blogs luzon

5/27/2018 Blogs Luzon

1/32

http://wcx.sagepub.com/

CommunicationWritten

http://wcx.sagepub.com/content/30/4/428Theonline version of this article can be foundat:

DOI: 10.1177/0741088313493610

2013 30: 428 originally published online 19 June 2013Written CommunicationMara Jos Luzn

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

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism

can be found at:Written CommunicationAdditional services and information for

http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://wcx.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://wcx.sagepub.com/content/30/4/428.refs.htmlCitations:

at Universite de Paris 1 on March 12, 2014wcx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Universite de Paris 1 on March 12, 2014wcx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://wcx.sagepub.com/http://wcx.sagepub.com/http://wcx.sagepub.com/content/30/4/428http://wcx.sagepub.com/content/30/4/428http://wcx.sagepub.com/content/30/4/428http://www.sagepublications.com/http://wcx.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://annenberg.usc.edu/http://wcx.sagepub.com/content/30/4/428.refs.htmlhttp://wcx.sagepub.com/content/30/4/428.refs.htmlhttp://wcx.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://wcx.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://wcx.sagepub.com/content/30/4/428.refs.htmlhttp://wcx.sagepub.com/http://wcx.sagepub.com/content/30/4/428.refs.htmlhttp://wcx.sagepub.com/content/30/4/428.refs.htmlhttp://wcx.sagepub.com/http://wcx.sagepub.com/http://wcx.sagepub.com/http://wcx.sagepub.com/http://wcx.sagepub.com/http://wcx.sagepub.com/http://wcx.sagepub.com/http://wcx.sagepub.com/http://wcx.sagepub.com/content/30/4/428.refs.htmlhttp://wcx.sagepub.com/content/30/4/428.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://wcx.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://wcx.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://annenberg.usc.edu/http://annenberg.usc.edu/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://wcx.sagepub.com/content/30/4/428http://wcx.sagepub.com/


2/32

What is This?

- Jun 19, 2013OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Sep 13, 2013Version of Record>>

at Universite de Paris 1 on March 12, 2014wcx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Universite de Paris 1 on March 12, 2014wcx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://wcx.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/06/19/0741088313493610.full.pdfhttp://wcx.sagepub.com/content/30/4/428.full.pdfhttp://wcx.sagepub.com/http://wcx.sagepub.com/http://wcx.sagepub.com/http://wcx.sagepub.com/http://wcx.sagepub.com/http://wcx.sagepub.com/http://wcx.sagepub.com/http://wcx.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://wcx.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/06/19/0741088313493610.full.pdfhttp://wcx.sagepub.com/content/30/4/428.full.pdf


3/32

Written Communication

30(4) 428457

2013 SAGE Publications

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0741088313493610

wcx.sagepub.com

Article

Public Communicationof Science in Blogs:

RecontextualizingScientific Discourse for aDiversified Audience

Mara Jos Luzn1

Abstract

New media are having a significant impact on science communication, both onthe way scientists communicate with peers and on the dissemination of scienceto the lay public. Science blogs, in particular, provide an open space for sciencecommunication, where a diverse audience (with different degrees of expertise)

may have access to science information intended both for nonspecialist readersand for experts. The purpose of this article is to analyze the strategies used bybloggers to communicate and recontextualize scientific discourse in the realmof science blogs. These strategies involve adjusting information to the readersknowledge and information needs, deploying linguistic features typical ofpersonal, informal, and dialogic interaction to create intimacy and proximity,engaging in critical analysis of the recontextualized research and focusing onits relevance, and using explicit and personal expressions of evaluation. The

article shows that, given the diverse audience of science posts, bloggers displaya blending of discursive practices from different discourses and harness theaffordances of new media to achieve their rhetorical purposes.

Keywords

new media, science blogging, popularization, rhetoric of science, rhetoricalstrategies, recontextualization

1University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain

Corresponding Author:

Mara Jos Luzn, University of Zaragoza, Departamento de Filologa Inglesa y Alemana,

C/Pedro Cerbuna 12, Zaragoza, 50009, Spain.

Email: [email protected]

WCX30410.1177/0741088313493610Written CommunicationLuznresearch-article2013

at Universite de Paris 1 on March 12, 2014wcx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://wcx.sagepub.com/http://wcx.sagepub.com/http://wcx.sagepub.com/http://wcx.sagepub.com/http://wcx.sagepub.com/


4/32

Luzn 429

New media are having a transformative impact on the public communication

of science beyond disciplinary communities, blurring the boundaries between

the public and the professional spheres of communication (Trench, 2008).

This blending of information for public and specialized audiences in the samespace provides support for the claim that there is a diffuse border between

different discourses of science. Researchers on public communication of sci-

ence (e.g., Bucchi, 2008; Fahnestock, 2004; Myers, 2003) reject the view of

popularization as a translation of specialized discourse so that it can be

understood by a nonspecialist audience, who does not participate in decisions

concerning scientific issues. They claim that there is not a clear boundary

between specialist and popularized discourses, and that they interact in the

process of knowledge construction (Myers, 2003). Popularization is not amatter of simplification or translation, but of recontextualization of scien-

tific discourse into another domain (Calsamiglia & Van Dijk, 2004).

The indissociability between science communication for peers and for

nonspecialists has become especially noticeable in online genres used for sci-

ence communication, and particularly in science blogs. Blogs are being used

by researchers as platforms to share and discuss information and ideas on

disciplinary issues both with peers and with the interested public. Given the

increasingly important role of new media as a channel for the public com-munication of science, we need to understand how scientific knowledge is

disseminated, mediated, and constructed in these media, that is, how scien-

tific discourse is recontextualized in online media. Recontextualizing scien-

tific discourse in science blogs means harnessing the affordances of the

medium to rewrite specialized knowledge in such a way that the complex

audience of these blogs can interpret and integrate it into their existing knowl-

edge and feel involved enough to make informed decisions on a wide range

of issues regarding science, their personal life, or civic matters.1

The purpose of this article is to analyze the discursive strategies used by

bloggers to communicate and recontextualize scientific discourse in the

realm of science blogs and to engage the diverse audience of these blogs with

scientific issues. Since this study focuses on science blogs as a tool to com-

municate and recontextualize science, I consider only posts that are explicitly

intended for this purpose: posts used to link to published research related to a

disciplinary area and comment on it. I use the term research-commenting

posts to refer to these posts.

