Public Communication of Science in Blogs: Recontextualizing Scientific Discourse for a Diversified Audience

Written Communication

Volumn 30, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 428-457

  Luzón, María José ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZARAGOZA   (Spain)

Author keywords

new media; popularization; recontextualization; rhetoric of science; rhetorical strategies; science blogging

Indexed keywords

EID: 84884158853     PISSN: 07410883     EISSN: 15528472     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0741088313493610     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Batts S.,Anthis N. J.,Smith T.Advancing science through conversations: Bridging the gap between blogs and the academy.PLoS Biology. 2008;6 (9): e240.
2. Blanchard A.Common knowledge: The challenge of transdisciplinarity. Cockell M.Billotte J.Darbellay F.Waldvogel F., ed. Lausanne, Switzerland: EPFL Press; 2011:219-232.
3. Brett P.A genre analysis of the results sections of sociology articles.English for Specific Purposes. 1994;13:47-59.
4. Bucchi M.Handbook of public communication of science and technology. Bucchi M.Trench B., ed. London, UK: Routledge; 2008:57-76.
5. Calsamiglia H.,Van Dijk T. A.Popularization discourse and knowledge about the genome.Discourse & Society. 2004;15 (4): 369-389.
6. ClancyK. (2011). Networking, scholarship and service: The place of science blogging in academia. Retrieved from http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/context-and-variation/2011/12/14/science-blogging-in-academia/#comment-276.
7. Cloître M.,Shinn T.Expository science: Forms and functions of popularisation. Cloitre M.Shinn T., ed. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel; 1985:31-60.
8. Davies J.,Merchant G.A new literacies sampler. Lankshear C.Knobel M., ed. New York, NY: Peter Lang; 2007:167-198.
9. Dobrin D.New essays in technical and scientific communication. Anderson P. V.Brockmann R. J.Miller C. R., ed. Farmingdale, NY: Baywood; 1983:227-250.
10. Fahnestock J.Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts.Written Communication. 1998;15:330-350.
11. Fahnestock J.Preserving the figure: Consistency in the presentation of scientific arguments.Written Communication. 2004;21:6-31.
12. Giannoni D. S.Popularizing features in English journal editorials.English for Specific Purposes. 2008;27 (2): 212-232.
13. Gibson J. J.Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology. Shaw R.Bransford J., ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1979:67-82.
14. Gilbert G. N.,Mulkay M.Opening Pandora's box: A sociological analysis of scientists discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1984:.
15. Gramling C.Science bloggers question their role.Geotimes. 2008;53 (6): 47.
16. Hewings M.An "important contribution" or "tiresome reading"? A study of evaluation in peer reviews of journal article submissions.Journal of Applied Linguistics. 2004;1:247-274.
17. Hilgartner S.The dominant view of popularization: Conceptual problems, political uses.Social Studies of Science. 1990;20 (3): 519-539.
18. Hunston S.Register analysis: Theory and practice. Ghadessy M., ed. London, UK: Pinter; 1993:57-73.
19. Hyland K.What do they mean? Questions in academic writing.Text. 2002;22 (4): 529-557.
20. Hyland K.Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science.English for Academic Purposes. 2010;9:116-127.
21. Kalleberg R.Universities: Complex bundle institutions and the projects of enlightenment.Comparative Social Research. 2000;19:219-255.
22. Kyvik S.Popular science publishing and contributions to public discourse among university faculty.Science Communication. 2005;26:288-311.
23. Luzón M. J.Interesting post, but I disagree: Social presence and antisocial behaviour in academic weblogs.Applied Linguistics. 2011;32 (5): 517-540.
24. Mortensen T.,Walker J.Researching ICTs in context. Morrison A., ed. Oslo, Norway: InterMedia Report; 2002:249-279.
25. Myers G.Discourse studies of scientific popularization: Questioning the boundaries.Discourse Studies. 2003;5 (2): 265-279.
26. Myers G.The discourse of blogs and wikis. London, UK: Continuum; 2010:.
27. Nwogu K.Structure of science popularizations: A genre analysis approach to the schema of popularized medical texts.English for Specific Purposes. 1991;10:111-123.
28. Nwogu K.The medical research papers: Structure and functions.English for Specific Purposes. 1997;16 (2): 119-138.
29. Paul D.Spreading chaos: The role of popularizations in the diffusion of scientific ideas.Written Communication. 2004;21 (1): 32-68.
30. QianH.ScottC. (2007). Anonymity and self-disclosure on weblogs. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), article 14. Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/qian.html.
31. Salager-Meyer F.From self-highlightedness to self-effacement: A genre based study of the socio-pragmatic function of criticism in medical discourse.LSP and Professional Communication. 2001;1 (2): 63-84.
32. Swales J.Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1990:.
33. Trench B.Handbook of public communication of science and technology. Bucchi M.Trench B., ed. London, UK: Routledge; 2008:185-198.
34. Varghese S. A.,Abraham S. A.Book-length scholarly essays as a hybrid genre in science.Written Communication. 2004;21 (4): 201-231.
35. Whitley R.Expository science: Forms and functions of popularisation. Shinn T.Whitley R., ed. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel; 1985:3-28.
36. Yang R.,Allison D.Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions.English for Specific Purposes. 2003;22:365-385.