| This dissertation investigates heuristic arguments and gender factors in two collaborative groups of chemical engineering students writing plant design reports. The data are based on an eight-month ethnographic case study. Theoretical perspectives are drawn from discourse analysis and rhetoric. A four dimensional model is developed for the analysis of discourse, including the sociocontextual, linguistic, referential, and interlocutive dimensions.; Two modes of heuristic argument, ethos-based and discipline-driven, were identified in the groups studied. Ethos-based argument emphasized agency and decision-making authority, tended to be dyadic, involved undermining opponents' positions, and moved toward early closure and agreement.; Discipline-driven heuristic emphasized collaboration, exploration rather than undermining of opposing positions, and delayed closure of argument. It was democratic and required a high level of trust because sustained argument contradicts conversational preference for agreement.; The only woman in Group 1 played traditional, facilitative roles in relation to the four men in the group. She was unsuccessful in getting recognition for her research and decision-making skills. Arguments between two men who dominated the group had features of male ritual competition which excluded other speakers.; In Group 2, one man acted as mediator between two women who had ongoing personal differences. His mediation helped prevent open confrontations between the women, an arrangement consistent with cultural proscription of conflictive arguments involving women.; The four dimensional model of discourse was an effective framework for understanding the multiple functions of argument in the two groups. Although the sociocontextual, linguistic, referential, and interlocutive dimensions are interwoven, analysis in each dimension reveals complex relationships of interests, linguistic structure, meanings, and roles involved in group discourse.; A dialogic notion of heuristic is proposed in which no particular place on the continuum between ethos-based and discipline-driven is inherently preferable. Engineering students could benefit from an understanding of the rhetorical nature of the inquiry process and should be encouraged to address questions concerning engineers' agency and authority as well as validity and meaning of data in the design task. |