Science Blogging: Purpose and Audience

Blogs are both spaces that promote the personal and the representation of the

self (Myers, 2010) and social media, which include different communication

http://wcx.sagepub.com/http://wcx.sagepub.com/http://wcx.sagepub.com/http://wcx.sagepub.com/


5/32

430 Written Communication 30(4)

features to enable interaction with the audience. Their distinctive technologi-

cal affordances (i.e., information archiving, opportunities for readers to com-

ment, linking) make science blogs different from other channels for science

communication. They can be used as open dynamic spaces for the sharingand discussion of knowledge, where both experts and interested public can

participate. Unlike in other types of science communication, on science

blogs, people actively engage with the issues at hand, ask questions, express

disapproval, while the blogger does not merely pontificate but is confronted

with real-life (Blanchard, 2011). They are spaces where the public can con-

tribute to the collective construction of knowledge by discussing, supporting,

or challenging claims.

Science blogging involves writing about scientific topics, but it is a het-erogeneous form of communication, with a variety of producers (e.g.,

researchers, professors, even scientific journalists), types of content, pur-

poses, and audiences. Science communication in blogs takes many forms, for

example, comments on daily news related to science, discussion of disciplin-

ary issues and new scientific findings, comments on recently published

papers by other researchers, pedagogical posts. This wide range of forms is

related to the variety of purposes for which bloggers write about science (e.g.,

Blanchard, 2011; Davies & Merchant 2007; Mortensen & Walker 2002).Blogs provide a space to record ones reflections, ideas, and thoughts for

future research and bookmark useful or interesting publications in the

bloggers discipline. They are also a networking tool: They allow scholars to

share their ideas with a broad audience, which may provide feedback. They

serve to disseminate information and valuable research, both among peers

and the interested public, and to peer review recently published research.

Finally, science blogging is often intended to influence others in different

ways, for example, to bring the others to the bloggers point of view in a

disciplinary issue, but also in political, ethical, or ideological controversial

issues. Posting ones commentary or analysis of a published article in a blog

has many advantages over sending a letter to the editor of a journal: It is

quicker, publication is ensured, it reaches a wider audience, and it enables

timely and immediate discussion with anybody interested in the topic, thus

facilitating public involvement in science discussions.

Science blogs are not intended to be read only by specialists in a discipline

but are used to get to and connect with multiple publics with shared interests

in complex ways and to create a sense of community that transcends institu-tional and disciplinary boundaries (Blanchard, 2011). As Blanchard (2011)

puts it, Rather than top-down communication which effectively creates a

boundary between the expert and the non-expert, blogs offer a blend of

voices and views on topics (p. 225). Blogs may be used for informal



6/32

Luzn 431

communication with researchers in a discipline, with whom the blogger

shares background knowledge, but they also make it possible to communi-

cate with nonexperts, presenting research in an accessible format, not con-

strained by the conventions and norms of well-established academic genres,and thus provide a unique educational bridge between academia and the

public (Batts, Anthis, & Smith, 2008). The public audience for science blog-

gers is a stratified and heterogeneous one, including the interested public,

members of the public with some training in science, and scientists both

inside and outside the particular research area. Different members of the

blogs audience have different science information needs (Kyvik, 2005, p.

290), and the features of the medium may enable bloggers to address the

needs of this diversified audience. Science blogging can help to accommo-date science to the audiences daily lives in the same way that technical writ-

ing accommodates technology to users (Dobrin, 1983, p. 242).

Some bloggers even make an explicit reference to their intention to reach

this public audience. The blog RealClimate is presented as a commentary site

on climate science for the interested public and journalists. Schmidt, a blog-

ger at RealClimate, considers that blogs are a way for scientists to talk to the

public directly, informally, and in depth about controversial topics (Gramling,

2008). Clancy (2011) states that some of her posts are a new form of schol-arly writing (postpublication peer review), while others are intended to men-

tor junior colleagues and still others are addressed at a more general audience.

The blogger at Inspiring Science also makes the following interesting

reflection:

Communicating with the public is simply not part of the standard scientific

education, which creates a gap between research scientists and the rest of society.

This blog is my way of trying to help fill that gap. A better understanding of

science is important for everyone. Since most scientific research is publiclyfunded, scientists need the public to understand the value of their work. . . . For

non-scientists, a better understanding of science can help make more informed

and effective choices[italics added] on both a personal and a social level.

These words show that one of the motivations for science blogging, although

admittedly not the only one, is the bloggers wish to become civic scien-

tists, that is, scientist(s) who communicate with general audiences and

bring knowledge and expertise into the public arena to increase awarenessabout science and/or facilitate discussion and decision making on issues of

importance to society (Kyvik, 2005, p. 289). Kyvik (2005) draws on

Kalleberg (2000) to describe two roles of the civic scientist: (a) the expert,

who makes scientific research understandable to lay persons and academics



7/32


outside the discipline; and (b) the public intellectual, who discusses new sci-

entific research publicly in order to influence political, economic, social or

cultural issues (Kyvik, 2005, p. 290). Science bloggers sometimes make

reference to their wish to situate scientific knowledge in civic life and to theirresponsibility as public intellectuals. For instance, in a post in Respectful

Insolence the blogger attacks the claims in a vaccine paper that is being pub-

licized at several antivaccine websites and concludes the post by saying, I

guess we can look forward to a lot more bad science. Oh, well. I guess it will

guarantee that Ill have blogging material for years to come. Unfortunately.

