author={Geisler, C. and Bazerman, C. and Doheny-Farina, S. and Gurak, L. and Haas, C. and Johnson-Eilola, J. and Kaufer, D. S. and Lunsford, A. and Miller, C. R. and Winsor, D. and et al.}, year={2001}, pages={269–308} }
 @article{miller_2001, title={Rethinking the rhetorical tradition: From Plato to postmodernism}, volume={34}, ISSN={["0031-8213"]}, DOI={10.1353/par.2001.0008}, abstractNote={In Rethinking the Rhetorical Tradition, James Kastely presents an alternative to the "standard" rhetorical tradition; he calls this alternative skeptical rhetoric, describes its characteristic activity as refutation, and claims for it special relevance in negotiating postmodern challenges to rhetoric, specifically, that it can serve as a "refutation of postmodernism" (23). This alternative tradition inheres in a canon of works somewhat different from the standard canon, and an examination of key works organizes most of the chapters in this book. To establish and articulate this tradition in the classical era, Kastely examines Plato's Gorgias and Meno, Sophocles' Philoctetes, and Euripides' Hecuba; he then moves to the modern era, and to two works that address themes central to ancient rhetorical skepticism: Jane Austen's Persuasion (1818) and Jean-Paul Sartre's What Is Literature? (1949). Finally, Kastely turns to the two prongs of the postmodern reappropriation of traditional rhetoric, the tropological formalism of Paul de Man and the ideological approaches of Marxist critics such as Terry Eagleton, challenging both of them with the comic skepticism of Kenneth Burke.}, number={2}, journal={PHILOSOPHY AND RHETORIC}, author={Miller, CR}, year={2001}, pages={179–181} }
 @misc{miller_2001, title={Shaping Science with Rhetoric: The Cases of Dobszhanksy, Schrödinger, and Wilson by Leah Ceccarelli}, volume={11}, number={3}, journal={Metascience}, publisher={University of Chicago Press}, author={Miller, C.}, year={2001}, pages={345–348} }
 @inbook{miller_2001, title={Writing in a culture of simulation: ethos online}, booktitle={The semiotics of writing: Transdisciplinary perspectives on the technology of writing (Semiotic and cognitive studies ; 10).}, publisher={Turnhout: Brepols}, author={Miller, C. R.}, year={2001} }
 @article{mehlenbacher_miller_covington_larsen_2000, title={Active and interactive learning online: A comparison of Web-based and conventional writing classes}, volume={43}, ISSN={["1558-1500"]}, DOI={10.1109/47.843644}, abstractNote={This study examines how students enrolled in two Web-based sections of a technical writing class performed compared to students enrolled in a conventional version of the class. Although no significant difference in student performance was found between the two learning conditions, our data reveal intriguing relationships between students' prior knowledge, attitudes, and learning styles and our Web-based writing environment. One finding that we focus on is that reflective, global learners performed significantly better online than active, sequential learners, whereas there was no difference between them in the conventional class. Our study highlights the complexity of effective teaching and the difficulty of making comparisons between the online and the classroom environments. In particular, we maintain that the transfer of active learning strategies to the Web is not straightforward and that interactivity as a goal of instructional Web site design requires significant elaboration.}, number={2}, journal={IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION}, author={Mehlenbacher, B and Miller, CR and Covington, D and Larsen, JS}, year={2000}, month={Jun}, pages={166–184} }
 @inbook{miller_2000, place={Carbondale, IL}, title={The Aristotelian Topos: Hunting for Novelty}, booktitle={Rereading Aristotle's Rhetoric}, publisher={Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press}, author={Miller, C. R.}, editor={Gross, A. G. and Walzer, A. E.Editors}, year={2000}, pages={130–146} }
 @book{the aristotelian topos: hunting for novelty_2000, year={2000} }
 @article{miller_reiff_bawarshi_1999, title={On the Border Between Disciplines: A Conversation with Carolyn Miller}, volume={9}, number={2}, journal={Issues in Writing}, author={Miller, C. and Reiff, M. and Bawarshi, A.}, year={1999}, pages={110–138} }
 @book{carter_miller_penrose_1998, title={Effective composition instruction: What does the research show?}, volume={3}, journal={Publications (North Carolina State University. Center for Communication in Science, Technology, and Management) ; no. 3}, institution={Raleigh, NC: Center for Communication in Science, Technology, and Management}, author={Carter, M. and Miller, C. R. and Penrose, A. M}, year={1998} }
 @inbook{miller_1998, title={Genre as social action}, booktitle={Landmark essays on contemporary rhetoric}, publisher={Mahwah, N.J.: Hermagoras Press}, author={Miller, C.}, year={1998}, pages={123–141} }
