@article{carter_2023, title={Identifying Specific Arguments in Discussion Sections of Science Research Articles: Making the Case for New Knowledge}, volume={42}, ISSN={["1532-7981"]}, DOI={10.1080/07350198.2023.2269010}, abstractNote={Abstract Discussion sections of research articles are important because they are where researchers make claims for advancing knowledge in their fields. There has been a growing interest in research articles focused on Discussions. However, only a few studies have centered on the role of arguments. What is missing in this literature is the potential for rhetoricians to identify specific, sentence-level arguments. The idea is that to analyze persuasion in Discussions, rhetoricians should be able to identify arguments contributing to persuasion. Toward that aim, I refer to Aristotle’s Rhetoric as a catalyst for specific arguments and examples from thirty science research articles.}, number={4}, journal={RHETORIC REVIEW}, author={Carter, Michael}, year={2023}, month={Oct}, pages={304–318} }
 @article{carter_2021, title={The Construction of Value in Science Research Articles: A Quantitative Study of Topoi Used in Introductions}, volume={38}, ISSN={["1552-8472"]}, DOI={10.1177/0741088320983364}, abstractNote={ Scholars in the field of writing and rhetorical studies have long been interested in professional writing and the ways in which experts frame their research for disciplinary audiences. Three decades ago, rhetoricians incorporated stasis theory into their work as a way to explore the nature of argument and persuasion in scientific discourse. However, what is missing in these general arguments based on stasis are the particular arguments in science texts aimed at persuasion. Specifically, this article analyzes arguments from the stasis of value in introductions of science research articles. This work is grounded in the Classical topoi, or topics, cataloging types of arguments and identifying seven topoi. I analyzed 60 introductions from articles in three different science journals, totaling the number of value arguments and arguments comprising the topoi. Findings yielded different proportions in types of arguments, sharp disparities among the journals, and widespread use of value arguments. The broader issue at work in this article is how scientists make a case for the importance of their research and how these findings might inform writing and argumentation in the sciences. }, number={2}, journal={WRITTEN COMMUNICATION}, author={Carter, Michael}, year={2021}, month={Apr}, pages={311–346} }
 @article{carter_2016, title={Value Arguments in Science Research Articles: Making the Case for the Importance of Research}, volume={33}, ISSN={["1552-8472"]}, DOI={10.1177/0741088316653394}, abstractNote={ It is in the interest of scholarly journals to publish important research and of researchers to publish in important journals. One key to making the case for the importance of research in a scholarly article is to incorporate value arguments. Yet there has been no rhetorical analysis of value arguments in the literature. In the context of rhetorical situation, stasis theory, and Swales’s linguistic analysis of moves in introductions, this article examines value arguments in introductions of science research articles. Employing a corpus of 60 articles from three science journals, the author analyzes value arguments based on Toulmin’s definition of argument and identifies three classes of value arguments and seven functions of these arguments in introductions. This analysis illuminates the rhetorical construction of value in science articles and provides a foundation for the empirical study of value in scholarship. }, number={3}, journal={WRITTEN COMMUNICATION}, author={Carter, Michael}, year={2016}, month={Jul}, pages={302–327} }
 @inproceedings{carter_vouk_gannod_burge_anderson_hoffman_2011, title={Communication genres: Integrating communication into the software engineering curriculum}, DOI={10.1109/cseet.2011.5876091}, abstractNote={One way to improve the communication abilities of new software engineering graduates in the workplace is to integrate communication more effectively in the software engineering curriculum. But faculty typically conceive of communication as outside their realm of expertise. Based on the results of an NSF-funded project, we use theories of situated learning and genre to make the case that communication is integral to software engineering and that faculty are in the best position to guide students in becoming better communicators in the field. We identify software engineering genres and show how those genres may be used to integrate communication in the classroom and throughout the curriculum.}, booktitle={2011 24th IEEE-CS Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEET)}, author={Carter, M. and Vouk, M. and Gannod, G. C. and Burge, J. E. and Anderson, P. V. and Hoffman, M. E.}, year={2011}, pages={21–30} }
 @article{carter_2007, title={Ways of knowing, doing, and writing in the disciplines}, volume={58}, number={3}, journal={College Composition and Communication}, author={Carter, M.}, year={2007}, pages={385–418} }
 @article{carter_ferzli_wiebe_2007, title={Writing to Learn by Learning to Write in the Disciplines}, volume={21}, ISSN={1050-6519 1552-4574}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1050651907300466}, DOI={10.1177/1050651907300466}, abstractNote={The traditional distinction between writing across the curriculum and writing in the disciplines (WID) as writing to learn versus learning to write understates WID's focus on learning in the disciplines. Advocates of WID have described learning as socialization, but little research addresses how writing disciplinary discourses in disciplinary settings encourages socialization into the disciplines. Data from interviews with students who wrote lab reports in a biology lab suggest five ways in which writing promotes learning in scientific disciplines. Drawing on theories of situated learning, the authors argue that apprenticeship genres can encourage socialization into disciplinary communities.}, number={3}, journal={Journal of Business and Technical Communication}, publisher={SAGE Publications}, author={Carter, Michael and Ferzli, Miriam and Wiebe, Eric N.}, year={2007}, month={Jul}, pages={278–302} }
 @article{ferzli_carter_wiebe_2005, title={LabWrite: Transforming lab reports from busywork to meaningful learning opportunities}, volume={35}, journal={Journal of College Science Teaching}, author={Ferzli, M. and Carter, M. and Wiebe, E.}, year={2005}, pages={31–33} }
 @article{carter_ferzli_wiebe_2004, title={Teaching genre to English first-language adults: A study of the laboratory report}, volume={38}, number={4}, journal={Research in the Teaching of English}, author={Carter, M. and Ferzli, M. and Wiebe, E.}, year={2004} }
 @article{carter_2003, title={A Process for Establishing Outcomes-Based Assessment Plans for Writing and Speaking in the Disciplines}, volume={6}, number={1}, journal={Language and Learning Across the Disciplines}, author={Carter, M.}, year={2003}, pages={4–29} }
 @inbook{miller_carter_gallagher_2003, 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} }
 @article{anson_carter_dannels_rust_2003, title={Mutual support: CAC programs and institutional improvement in undergraduate education}, volume={6}, journal={Language and Learning Across the Disciplines}, author={Anson, C. M. and Carter, M. and Dannels, D. and Rust, J.}, year={2003}, pages={25–37} }
 @book{carter_2003, title={Where writing begins: A postmodern reconstruction}, ISBN={0809325209}, publisher={Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press}, author={Carter, M.}, year={2003} }
 @inproceedings{wiebe_hare_carter_fahmy_russell_ferzli_2001, title={Supporting lab report writing in an introductory materials engineering lab}, booktitle={2001 ASEE annual conference & exposition: Proceedings ; June 24-27, 2001, Albuquerque Convention Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico}, publisher={Washington, DC: ASEE}, author={Wiebe, E. N. and Hare, T. M. and Carter, M. and Fahmy, Y. and Russell, R. and Ferzli, M.}, year={2001} }
 @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} }