Communicating Science to Different Audiences

Scientific discourse is not a unitary phenomenon but a terrain of competing

discourses and practices (Myers, 2003, p. 267), involving a wide range of

genres, from research papers to science news, through which scientific

knowledge is constructed and communicated to a plurality of different pub-

lics. As Myers (2003) points out, the success of a scientific claim involves its

presentation and discussion in different genres, such as research papers or

conference presentations, but it also often involves the claim being cited,

included in textbooks or reported in the media. Therefore, sociologists andrhetoricians of science (e.g., Bucchi, 2008; Myers, 2003; Paul, 2004; Whitley,

1985) reject the traditional or diffusionist view of science popularization,

according to which there are two clearly defined communities: scientists and

the general public. In this perspective, the public is viewed as passive and

ignorant, not contributing to decisions affecting the progress of science, sci-

ence communication as a linear, one-way process in which discourse for

specialists and discourse for the lay audience can be sharply separated, and

popularization as a translation or simplified version of the research paper

(Bucchi, 2008, p. 58). One of the main criticisms leveled against this view is

the boundary between expert and lay participants and the linearity of the dif-

fusion of knowledge. First, the readers of scientific popularization vary a

great deal in their level of scientific knowledge and their understanding of

science has an influence on scientific research (Bucchi, 2008; Myers, 2003;

Whitley, 1985). Many members of the public are quite literate on areas of

specialist knowledge in which they are interested for diverse reasons (e.g.,

personal, professional, ethical, ideological). They have their own persuasive

devices, based on their values, lived experiences, and local knowledge, todiscuss and challenge scientific claims (Myers, 2003), and their opinion can

affect policy decisions and therefore influence scientific development. In

addition, the scientific community is also heterogeneous, consisting of many

different disciplinary communities, varying in epistemological assumptions



8/32

Luzn 433

and methodological approaches. Since scientific research has become highly

specialized, scientists need to resort to interdisciplinary popularization, to

make their work accessible to scientists working in different areas or disci-

plines. This type of popularization is essential to collaborate with researchersin other fields and to obtain resources from groups of scientists responsible

for the allocation of research funds (Whitley, 1985).

Current research on public communication of science accepts the conti-

nuity model of scientific communication proposed by Clotre and Shinn

(1985) and Hilgartner (1990). Clotre and Shinn distinguish four main stages

in the process of scientific communication: intraspecialist level (e.g., papers

published in specialized scientific journals); interspecialist level, which

involves interdisciplinary popularization (e.g., papers published in journalslikeNatureor Science); pedagogic level (e.g., textbooks); and popular level,

or popularization addressed at the general public, mainly done via mass

media (e.g., science news in the daily press). In this model popularization is

regarded not as a translation or simplification of scientific discourse, but as a

discursive recontextualization for a less specialist audience, including scien-

tists in other (sub)disciplines. Calsamiglia and Van Dijk (2004, p. 371) define

popularization as a social process involving different genres of communica-

tive events in different media, intended to disseminate scientific knowledge,but also opinions and ideologies of scholars, to the public at large. They point

out that popularization involves not only a reformulation, but in particular

also a recontextualizationof scientific knowledge and discourse that is origi-

nally produced in specialized contexts. Similarly, Hyland (2010) points out

that popular science does not just report scientific facts to a less specialist

audience but represents phenomena in different ways to achieve different

purposes (p. 19): While researchers write papers to persuade specialists of

the validity of their knowledge claims, this validity is taken for granted in

popular science, where the focus is on the relevance and value of this new

knowledge for the audience. Likewise, the way science is re-presented in sci-

ence blog entries will also be determined by the purposes that bloggers intend

to achieve.

Rhetoricians of science have analyzed the discursive and rhetorical fea-

tures used to recontextualize scientific knowledge in different popularizing

genres (Calsamiglia & Van Dijk, 2004; Fahnestock, 1998, 2004; Hyland,

2010; Myers, 2003). Rather than focusing on popularizations, Hyland (2010)

compared how writers of research papers and popular science articles (re)contextualize science. He used the term proximity to refer to a writers

strategic use of rhetorical features, which involve responding to the context

of the text, particularly the readers who form part of that context. Proximity

is concerned with how writers represent not only themselves and their



9/32


readers, but also their material, in ways which are most likely to meet their

readers expectations and enables us to explain how writers take their read-

ers likely objections, background knowledge, rhetorical expectations and

reading purposes into account (Hyland, 2010, p. 117). Drawing on previousresearch on scientific discourse and on the analysis of his corpus, Hyland

(2010) discusses five ways through which proximity is negotiated: (a) orga-

nization: adapting the rhetorical pattern to the audiences expectations and

needs; (b) argument structure: shaping material for the audience through dif-

ferent types of appeals (e.g., novelty, newsworthiness) and focusing (center-

ing on the object of the study or on the disciplinary procedures), and framing

or tailoring information to the assumed knowledge base of potential read-

ers (e.g., jargon in research paper vs. definitions and clarifications in popu-larizations); (c) credibility (e.g., showing expertise and knowledge of

disciplinary methods in research papers vs. direct quotes from scientists in

popularizations); (d) stance: using language to adopt positions and express

attitude (e.g., hedges vs. attitude markers); and (e) engagement: markers that

acknowledge the presence of the readers and connect to them (e.g., reader

pronouns). His analysis shows how the way writers negotiate proximity with

readers (i.e., how writers respond to context) varies in different discourses

and provides a comprehensive framework that can help to analyze the recon-textualization of science in weblogs.