 @article{miller_1998, title={Learning front history - World War II and the culture of high technology}, volume={12}, ISSN={["1552-4574"]}, DOI={10.1177/1050651998012003002}, abstractNote={ Rhetorical study of technology will benefit from a broad view of technology that considers it as a cultural phenomenon, including epistemic, artifactual, technical, economic, aesthetic, and political aspects. To understand twentieth-century American technology this way, it is useful to gain some historical perspective on its development, particularly in the past 50 years. Many accounts mark World War II as a turning point in the role of technology in our culture and in the relations of technology with government, science, and industry. This article synthesizes some of these accounts and concludes with four ways that technology should prove to be rhetorically distinct from science. }, number={3}, journal={JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION}, author={Miller, CR}, year={1998}, month={Jul}, pages={288–315} }
 @misc{miller_1998, title={The Social Construction of Written Communication, ed. Bennett A. Rafoth and Donald L. Rubin}, volume={21}, journal={Journal of Technical Writing and Communication}, author={Miller, C.}, year={1998}, pages={92–94} }
 @inbook{miller_1997, title={Classical rhetoric without nostalgia: A response to Gaonkar}, ISBN={0791431096}, booktitle={Rhetorical hermeneutics: Invention and interpretation in the age of science -- (SUNY series in speech communication)}, publisher={Albany: State University of New York Press}, author={Miller, C. R.}, editor={Gross, A. G. and Keith, W. M.Editors}, year={1997}, pages={130–146} }
 @inbook{miller_1997, title={Epilogue: On divisions and diversity in rhetoric}, ISBN={0805820140}, booktitle={Making and unmaking the prospects for rhetoric: Selected papers from the 1996 Rhetoric Society of America Conference}, publisher={Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum}, author={Miller, C. R.}, year={1997}, pages={207–209} }
 @book{making and unmaking the prospects for rhetoric: selected papers from the 1996 rhetoric society of america conference_1997, ISBN={0805820140}, publisher={Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum}, year={1997} }
 @inbook{miller_1996, place={Arlington, VA}, title={A Humanistic Rationale for Technical Writing}, booktitle={Defining Technical Communication}, publisher={Society for Technical Communication}, author={Miller, C.}, editor={Jones, DanEditor}, year={1996}, pages={113–118} }
 @article{kreth_miller_redish_1996, title={Comments on “Instrumental Discourse is as Humanistic as Rhetoric”}, volume={10}, ISSN={1050-6519 1552-4574}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1050651996010004004}, DOI={10.1177/1050651996010004004}, number={4}, journal={Journal of Business and Technical Communication}, publisher={SAGE Publications}, author={Kreth, Melinda and Miller, Carolyn R. and Redish, Janice (Ginny)}, year={1996}, month={Oct}, pages={476–490} }
 @book{miller_1996, title={Communication in the 21st Century: The original liberal art in an age of science and technology}, volume={1}, journal={Publications (North Carolina State University. Center for Communication in Science, Technology, and Management) ; no. 1}, institution={Raleigh, NC: Center for Communication in Science, Technology, and Management}, author={Miller, C. R.}, year={1996} }
 @book{miller_larsen_gaitens_1996, title={Communication in the workplace: What can NCSU students expect?}, volume={2}, journal={Publications (North Carolina State University. Center for Communication in Science, Technology, and Management) ; no. 2}, institution={Raleigh, NC: Center for Communication in Science, Technology, and Management}, author={Miller, C. R. and Larsen, J. and Gaitens, J.}, year={1996} }
 @inbook{katz_miller_1996, title={Low-level radioactive waste siting controversy in North Carolina: Toward a rhetorical model of risk communication}, ISBN={0299149900}, booktitle={Green culture: Environmental rhetoric in contemporary America}, publisher={Madison: University of Wisconsin Press}, author={Katz, S. B. and Miller, C. R.}, editor={Herndl, C. G. and Brown, S. C.Editors}, year={1996}, pages={111–140} }
 @misc{miller_1996, title={The Scientific Voice</i>. Scott L. Montgomery}, volume={87}, ISSN={0021-1753 1545-6994}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/357659}, DOI={10.1086/357659}, abstractNote={Previous articleNext article No AccessBook ReviewsThe Scientific Voice. Scott L. Montgomery Carolyn R. MillerCarolyn R. Miller Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Isis Volume 87, Number 4Dec., 1996 Publication of the History of Science Society Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/357659 Views: 2Total views on this site Copyright 1996 History of Science Society, Inc.PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.}, number={4}, journal={Isis}, publisher={University of Chicago Press}, author={Miller, Carolyn R.}, year={1996}, month={Dec}, pages={707–708} }
