Given that we are not specifically studying writing scientific research, how does this model relate to the philosophical underpinning of our course?

Question 1. As support for their claim that science is social, Penrose and Katz discuss the model for community knowledge that Thomas Kuhn presents in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Given that we are not specifically studying writing scientific research, how does this model relate to the philosophical underpinning of our course? (A good answer should contain a recounting of Kuhn’s model as well as the terminology we used in discussing elements of the rhetorical situation.)

Question 2. The central concept through which we have been critiquing documents (or at least associating them for observation) is the idea of genre. We have used the term genre loosely to group documents that seem be situated similarly in terms of purpose and audience and in the context of the community in which the author (identity is the word we used) and audience are set. The Swales reading from early in the semester is quite deliberate in describing the properties of genre, however, and Swales would exclude a number of the documents we have looked at on the basis that the documents are not sufficiently intracommunal. Considering Swales’s definitions of genre and discourse community, how does our usage of these terms correspond to his? (To answer this question, you may want to begin by distilling Swales’s requirements for genre and discourse community and then proceed to discuss why each point he makes to discussions, resources, and activities from our weekly classes.)