Research Questions

As already stated, science blogs are heterogeneous in terms of producers,

purposes, types of content, or audiences. Even if we consider only research-

commenting posts, there is no homogeneity. The audience for these posts is a

complex one, and the bloggers assumed roles, authorial orientation, and rhe-

torical purposes are quite diverse. It is hypothesized here that bloggers write

research-commenting posts for different rhetorical purposes, that is, to dis-

seminate research on a subject area, bringing it to the attention of specialized

public and making it understandable for the attentive public, to evaluate pre-

vious research and claims by others and share and support their own position

on scientific and civic issues, to engage the audience (across various publics)

in critically evaluating new scientific claims and in attaching meaning to

these claims. Therefore, bloggers will need to use diversified strategies to

address the needs of diverse audiences and engage them, and thus achievethose different rhetorical purposes. The purpose of this article is to analyze

these strategies in order to determine the distinctive rhetorical features of

blogs as a space where science is contextualized. More specifically, the arti-

cle is intended to answer the following questions:



10/32

Luzn 435

1. Which rhetorical categories occur in the posts in the corpus, and how

do they contribute to achieving specific rhetorical purposes?

2. How do science bloggers tailor information for their readers? Which

linguistics choices do they make to meet the information needs ofreaders with different degrees of expertise? How do they help readers

understand specialist knowledge and integrate it with their existing

knowledge?

3. Which discursive strategies do bloggers use to engage the reader?

Which linguistic choices are used by bloggers to make scientific con-

tent less intimidating to readers and more relevant to their lives and to

key issues of civic life?

4. Which kind of recontextualization of scientific knowledge do blogs facil-itate? How do science bloggers harness the affordances of the media?

Method

The data for this study consisted of 75 blog posts used to highlight and discuss

new research (taken from 15 science blogs). All the posts selected made

explicit reference to new research (a new paper, a paper just published)

and included a link to the publication or a bibliographical reference. Many ofthe posts analyzed included the researchblogging.org icon, which indicates

that the post is a comment on one (or several) peer-reviewed research papers.

In order to compile the corpus I looked for blogs in scienceblogs.com, a

popular hub for blogs covering a wide range of scientific disciplines, and in

the blogrolls (i.e., lists of links to other blogs) of the already selected science

blogs. I selected 15 blogs that met the following criteria: They included posts

used to comment on published research, they were active at the moment of

analysis, and they were frequently updated. Five research-commenting posts,

written in 2011 or 2012, were taken from each blog.

The corpus was closely examined to determine the strategies used by

bloggers to recontextualize scientific knowledge in science blogs. The first

step consisted in identifying rhetorical categories in the posts in the corpus

and comparing them with rhetorical categories in research papers and popu-

larizations (Fahnestock, 1998, 2004; Nwogu, 1991, 1997; Swales, 1990;

Varghese & Abraham, 2004). This step was partly informed by genre analy-

sis, but I followed a grounded theory approach, not starting from preestab-

lished categories. Although the analysis involved the identification ofcategories that were common in posts (see Table 2 below), I do not consider

these posts a genre and therefore I do not use the term moveto refer to the

categories or intend to establish a one-to-one match between them and moves

in scientific genres.



11/32


In the second step the data were analyzed on a coding scheme based on the

discursive strategies used in different types of science discourse (in both spe-

cialist and nonspecialist settings) to respond to the context of the text. I drew

mainly on Hyland (2010), since he in turn draws on previous studies to dis-cuss several strategies, but I also took into account research by other authors

(e.g., Calsamiglia & Van Dijk, 2004; Fahnestock, 1998, 2004; Giannoni,

2008). In addition, the coding scheme also includes strategies used in com-

puter-mediated communication, especially in academic blogs, to engage the

readers (Luzn, 2011). To design the coding scheme I scanned the corpus

looking for evidence of the strategies found in previous research and incorpo-

rated any other strategy emerging from the data.

The recontextualizing strategies found in the corpus were classified intotwo types, related to two different but related purposes: (a) strategies to tailor

information to the assumed knowledge of potential readers (e.g., explanation

of concepts, exemplification, links); (b) strategies to engage the readers, by

arousing their interest (e.g., reference to popular culture), by constructing

solidarity and engaging in interaction (e.g., features of conversational dis-

course, inclusive pronouns), and by evaluating scientific content (e.g.,

expressions of positive or negative evaluation of research). Table 1 lists the

different strategies that were coded for. These strategies will be discussed andillustrated in detail in the fifth section.

In order to identify the most common strategies in research-commenting

posts, I counted the number of posts where each of these strategies occurred,

rather than the number of their occurrences in the corpus. The reason is that

some posts displayed a high number of occurrences of a strategy (e.g., evalu-

ative markers, questions), while others displayed no occurrence of the same

strategy, and thus counting the total frequency could have led to biased results

regarding what is common in this type of post.

Results

Rhetorical Categories

Since posts used to comment on scientific research may be used for different

rhetorical purposes, the content focused on and the way it is rhetorically orga-

nized also varies, which makes it impossible to find a common structure for

these posts. However, there are some rhetorical categories that are commonin many of them. Table 2 shows these categories and the number of posts

where each of these categories occurs. This table should not be interpreted as

a sequence of a fixed set of categories, since they did not always occur in this

order. Table 2 shows that in most cases the posts are intended not merely to



12/32

Luzn 437

report new findings, but mostly to evaluate and comment on these findings

and on their significance.

The posts in the corpus were similar to popularizations in that the main

claim or contribution to science was typically foregrounded at the beginning,

and not toward the end of the paper, as in research papers (Hyland, 2010). Inmost cases the claim or outcome of the research was presented in the first

sentence in the form of a brief statement and then it was elaborated further on.

This claim was signaled by means of lexical items that highlight novelty

(e.g., a new paper, a new method, today, a paper just published) and

readers were usually given fast and easy access to the original article (or to a

summary) through hyperlinks.