 @article{miller_1996, title={This Is Not an Essay}, volume={47}, ISSN={0010-096X}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/358797}, DOI={10.2307/358797}, number={2}, journal={College Composition and Communication}, publisher={National Council of Teachers of English}, author={Miller, Carolyn R.}, year={1996}, month={May}, pages={284} }
 @article{miller_1995, title={A Comment on "Positivists, Postmodernists, Aristotelians, and the Challenger Disaster"}, volume={57}, ISSN={0010-0994}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/378835}, DOI={10.2307/378835}, number={5}, journal={College English}, publisher={National Council of Teachers of English}, author={Miller, Carolyn R.}, year={1995}, month={Sep}, pages={603} }
 @inbook{miller_1994, place={London}, title={Genre as Social Action}, booktitle={Genre and the New Rhetoric}, publisher={Taylor and Francis}, author={Miller, C.}, editor={Freedman, Aviva and Medway, PeterEditors}, year={1994}, pages={3–42} }
 @article{miller_1994, title={Opportunity, opportunism, and progress: Kairos in the rhetoric of technology}, volume={8}, DOI={10.1007/bf00710705}, number={1}, journal={Argumentation}, author={Miller, Carolyn R.}, year={1994}, pages={81–96} }
 @inbook{miller_1994, title={Rhetorical community: The cultural basis of genre}, ISBN={074840256X}, booktitle={Genre and the new rhetoric -- (Critical perspectives on literacy and education)}, publisher={London: Taylor & Francis}, author={Miller, C. R.}, editor={Freeman, A. and Medway, P.Editors}, year={1994}, pages={67–78} }
 @inproceedings{miller_mehlenbacher_1993, title={Establishing the Role of Research in a Master's-Level Technical Communication Program}, booktitle={Proceedings of the 20th Annual Meeting of the Council for Programs in Technical and Scientific Communication}, author={Miller, C. and Mehlenbacher, B.}, year={1993} }
 @inbook{miller_halloran_1993, place={Madison}, title={Reading Darwin, Reading Nature: Or, On the Ethos of Historical Science}, ISBN={029913900X}, booktitle={Understanding Scientific Prose}, publisher={Madison: University of Wisconsin Press}, author={Miller, C. R. and Halloran, S. M.}, year={1993}, pages={106–126} }
 @book{reading darwin, reading nature: or, on the ethos of historical science_1993, year={1993} }
 @inbook{miller_1993, title={Rhetoric and community: The problem of the one and the many}, ISBN={0803942710}, booktitle={Defining the new rhetorics}, publisher={Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications}, author={Miller, C. R.}, editor={Enos, T. and Brown, S. C.Editors}, year={1993}, pages={79–94} }
 @article{miller_1993, title={THE POLIS AS RHETORICAL COMMUNITY}, volume={11}, ISSN={["0734-8584"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84968130414&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1525/rh.1993.11.3.211}, abstractNote={Abstract: Although “community” has become an important critical concept in contemporary rhetoric, it is only implicit in ancient rhetorics. In the rhetorical thought of the sophists, Plato, and Aristotle, the polis stands as a presupposition that was both fundamental and troublesome. Various relationships between the faculty of speech and the social order are revealed in different tellings of the history of civilization by Protagoras, Plato, and Aristotle, as well as in more formal discussions of rhetoric and politics. These ancient disagreements about the nature of community can help us reformulate the current debate between liberalism and communitarianism. A rhetorical community as a site of contention can be both pluralist and normative.}, number={3}, journal={RHETORICA-A JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF RHETORIC}, author={MILLER, CR}, year={1993}, pages={211–240} }
 @misc{miller_1993, title={The Rhetoric of Science, and: Persuading Science: The Art of Scientific Rhetoric}, volume={1}, ISSN={1080-6520}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/con.1993.0016}, DOI={10.1353/con.1993.0016}, abstractNote={Reviewed by: The Rhetoric of Science, and: Persuading Science: The Art of Scientific Rhetoric Caroline R. Miller Alan G. Gross, The Rhetoric of Science. