The Production of Information for Genred Activity Spaces: Informational Motives and Consequences of the Environmental Impact Statement

Written Communication

Volumn 20, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 455-477

  Bazerman, Charles ^a   Little, Joseph ^a   Chavkin, Teri ^b  

^a University of California ^*

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

chronotope; environmental impact statement; environmentalism; genre; information; National Environmental Policy Act

Indexed keywords

EID: 85001197303     PISSN: 07410883     EISSN: 15528472     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0741088303260375     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Anderson, R. (1973). NEPAin the courts: Alegal analysis of the National Environmental Policy Act. Baltimore: Resources for the Future.
2. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination.Austin: University of Texas Press.
3. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
4. Bazerman, C. (1994). Systems of genre and the enactment of social intentions. In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Rethinking genre(pp. 79-101). London: Taylor & Francis.
5. Bazerman, C. (1997). Discursively structured activities. Mind, Culture and Activity, 4(4), 296-308.
6. Bazerman, C. (2000a). Letters and the social grounding of differentiated genres. In D. Barton & N. Hall (Eds.), Letter writing as a social practice(pp. 15-30). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
7. Bazerman, C. (2000b). Singular utterances: Realizing local activities through typified forms in typified circumstances. In A. Trosberg (Ed.), Analysing the discourses of professional genres(pp. 25-40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
8. Bazerman, C. (2001). Nuclear information: One rhetorical moment in the construction of the information age. Written Communication, 18(3), 259-295.
9. Bazerman, C. (in press). Textual performance: Where the action at a distance is. Journal of Advanced Composition.
10. Bazerman, C., & De los Santos, R. A. (in press). Measuring incommensurability: Are toxicology and ecotoxicology blind to what the other sees. In R. Harris (Ed.), Rhetoric and incommensurability.Albany: State University of New York Press.
11. Bazerman, C., & Russell, D. (Eds.). (2003). Writing selves/writing societies: Research from activity perspectives. Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse and Mind, Culture, and Activity.
12. Boggess, W., & Wixson, B. G. (Eds.). (1979). Lead in the environment. New York: John Wiley.
13. Boudou, A., & Ribeyre, F. (Eds.). (1990). Aquatic ecotoxicology: Fundamental concepts and methodologies. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.
14. Byrne, J. (1996). The return of reasonableness to NEPAreview. Environmenal Law, 26(4), 1287-1312.
15. Caldwell, L. K. (1998). The National Environmental Policy Act: An agenda for the future. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
16. Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
17. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18. Cothern, C. R., & Ross, N. P. (1994). Environmental statistics, assessment, and forecasting. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis.
19. Council on Environmental Quality. (1997a). The National Environmental Policy Act: A study of its effectiveness after twenty-five years.Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President.
20. Council on Environmental Quality. (1997b). Considering cumulative effects under the National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President.
21. Dajoz, R. (1977). Introduction to ecology. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
22. Ginger, C. (2000). Discourse and argument in Bureau of Land Management Wilderness environmental impact statements. Policy Studies Journal, 28, 292-312.
23. Günther, O. (1998.). Environmental information systems. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
24. Hoffman, A. J. (1997). From heresy to dogma: An institutional history of corporate environmentalism. San Francisco: New Lexington Press.
25. Institute for Scientific Information. (2002). Web of Science. Retrieved January 16, 2002, from http://isi3.newisiknowledge.com/portal.cgi/wos. Philadelphia: Institute for Scientific Information.
26. Jorgensen, S. E. (1975). About “ecological modelling.” Ecological Modelling, 1, 1-2.
27. Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs. (1974) Environmental impact statements: Effects on program implementation; a report by the environmental impact statements policy research project.Austin: University of Texas at Austin.
28. Miller, C. R. (1980). Environmental impact statements and rhetorical genres: An application of rhetorical theory to technical communication. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institution, Troy, New York.
29. Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151-167.
30. National Academy of Sciences. (1967). Applied sciences and technological progress.Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
31. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Pub. L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347 (January 1, 1970).
32. National Forum on Science and Technology Goals. (1996). Linking science and technology to society's environmental goals. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
33. National Park Service. (2000). Cane River Creole National Historical Park, draft general management plan, environmental impact statement, Louisiana. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.
34. National Park Service. (2001). Cane River Creole National Historical Park, final general management plan, environmental impact statement, Louisiana. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.
35. Newman, M. C.,& McIntosh, A. W. (Eds.). (1992). Metal ecotoxicology: Concepts and applications. Chelsea, MI: Lewis.
36. Nriagu, J. O. (Ed.). (1979). Copper in the environment. New York: John Wiley.
37. Nriagu, J. O. (Ed.). (1980). Cadmium in the environment. New York: John Wiley.
38. Palmer, K., Oates, W., & Portney, P. (1995). Tightening environmental standards: The benefit-cost or the no-cost paradigm? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 119-132.
39. Petts, J. (Ed.). (1999). Handbook of environmental impact assessment(Vol. 2). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
40. Russell, D. (1997a). Writing and genre in higher education and workplaces. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 4(4), 224-237.
41. Russell, D. (1997b). Rethinking genre in school & society: An activity theory analysis. Written Communication, 14, 504-554.
42. Schutz, A., & Luckmann, T. (1973). The structures of the life-world.Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
43. Scribner, S.,& Cole, M. (1981). The psychology of literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44. Shakespeare, W. Twelfth night. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45. Smythe, R. B. (1997). The historical roots of NEPA. In R. Clark. & L. Canter (Eds.), Environmental policy and NEPA(pp. 3-14). Boca Raton, FL: St. Lucie Press.
46. Student Conservation Association. (1997). The guide to graduate environmental programs.Washington, DC: Island Press.
47. Twiss, R. H. (1974). Linking the EIS to the planning process. In T. G. Dickert & K. R. Domeny (Eds.), Environmental impact assessment: Guidelines and commentary(pp. 5-16). Berkeley: University of California Extension.
48. U.S. House Committee on Science and Astronautics. (1967a). Presentation of report byspecial panel on applied science and technological progress of the National Academy of Sciences. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
49. U.S. House Committee on Science and Astronautics. (1967b). Technology assessment seminar. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
50. U.S. House Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development. (1968). Managing the environment. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
51. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language(A. Kozulin, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1984)
52. Waddell, C. (Ed.). (2000). And no birds sing: Rhetorical analyses of Rachel Carson'sSilent Spring. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
53. Wang, Z. (1997). Responding to Silent Spring. Science Communication, 19(2), 141-163.