(1) According to a paper just published (but available online since 2010),we havent found any genes for personality (Neuroskeptic)

Of the posts, 70.6% began with a brief introduction that set the stage for

presenting the new finding. This might involve reminding the audience of

Table 1. Rhetorical Strategies to Recontextualize Science Information.

Strategies to tailor information

Explanation of terms and concept (definitions, elaboration of terms)Paraphrases/reformulations

Comparisons/metaphors

Examples from daily life

Links

Visuals conveying information

Strategies to engage the reader

Titles

References to popular lore, beliefs

Self-disclosure (reference to the bloggers public or personal life)

Features of conversational discourse

Inclusive pronouns

References to reader

Questions

Humor

Positive evaluation of research or findings

Negative evaluation of research or findings

Personal expression of opinionExpressions of feelings or emotional reactions



13/32


previous related knowledge or previous posts in the blog, presenting results

from a previous related paper, or using an attention-catching strategy, such as

pointing out the interest that the paper has aroused, asking a seemingly unre-lated question, or telling an anecdote. Example (2) is the beginning of a post

on a paper that presents evidence supporting the hypothesis that excessive

hygiene early in life can result in allergies later in life:

(2) Since moving to Finland, Ive become accustomed to asking guests

whether they have any allergies before I prepare dinner. I grew up in

the developing world where allergies and asthma seem to be much

less common than they are here. (IS)

A rhetorical category present in 57.3% of the posts examined was an

explanation (and sometimes evaluation) of the method, with varying

lengths, and for audiences with different degrees of assumed disciplinary

Table 2. Rhetorical Categories in Research-Commenting Posts.

Rhetorical categoryNumber of postswhere they occur % of the posts

Contextualizing the research 53 70.6

Announcing the new finding or thenew contribution to the discipline

75 100.0

Describing (and evaluating) method 43 57.3

Presenting, explaining (andevaluating) results

70 93.3

Adopting a neutral or positivestance toward the findings

42 56.0

Questioning some aspects of theresults

12 16.0

Criticizing the whole research andfindings

16 21.3

Drawing implications or highlightingthe significance of the study

56a 74.6

Highlighting the significance of theresearch for science

39 52.0

Broader implications (political,

ethical, ideological)

12 16.0

Implications for peoples lives 26 34.7

Implications for involved actors 10 13.3

a. Some posts presented more than one type of implication.



14/32

Luzn 439

knowledge. Posts tended to include not technical accounts of methods, but

clear descriptions that made it possible for the readers to share the blog-

gers evaluation of their validity. Bloggers reported on methods selec-

tively, focusing only on those aspects that would be useful to make theirpoint, as illustrated in Example (3), where the blogger used the description

of the method to evaluate it positively and thus bestow reliability on the

finding.

(3) The researchers made high resolution scans of teeth from more than

40 different multituberculates and then used geographic information

system (GIS) software borrowed from the world of cartography to

generate a detailedtopographical map of the teeth. (IS)

Presentation, explanation, and evaluation of results was present in 93.3%

of the posts. Bloggers usually reported the researchers explanation of results

and also their own interpretations, especially when these differed from those

in the original paper. Interpretation of results requires expert knowledge of

the topic and is also present in research papers (Brett, 1994; Nwogu, 1997).

Bloggers act as experts who critically comment on and analyze new research,

helping the audience both to understand it and to make decisions or positionthemselves regarding the content that is presented.

In 56% of the posts the bloggers adopted a positive/neutral stance toward

the findings. Some bloggers write research commenting posts because they

want to share new research with the public and they even state explicitly that

their purpose is to highlight or explain new research. This is the case of the

posts in the blog Uncertain Principles, where the blogger provides a detailed

explanation of results in a question and answer format in an attempt to make

them more understandable for the public. A positive/neutral stance was

adopted when bloggers reported results that were related to their own

research, that way taking the opportunity to highlight the importance or rel-

evance of this line of research.

In other cases, bloggers wanted to refute the findings of the paper (21.3%

of the posts) or draw attention and comment on some aspects of research with

which they disagreed (16.0% of the posts). To guide readers to their interpre-

tation, bloggers resorted to argument, a mode of discourse that is also promi-

nent in popular science books (Varghese & Abraham, 2004): Bloggers

constructed a rational argument, providing evidence and making their reason-ing explicit (Example (4)).

(4) But I think the better explanation is that what theyre seeing isnt

actually autoimmunity. Rather, its probably due to the destruction



15/32


virus-infected non-tumor cells. . . . Once the mice clear the VSV

infection, what happens? If its really autoimmunity, the prostate

should continue to be attacked. (WB)

Posts were sometimes used by bloggers to defend their positions on con-

troversial topics (e.g., global warming, the effect of vaccines, evolutionary

theory), where scientific development and policies are influenced not only

by scientists claims of expertise, but also by the publics opinion and

understanding. Blogs provide an expository space to explain publicly and

in nontechnical terms why an opposing claim is wrong. They enable blog-

gers to present arguments supporting a claim in a way that would not be

allowed in professional journals (e.g., including speculations, subjectiveopinions, contingent discourse) and to trigger discussion and debate, where

even nonspecialists can take part and bring in their arguments. An example

is the post A survey administered by a German anti-vaccine homeopath

backfires spectacularly in the blog Respectful Insolence. In the post the

blogger provides a detailed argument to invalidate the methodology of the

reported research, arguing, sometimes with the use of irony (e.g., (5)), that

it does not conform to disciplinary procedures. The ultimate purpose is to

show that the claim defended in this article, opposing his own position, iswrong.

(5) Lets just say that the construction of this survey demonstrates all the

scientific understanding and rigor that I would expect from a homeo-

path, given that homeopaths believe that magic water cures people.