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1990. vii + 248 pp. $29.95 Marcello Pera and William R. Shea, eds., Persuading Science: The Art of Scientific Rhetoric. Canton, Mass.: Science History Publications, 1991. xii + 212 pp. $39.95 “If there are no universal and precise methodological rules, how do scientists, during a theory-change, come to convince or convert their community to a new theory or way of seeing the world?” “We take rhetoric as the art of persuasive argumentation; we thus aim at debating its role, nature, limits as well as efficacy” (Pera and Shea, pp. 99, 173). With this question and proposition, selected historians and philosophers of science were invited to an international conference in Naples on science and rhetoric. Even as these scholars were presenting their papers in June 1990, Alan Gross’s book was being printed. These two volumes, one the result of a gathering of minds, the other the result of one person’s [End Page 279] efforts over a period of time, can serve to signal the arrival of rhetorical studies of science as a distinct intellectual program, and together they provide an introduction to the issues, methods, and insights that rhetoric offers to the more general critical examination of science. The two volumes are similar, not only in their basic agendas, but also in several other revealing ways. Both are essentially collections of essays—separate studies, separately conceived—rather than extended or integrated arguments. Both feature a few central figures in the history of science, who are now seen as definitively revolutionary: Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon, Descartes, Newton, Darwin, Einstein. Both make Aristotle the central figure in their theory of rhetoric: in Pera and Shea, Aristotle has more index citations than anyone else, and the editors see the work in the volume as a “return to Aristotle” (p. x); Gross calls Aristotle’s Rhetoric his “master theoretical text” (p. 3) but acknowledges that Aristotelian rhetoric can use some updating (p. 18). These similarities are perhaps a bit surprising from a disciplinary perspective. Alan Gross, a professor of English, has been studying and writing about scientific rhetoric for some ten years—while all the contributors to the other volume are historians and philosophers of science, most of whom have come only recently to an interest in rhetoric and at least one of whom (Richard S. Westfall) confesses himself an amateur: “I have never formally studied the discipline of rhetoric... when I speak of ‘rhetoric’ I employ a wholly intuitive, common sense understanding of the word” (p. 107). Pera and Shea’s collection of ten previously unpublished essays is divided into two equal sections, the first group making the general case about the relevance of rhetoric to science and the second group providing more detailed study of specific cases, with a heavy emphasis on the seventeenth century. As a whole, the collection demonstrates the great advantage that historians can bring to the study of scientific rhetoric—that is, their rich and detailed knowledge of specific figures, texts, events, and their relationships. The essays in the first section, although they claim nothing that will be new to rhetoricians, may have an interesting persuasiveness for those who are not familiar with rhetorical approaches to science: they serve as unsolicited testimonials. Readers with some background in rhetoric will find the second group of essays by far the more informative and illuminating: Richard S. Westfall describes the differences between the audiences that Galileo and Newton addressed, suggesting that Galileo had to create an audience, which then existed for Newton; Shea shows that Descartes, who forswore rhetoric, cannot be understood without the aid of rhetoric; Peter Machamer characterizes seventeenth-century scientific rhetoric as person-centered, or perspectival, a quality that Newton’s achievements ended; Maurizio Mamiani shows that Newton used similar strategies in his attempts to create certainty in the Opticks, the Principia, and his interpretation of the Apocalypse; and Gerald Holton demonstrates that two papers in twentieth-century physics (by Bohr and Einstein) can be understood as dramas or conversations among several actors: the scientist playing out his...}, number={2}, journal={Configurations}, publisher={Project MUSE}, author={Miller, Carolyn R}, year={1993}, pages={279–282} }
 @inbook{miller_1992, place={Carbondale, IL}, title={Kairos in the Rhetoric of Science}, ISBN={0809315319}, booktitle={A Rhetoric of Doing: Essays on Written Discourse in Honor of James L. Kinneavy}, publisher={Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press}, author={Miller, C. R.}, editor={S. P. Witte, N. Nakadate and Cherry, R. D.Editors}, year={1992}, pages={310–327} }
 @book{kairos in the rhetoric of science_1992, year={1992} }
 @misc{miller_1992, title={Signs, Genres, and Communities in Technical Communication, by M. Jimmie Killingsworth and Michael K. Gilbertson (Baywood, 1992)}, volume={23}, number={2}, journal={Rhetoric Society Quarterly}, author={Miller, C.}, year={1992}, pages={63–65} }