(RI)

Bloggers also commented on and evaluated the results of research that

supported their viewpoint on a topic, usually with the purpose of engaging

the public to make a decision and act on it. This is illustrated in the post

Does preschool matter? where the writer presents and explains the results

of a study that supports his belief in the importance of preschool for at-risk

children, and then he derives some implications (or lessons): the first for

upper-class parents, the second, and more important, for the audience in gen-

eral, who can influence education decisions.

(6) For many kids, the most important years of schooling come beforethey can even read. . . . A new paper in Psychological Science by

Elliot Tucker-Drob, a psychologist at the University of Texas at

Austin, helps explain why this is the case.

[Presentation and explanation of method and of results]



16/32

Luzn 441

There are two lessons here. The first lesson is that upper-class par-

ents worry too much. . . . The greatest luxury we can give our chil-

dren, it turns out, is the luxury of being the type of parent that doesnt

matter at all. The second lesson is that stunning developmental inequalities set

in almost immediately. . . . And this is why we need good preschools.

. . . Early childhood education is still an essential first step toward

eliminating the achievement gap. Life is unfair; some kids will always

be born into households that have much less. Nevertheless, we have a

duty to ensure that every child has a chance to learn what hes capable

of. (TFC)

The concluding paragraph (last paragraph in Example (6)) clearly reveals

the role of the blogger as a civic scientist, who wants to draw the audience to

his own standpoint and engage them in civic life issues. This post illustrates

how bloggers may comment on research to draw implications beyond the

boundaries of science (ethical, cultural, ideological, political) (16% of the

posts). Implications for practice and policy making may occur in research

papers in different disciplines, but what seems to be distinctive to these posts

is that here bloggers sometimes urge the audience to action by appealing toshared responsibility (see Examples (6) and (7)):

(7) Durack and colleagues findings are important because they show

just how rapidly and drastically the Earth is changing, right before

our eyes. This is serious stuff that we can actually do something

about, but only if we make scientifically-informed decisions.

(LCA)

The posts analyzed also displayed implications for the daily life and con-

cerns of people (34.7% of the posts), which makes them more similar to

popularization and shows the bloggers in their roles of civic scientist attempt-

ing to integrate science in the publics life. Research can show us how to

educate our children (see lesson of upper-class parents in Example (6)) or

to be wary if our children are diagnosed ADHD (e.g., (8)).

(8) This is strong support for the immaturity hypothesisthe idea that

some children get a diagnosis of ADHD because theyre younger thantheir classmates at school. . . . Clearly this is very important, if true.

These findings raise concerns about the potential harms of overdiag-

nosis and overprescribing (Neuroskeptic)



17/32


In 52% of the posts in the corpus bloggers also highlighted the signifi-

cance of the reported research for the development of science, a category also

present in research papers in some disciplines (Nwogu, 1997; Yang & Allison,

2003).

(9) But high-resolution, synchrotron CT imaging opens up a whole new

world of paleontology, new questions that can be asked. For example,

. . . (LCA)

Some bloggers even presented implications for how actors involved in

disseminating and publishing research should behave (13.3% of the posts).

This is interesting because it reveals how the bloggers adopt the role of agentseager to ensure that poor research and unproved claims are not published and

accepted as valid knowledge.

(10) So everything about that original Tetrahedron paper was wrong; it

never should have made it through the review process. . . . Reviewers

and editors are supposed to notice when a paper has made very

unusual claims, and theyre supposed to ask the authors to back them

up. (ITP)

Strategies to Tailor Information to the

Assumed Knowledge Base of Potential Readers

When communicating science, writers adapt information to the knowledge

and interests of potential readers. This is done differently in research papers

and popularizations (Hyland, 2010): Authors of research papers frame infor-

mation for a target audience of peers through the use of technical terminology,acronyms, or reference to disciplinary practices. When writing populariza-

tions, by contrast, writers cannot assume such a high degree of shared knowl-

edge and use rhetorical strategies to help the readers connect the new

knowledge in the text to their existing knowledge, e.g., definition and explana-

tion of new concepts as they are introduced (Hyland, 2010). Bloggers need to

frame content for both expert and nonspecialist audiences, although not all

bloggers assume the same level of knowledge from the audience, and even

within a single blog, different posts may be originally intended for audiences

with different degrees of expertise. Table 3 shows the strategies used in the

posts in the corpus to meet the information needs of the audience.

In order to help nonspecialist audiences integrate specialist knowledge,

bloggers used different explanatory elements typical of popularizations, such



18/32

Luzn 443

as comparisons and metaphors, definitions or elaboration of terms, para-phrases, examples (Calsamiglia & Van Dijk, 2004; Giannoni, 2008). However,

these strategies were not used by all bloggers (see Table 3). Analogies and

metaphors help to reconceptualize an area of knowledge unknown to the

reader in terms of a more familiar area (Calsamiglia & Van Dijk, 2004). For

instance, in the post Is sleep brain defragmentation?, (Neuroskeptic) the

blogger explains new research by drawing on the brain-as-computer metaphor

and comparing sleep to hard disk defragmentation. The posts also included

explanations of terms, which varied in length from a few words to a para-

graph, paraphrases to rephrase the specialist discourse in more understandable

language (e.g., (11)) and examples from daily life (e.g., (12)).

(11) A new paper in PLoS ONE examines the Y-chromosomal patterns as

they partition across ethnic groups in Afghanistan. By this, we mean

the directpaternal lineageof Afghan men. (DAB)

(12) Its natural to discount rewards that are promised in the future. . . . If

I offered you a choice between $4 today and $5 ten years from now,

youd be sensible to take the lower amount today. (CV)

By far the most frequent strategy used in the corpus to tailor information

to the readers is links (present in 89.3% of the posts), a feature that distin-

guishes blogs from printed popularizations and research papers. Bloggers

take advantage of the hypertextual allowances of the medium to explain most

concepts through links to other sites, very frequently to Wikipedia.

Clarification of potentially unfamiliar concepts through links enables a better

adaptation to the audiences needs than glosses or definitions: Links enablelengthy explanations (whole articles in other sites), which are accessed or

incorporated into the text only if the reader decides to do so and which are

integrated into the syntax of the sentence is such a way that the argument is

not disrupted, no matter the number of links. In a single post bloggers may

Table 3. Strategies to Tailor Information to the Audiences Needs.

Strategy Number of posts % of posts

Explanation of terms and concept 25 33.3Paraphrases/reformulations 15 20.0

Comparisons/metaphors 16 21.3

Examples 13 17.3

Links 67 89.3

Visuals 28 37.3



19/32


link to information intended for general audiences (e.g., Wikipedia entries)

and for specialized audiences. Bloggers can therefore provide for readers

with different levels of expertise and enhance their texts not only with clari-

fications for nonexperts but also with specialized information for peers ormore knowledgeable readers.

The following example, in the post Is sleep brain defragmentation?,

illustrates this role of links:

(13) Memory formation involves a process called long-term potentiation

(LTP) which is essentially the strengthening of synaptic connections

between nerve cells. Worse, the synapses that strengthen during

memory are primarily glutamate synapses. . . .

One possible mechanism is synaptic scaling. When some of the

inputs onto a given cell become stronger, all of the synapses on that

cell could weaken. This would preserve the relativestrength of the

different inputs while keeping the totalinputs constant. (Neuroskeptic)

The links long-term potentiation and glutamate lead to the Wikipedia

entries for these concepts. The link synaptic scaling leads to an article in

the journal Cell, where this concept is explained for an audience of peers.Since the information in the Cellpaper is difficult to understand for nonex-

perts, the blogger provides an easier one-sentence clarification of the concept

in the post itself.

The links that bloggers incorporate have different functions. First, they

provide not only information on concepts or processes that may help under-

standing for some readers but also related additional information that may be

of interest for some members of the audience. Example (14) is a fragment of

a post commenting on research that provides evidence to refute the discov-ery that neutrinos travel faster that the speed of light:

(14) We all knew that when the OPERA experiment announced prelimi-

nary evidence that neutrinos were traveling faster than the speed of

light (1) the result was so hard to swallow that independent confir-

mation from other experiments would be necessary before too many

people jumped on the bandwagon. In the meantime, a number of

theoretical papers pointed out difficulties in accepting the result atface value (probably the cleanest by Cohen and Glashow (2)). And

just last month OPERA itself announced that they had located a cou-

ple of possible systematic errors (3) in their experiment, without

actually backing off the original result. . . .



20/32

Luzn 445

Now we have what might be the nail in the coffin: another experi-

ment, ICARUS (4), at the same laboratory in Gran Sasso (5) in Italy,

has reported an independent measurement of the neutrino time-of-

flight from CERN. (The CERN twitter feed (6) points to a frustrat-ingly vague press release; (7) (CV)

The links offer a great deal of extra information for the interested public

and for peers: links to other posts in the blog, where the blogger comments on

the discovery when it was first published (1) and on previous research

reporting errors in the experiment (3), thus providing the background for this

new post; a link to bibliographical references intended for specialists (2);

links to information on another experiment (4) and to the Wikipedia entry forone of the laboratories collaborating in these experiments (5); a link to Twitter

(6). This post provides a clear example of how bloggers respond to new pub-

lications by constructing interlinked texts which may incorporate other voices

and texts, bringing in information that may meet the needs of experts and

nonexperts. In addition, it shows how links contribute to providing credibility

and strengthening the bloggers position, by linking to texts that help to sup-

port their point (Link (2)).

Links also provided information on methodology without any need toexplain it in the post. Writers of papers in the hard disciplines tend to assume

shared knowledge on specific procedures and just make reference to them,

without describing them in detail. Writers of blogs cannot assume this shared

knowledge of methods or discipline instruments, but they can provide full

descriptions through links, as in Example (15), where the blogger links to a

Wikipedia article on principle components analysis:

(15) Finally, in a principle components analysis of foot bone ratios . . .,

humans and gorillas overlap a bit, to the exclusion of chimpanzees

and monkeys. (LCA)

Finally, links were used as bibliographical references, which provided

direct access either to the commented papers or to their abstract in scientific

databases (e.g., (16)). These links enable the specialist audience to read the

original text and find information that only they may be interested in:

(16) A 2004 study by Cupp et.al., also in Alabama, found that mosqui-

toes carrying EEEV had fed on amphibians and reptiles in addition

to birds and mammals. [link to the full paper by Cupp et al.]

(Aetiology)



21/32


As the examples above show, bloggers used a variety of anchor texts (i.e.,

clickable text in a hyperlink) in order to provide clues as to the type of con-

tent behind the link (a definition in glutamate, more information on a claim

in neutrinos were traveling faster than the speed of light, evidence for thebloggers evaluation in frustratingly vague press release, or the paper com-

mented on in Cupp et al.) and therefore to help the audience decide whether

to access that content.

Another device that helped to tailor scientific information to the blogs

audience was visuals conveying information, present in 37.3% of the posts in

the corpus. Nonlinguistic elements have an important role in the communica-

tion of scientific knowledge. Scientists in a given discipline or specialty share

knowledge that enables them to read off visual-graphical information codedfollowing the discipline conventions and understand a visual language that

might be impenetrable to the nonspecialists. Bloggers incorporated visuals

requiring different levels of visual knowledge from the audience and that are

used for several purposes. They ranged from pictures or graphic images that

provide a clear proof of what bloggers are explaining to diagrams requiring

some (or much) disciplinary knowledge.