 @article{miller_anderson_mathes_stevenson_olsen_huckin_pfeiffer_reep_tebeaux_1992, title={Textbooks in Focus: Technical Writing}, volume={43}, ISSN={0010-096X}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/357376}, DOI={10.2307/357376}, number={1}, journal={College Composition and Communication}, publisher={National Council of Teachers of English}, author={Miller, Carolyn R. and Anderson, Paul V. and Mathes, J. C. and Stevenson, Dwight W. and Olsen, Leslie A. and Huckin, Thomas N. and Pfeiffer, William S. and Reep, Diana C. and Tebeaux, Elizabeth}, year={1992}, month={Feb}, pages={111} }
 @inbook{herndl_fennell_miller_1991, title={Understanding failures in organizational discourse: The accident at Three Mile Island and the shuttle Challenger disaster}, ISBN={0299125904}, booktitle={Textual dynamics of the professions: Historical and contemporary studies of writing in professional communities}, publisher={Madison: University of Wisconsin Press}, author={Herndl, C. G. and Fennell, B. A. and Miller, C. R.}, editor={Bazerman, C. and Paradis, J.Editors}, year={1991}, pages={279–305} }
 @misc{miller_1990, title={Book Reviews : Technical and Business Communication: Bibliographic Essays for Teachers and Corporate Trainers. Ed. Charles H. Sides. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English; Washington: Society for Technical Communication, 1989}, volume={4}, ISSN={1050-6519 1552-4574}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/105065199000400207}, DOI={10.1177/105065199000400207}, abstractNote={a large part in his objections to the technologization of writing. If writing is simply a means by which the writer achieves some organizational or individual ends, the reader, too, is merely a means toward those ends: The writer is using his or her writing to put the other person-the reader-&dquo;at the writer’s disposal&dquo; (34). Dobrin’s conviction that every communication act has a personal and moral dimension sharply distinguishes his treatment of business and technical writing from almost all other such treatments, including those that also draw upon speech act theory. Sound, sensible theories are needed to support our teaching and research. But even more, we need to learn how to remember that writing involves real people who deserve our solicitude and respect. These individuals have been largely banished from our scholarly articles and our textbooks-which are populated primarily by such cardboard figures as the expert, the technician, the customer, and the executive. We will inevitably teach, research, and theorize more satisfactorily if we remember that each reader is a person with particular feelings, concerns, abilities, and needs-a person to whom the writer has not only pragmatic responsibilities but also social and moral responsibilities.}, number={2}, journal={Journal of Business and Technical Communication}, publisher={SAGE Publications}, author={Miller, Carolyn R.}, year={1990}, month={Sep}, pages={95–97} }
 @misc{miller_1990, title={Communication and the Culture of Technology, ed. Martin J. Medhurst, Alberto Gonzalez, and Tarla Rai Peterson (Washington State University Press, 1990)}, volume={23}, number={3}, journal={Journal of Technical Writing and Communication}, publisher={Washington State University Press}, author={Miller, C.}, year={1990}, pages={303–305} }
 @article{miller_1990, title={Some Thoughts on the Future of Technical Communication}, volume={37}, number={2}, journal={Technical Communication}, author={Miller, C.}, year={1990}, month={May}, pages={108–111} }
 @inbook{miller_1990, place={Chicago, IL}, title={The Rhetoric of Decision Science: Or, Herbert A. Simon Says}, ISBN={0226759016}, booktitle={The Rhetorical Turn: Invention and Persuasion in the Conduct of Inquiry}, publisher={Chicago: University of Chicago Press}, author={Miller, C. R.}, year={1990}, pages={162–184} }
 @book{the rhetoric of decision science: or, herbert a. simon says_1990, year={1990} }
 @misc{miller_1989, title={Special Review Essay: Some Perspectives on Rhetoric, Science, and History}, volume={7}, ISSN={0734-8584 1533-8541}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/rh.1989.7.1.101}, DOI={10.1525/rh.1989.7.1.101}, abstractNote={Research Article| February 01 1989 Special Review Essay: Some Perspectives on Rhetoric, Science, and History The Rhetoric of Economics, by Donald N. McCloskey. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985. pp. xx + 209.The Rhetoric of the Human Sciences: Language and Argument in Scholarship and Public Affairs, ed. John S. Nelson, Allan Megill, and Donald N. McCloskey. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1987. pp. xiii + 445.Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science, by Charles Bazerman. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988. pp. xi + 356. Carolyn R. Miller Carolyn R. Miller Department of English, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695. Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (1989) 7 (1): 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1989.7.1.101 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Carolyn R. Miller; Special Review Essay: Some Perspectives on Rhetoric, Science, and History. Rhetorica 1 February 1989; 7 (1): 101–114. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1989.7.1.101 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. Copyright 1989, The International Society for the History of Rhetoric1989 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.}, number={1}, journal={Rhetorica}, publisher={Project MUSE}, author={Miller, Carolyn R.}, year={1989}, pages={101–114} }
 @inbook{miller_1989, place={New York}, title={What's Practical about Technical Writing?}, booktitle={Technical Writing: Theory and Practice}, publisher={Modern Language Association}, author={Miller, C.}, editor={Fearing, Bertie E. and Sparrow, W.KeatsEditors}, year={1989}, pages={14–24} }
 @article{aristotle's 'special topics' in rhetorical practice and pedagogy_1987, year={1987} }
 @article{aristotle's 'special topics' in rhetorical practice and pedagogy_1987, journal={Rhetoric Society Quarterly}, year={1987} }
 @article{miller_jolliffe_1986, title={Discourse classifications in nineteenth-century rhetorical pedagogy}, volume={51}, DOI={10.1080/10417948609372673}, abstractNote={An analysis of nineteenth‐century discourse classifications, together with the discourse “types” presented by classical pedagogy, helps to explain what was involved in the transformation of rhetoric into composition as it is taught in the American college curriculum. The difference between rhetoric and composition is in essence the difference between social action and academic artifact; this difference is analogous to the difference between rhetorical genre and compositional mode. Although formalism dominates pedagogy and classroom practice invites formalist reduction of social knowledge, genre theory invites us to look to the rhetorical situation the student is actually in and the rhetorical situations we want students to learn how to handle.}, journal={Southern Speech Communication Journal}, author={Miller, Carolyn R. and Jolliffe, D. A.}, year={1986}, pages={371–384} }
 @article{foster_miller_levy_1986, title={Three Comments on David Dobrin's "Is Technical Writing Particularly Objective"}, volume={48}, ISSN={0010-0994}, url={https://doi.org/10.2307/377302}, DOI={10.2307/377302}, number={2}, journal={College English}, publisher={National Council of Teachers of English}, author={Foster, D. and Miller, C. and Levy, B.S.}, year={1986}, month={Feb}, pages={195–198} }
 @inbook{miller_1985, place={Westport, CT}, title={Invention in Technical and Scientific Discourse: A Prospective Review}, booktitle={Research in Technical Communication: A Bibliographical Sourcebook}, publisher={Greenwood}, author={Miller, C.}, editor={Moran, Michael G. and Journet, DebraEditors}, year={1985}, pages={117–162} }
 @inbook{miller_1985, place={Lexington, MA}, title={Job Application Letter and Resume}, booktitle={What Makes Writing Good}, publisher={Heath}, author={Miller, C.}, editor={Coles, William and Vopat, JamesEditors}, year={1985}, pages={235–243} }
 @inproceedings{miller_1985, title={Problems in Designing Graduate Programs in Technical Communication (and Some Solutions)}, booktitle={Proceedings of the Council for Programs in Technical and Scientific Communication}, author={Miller, C.}, year={1985}, pages={2–9} }
 @inbook{miller_selzer_1985, title={Special topics of argument in engineering reports}, ISBN={0898622522}, booktitle={Writing in nonacademic settings}, publisher={New York: Guilford Press}, author={Miller, C. R. and Selzer, J.}, editor={Lee, O. and Goswami, D.Editors}, year={1985}, pages={309–341} }
 @article{miller_1984, title={GENRE AS SOCIAL-ACTION}, volume={70}, ISSN={["1479-5779"]}, DOI={10.1080/00335638409383686}, abstractNote={This essay proposes a conception of genre based on conventionalized social motives which are found in recurrent situation‐types. The thesis is that genre must be conceived in terms of rhetorical action rather than substance or form.}, number={2}, journal={QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH}, author={MILLER, CR}, year={1984}, pages={151–167} }
 @article{genre as social action_1984, year={1984} }
 @article{miller_1984, title={Technical Writing Textbooks: Current Alternatives in Teaching}, volume={31}, number={4th quarter}, journal={Technical Communication}, author={Miller, C.}, year={1984}, pages={35–38} }
 @misc{miller_1984, title={The Rhetorical Tradition and Modern Writing, ed. James J. Murphy (Modern Language Association, 1982)}, volume={70}, journal={Quarterly Journal of Speech}, publisher={Modern Language Association}, author={Miller, C.}, year={1984}, month={May}, pages={208–210} }
 @inproceedings{miller_1983, title={Fields of Argument and Special Topoi}, booktitle={Argument in Transition: Proceedings of the Third Summer Conference on Argumentation}, author={Miller, C.}, editor={Zarefsky, David and Sillars, Malcolm O. and Rhodes, JackEditors}, year={1983}, pages={147–158} }
 @book{anderson_brockmann_miller_1983, title={New essays in technical and scientific communication: Research, theory, practice -- (Baywood's technical communications series ; v. 2)}, ISBN={0895030365}, publisher={Farmingdale, NY: Baywood Publishing Co.}, author={Anderson, P. V. and Brockmann, R. J. and Miller, C. R.}, year={1983} }
 @inbook{fearing_miller_1983, place={Urbana, IL}, title={Resource Bibliography for Teachers of Business, Technical, and Vocational Writing}, booktitle={Teaching Business, Technical, and Scientific Writing in the Two-Year College}, publisher={National Council of Teachers of English}, author={Fearing, Bertie E. and Miller, C.}, year={1983}, pages={181–200} }
 @article{miller_1983, title={Technical Writing Textbooks: Current Alternatives in Teaching}, ISSN={0001-0898}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1632/ade.75.49}, DOI={10.1632/ade.75.49}, journal={ADE Bulletin}, publisher={Modern Language Association (MLA)}, author={Miller, Carolyn R.}, year={1983}, pages={49–52} }
 @misc{miller_1983, title={Telling It Like It Isn't: Language Misuse and Malpractice, by J. Dan Rothwell (Prentice-Hall, 1982)}, volume={69}, journal={Quarterly Journal of Speech}, author={Miller, C.}, year={1983}, month={Nov}, pages={463–464} }
 @misc{miller_1982, title={A Bibliography of Basic Texts in Technical and Scientific Writing, by Jone Rymer Goldstein and Robert B. Donovan (Society for Technical Communication, 1982)}, volume={3}, journal={Journal of Advanced Composition}, author={Miller, C.}, year={1982}, pages={206–209} }
 @article{public knowledge in science and society_1982, year={1982} }
 @article{miller_1982, title={Public Knowledge in Science and Society}, volume={3}, number={1}, journal={Pre/Text}, author={Miller, Carolyn R.}, year={1982}, pages={31–49} }
 @inbook{miller_1982, place={New York}, title={Rules, Context, and Technical Communication}, booktitle={A Guide for Writing Better Technical Papers}, publisher={IEEE Press}, author={Miller, C.}, editor={Harkins, Craig and Plung, Daniel L.Editors}, year={1982}, pages={80–84} }
 @inproceedings{miller_1981, title={Environmental Impact Statements and Some Modern Traditions of Communication}, booktitle={Proceedings of the 28th International Technical Communication Conference}, author={Miller, C.}, year={1981}, pages={67–69} }
 @article{miller_1980, title={Carolyn Miller Responds}, volume={41}, DOI={10.2307/376224}, number={7}, journal={College English}, publisher={JSTOR}, author={Miller, Carolyn}, year={1980}, month={Mar}, pages={825} }
 @misc{miller_1980, title={Effective Research and Report Writing in Government, by Judson Monroe (McGraw-Hill, 1980)}, volume={8}, journal={The Technical Writing Teacher}, author={Miller, C.}, year={1980}, pages={43–45} }
 @article{miller_1980, title={Rules, Context, and Technical Communication}, volume={10}, ISSN={0047-2816 1541-3780}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/b110-ck80-0dtg-e918}, DOI={10.2190/b110-ck80-0dtg-e918}, abstractNote={ The concept of “rule,” derived from linguistics and anthropology, provides a way of understanding the relationship between context, purpose, and message production and interpretation. “Rules” are shared expectations which structure situations and guide individual action. This paper reviews some of the concepts that have come out of rules theory in communication research and suggests their particular relevance and utility to understanding the problems and situations in technical communication. }, number={2}, journal={Journal of Technical Writing and Communication}, publisher={SAGE Publications}, author={Miller, Carolyn R.}, year={1980}, month={Apr}, pages={149–158} }
 @inproceedings{miller_1980, title={The Ethos of Science and the Ethos of Technology}, booktitle={Proceedings of the Technical Communication Sessions, 31st Conference on College Composition and Communication}, author={Miller, C.}, year={1980}, pages={184–191} }
 @article{miller_1980, title={Vocationalism and Vision in Writing Courses}, volume={32}, DOI={10.2307/27796820.}, number={3}, journal={Journal of General Education}, author={Miller, C. R.}, year={1980}, pages={239–246} }
 @inproceedings{miller_1980, title={Vocationalism and Vision in Writing Courses}, booktitle={Proceedings of the Inaugural Conference of the Maryland Junior Writing Program}, author={Miller, C.}, year={1980}, pages={97–103} }
 @article{miller_1979, title={HUMANISTIC RATIONALE FOR TECHNICAL WRITING}, volume={40}, ISSN={["2161-8178"]}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/375964}, DOI={10.2307/375964}, abstractNote={A question arose, during a committee discussion in our English department last year, whether students in our large technological university should be permitted to take a technical writing course to satisfy humanities requirements of their own schools and departments (1). There were two opinions among those in my department with whom I talked. Those who teach literature believed that students should not satisfy a humanities, or "English," requirement with a technical writing course. And our department should prevent them from doing so by instituting a literature prerequisite for the technical writing course. Those of us who teach technical writing responded differently. Mostly, we were baffled. Obviously we did not welcome what we considered an irrelevant prerequisite for our course, and we did not like the idea of our course being held hostage for the overstaffed literature courses. But were we willing to argue, indeed, could we argue that technical writing has humanistic value?}, number={6}, journal={COLLEGE ENGLISH}, author={MILLER, CR}, year={1979}, pages={610–617} }
 @inproceedings{miller_1978, title={Rules, Context, and Technical Communication}, booktitle={Proceedings of the 25th International Technical Communication Conference}, author={Miller, C.}, year={1978}, pages={60–64} }
 @article{miller_1978, title={TECHNOLOGY AS A FORM OF CONSCIOUSNESS - STUDY OF CONTEMPORARY ETHOS}, volume={29}, ISSN={["0008-9575"]}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10510977809367983}, DOI={10.1080/10510977809367983}, abstractNote={Technology as a cultural force lends itself to rhetorical investigation through the concept of ethos. Ethos, in discourse, is the expression of character, or consciousness, which in turn has been shaped by action. Examining the actions fundamental to technology reveals features of technological consciousness. Primitive, or low‐context, technology leads to ends‐means confusion, objectivism, and cause‐and‐effect reasoning. Advanced, or high‐context, technology has impressed on our character an ideology of efficiency, organizational procedure, closed‐system thinking, and optimism. These features of modern consciousness formulate an ethos of strict logic, expertise, and objectivity.}, number={4}, journal={CENTRAL STATES SPEECH JOURNAL}, author={MILLER, CR}, year={1978}, pages={228–236} }
 @inbook{miller_1977, place={Ann Arbor, MI}, title={A Bibliography of Resources for Beginning Teachers of Technical Writing}, booktitle={Technical and Professional Communication: Teaching in the Two-Year College, Four-Year College, Professional School}, publisher={Professional Communication Press}, author={Miller, C.}, editor={Sawyer, Thomas M.Editor}, year={1977}, pages={49–64} }
 @article{miller_bolch_1977, title={On Beyond Theory: Brochure Design and Production}, volume={7}, journal={CEA Forum}, author={Miller, C. and Bolch, J.}, year={1977}, month={Apr}, pages={12–13} }
 @article{miller_1976, title={Annual Bibliography of Technical Writing Materials}, volume={4}, journal={The Technical Writing Teacher}, author={Miller, C.}, editor={Cunningham, Donald H.Editor}, year={1976}, pages={32–43} }
 @article{miller_1976, title={Tech Writing as a Cross Cultural Field: A Personal Bibliography}, volume={3}, journal={The Technical Writing Teacher}, author={Miller, C.}, year={1976}, pages={84–91} }
 @article{miller_1975, title={Annual Bibliography of Technical Writing Materials}, volume={3}, journal={The Technical Writing Teacher}, author={Miller, C.}, editor={Cunningham, Donald H.Editor}, year={1975}, pages={29–41} }
 @article{pollard_ebert_miller_kolacz_barone_1965, title={Ionizing Radiation: Effect of Irradiated Medium on Synthetic Processes}, volume={147}, ISSN={0036-8075 1095-9203}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.147.3661.1045}, DOI={10.1126/science.147.3661.1045}, abstractNote={
            The incorporation of uracil-C
            14
            into macromolecules in
            Escherichia coli
            cells is decreased by doses of ionizing radiation when the cells are in very dilute suspension. The decrease results from an action of irradiated medium on the cells, and a similar reaction is observed during the incorporation of thymine (indication of DNA synthesis) and of proline and valine (indicative of protein synthesis). Irradiated medium reduces the formation of β-galactosidase but does not cause the degradation of DNA.
          }, number={3661}, journal={Science}, publisher={American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)}, author={Pollard, E. C. and Ebert, M. J. and Miller, C. and Kolacz, K. and Barone, T. F.}, year={1965}, month={Feb}, pages={1045–1047} }