In most cases the bloggers used the visuals that occurred in the com-

mented paper. They were used either to provide evidence for the researchersclaims (visuals helped the reader follow the researchers argument) or to

refute these claims (visuals helped the blogger show that the data/results

presented in them did not support the claim). When the bloggers borrowed

visuals from the paper, they often provided extratextual explanations so that

they could be understood by the reader. Bloggers might guide the reader on

how specific components of a graphical image should be interpreted or

might offer a clarification of the variables that were coded in the different

elements of the visual. Bloggers even modified the graphics in the original

paper (e.g., by highlighting/circling parts) to give more visibility to specific

information in the visuals. In four of the posts bloggers used informative

visuals not present in the original paper to help prove the point they were

making. For instance, in the post ALDER paper and software the blogger

discussed new software for anthropology research presented in a paper and

included a plot produced with this software to support his evaluation of the

softwares performance.

Strategies to Engage the Reader

Bloggers used a variety of devices to signal awareness of their audience,

engage the readers, and guide them to particular positioning (see Table 4).

They engaged the readers by arousing their interest, by constructing a shared



22/32

Luzn 447

floor and using interaction to create intimacy and immediacy, and by evaluat-

ing scientific content with the purpose of influencing readers.

A strategy borrowed from popularization is changing the title of the origi-

nal paper to frame the research in a way that may interest the reader. Forexample, the paper title Microbial Exposure During Early Life Has Persistent

Effects on Natural Killer T Cell Function is changed to Excessive hygiene

lets the immune system run amok (IS), to make it more attractive, more

relevant, and easier to understand by nonspecialist readers. The blogger acts

as a civic scientist who uses the title to show readers that the results of scien-

tific research may be relevant for their daily life.

Although titles in any type of scientific discourse are formulated to

attract the attention of the intended audience, in science blogs this isachieved by using a variety of resources. Some titles present the claim

made in the original paper (17a) or the bloggers evaluation of the reported

research (17b). In other cases, popularizing devices were used. Titles in

(17c/17d), for instance, construct proximity and intimacy with the audience

by the use of intertextual references to folklore and pop culture, to the fairy

tale Little Red Riding Hood in (17c) and to the song Im Too Sexy in

(17d). Other titles present a puzzling statement that piques the readers curi-

osity (17e) or ask a question, inviting the audience to explore the topic andfind an answer (17f).

(17) a. No evidence for Neandertal admixture from mtDNA. (DAB)

b. The CERN/CLOUD results are surprisingly interesting. . . . (RC)

Table 4. Strategies to Engage the Reader.

Strategy Number of posts % of posts

Titles 75 100.0References to popular lore, beliefs 15 20.0

Self-disclosure 11 14.6

Features of conversational discourse 39 52.0

Inclusive pronouns 54 72.0

References to reader 39 52.0

Questions 46 61.3

Humor 7 9.3

Positive evaluation 52 69.3

Negative evaluation 31 41.3

Personal expression of opinion 52 69.3

Expressions of feelings or emotional reactions 39 52.0



23/32


c. What Big Eyes You Have. (Neuroskeptic).

d. Im Too Sexy for Your . . . Virus? Or, Immunity as it Relates to

Peacocks. (WB)

e. Neanderthals came in all colors. (GE) f. Are emotions prophetic? (TFC)

Bloggers also used several strategies to construct a shared floor, including

features typical of informal and private discourse. An example is the refer-

ences to popular lore and beliefs, pop culture, and common knowledge, pres-

ent in 20% of the blogs:

(18) Short man syndrome? A myth. Rod Stewart was wrong aboutblondes [Link to Wikipedia entry on Rod Stewarts albumBlondes

Have More Fun]. Theres no such thing as a fat personality. And so

on. (Neuroskeptic)

Humor, another feature common in popularizations (Giannoni, 2008), also

helps to construct solidarity and reinforce common assumptions. In the cor-

pus it took different forms, including light teasing, irony, and sarcasm. In

example (19) the blogger resorts to word play to convey a playful tone. Theblogger plays with the idiom toe the line (to conform to a rule or standard)

to present a paper where researchers claim to have found the foot of a crea-

ture whose big toe makes it different from hominid feet.

(19) Researchers announced inNaturetoday the discovery of a 3.4 mil-

lion-year-old foot that doesnt toe the hominid line. (LCA)

Intimacy was also created through self-disclosure, that is, details about the

bloggers academic or personal life (14.6% of the posts). Self-disclosure is

frequent in weblogs, especially in personal blogs (Qian & Scott, 2007).

(20) Its been a while since I did any ResearchBlogging posts, because it

turns out that having an infant and a toddler really cuts into your

blogging time. (UP)

Bloggers also engaged the readers through devices of dialogic involve-

ment, such as conversational elements, inclusive pronouns, references to thereader, and questions. Informality and immediacy were constructed by adopt-

ing discourse practices and linguistic features generally associated with con-

versational discourse, with 52% of the posts displaying one or more

occurrences of these features. These included parenthetical metalinguistic



24/32

Luzn 449

cues (e.g., Hmm, Hmr, Wow), oral discourse markers (Anyway,

Sorry, trust me, Well, I mean, Now wait, You see) and response

forms (Ok, Yep), expletives (heck), vague language (Im kinda sur-

prised, stuff, a large-ish laboratory), slang or informal expressions oforal discourse to convey the sense of immediacy (e.g., Dammit, this

sucks, I dont know, dude, awesome), syntactic structures typical of

spoken grammar, for example, omission of parts of the sentence (Sounds

fun, right?, just me?). Interestingly, Blanchard (2011) points out that,

unlike other online forums where it is difficult for newbies to enter, the

informal style of blog engages the interested reader to contribute to the

discussion.

Another strategy to engage the readers is drawing them into the discoursewith reader pronouns. Bloggers used both inclusive we (72% of the posts;

e.g., (21)), a device prominent in research papers (Hyland, 2010), and second

person pronouns (52% of the blogs; e.g., (22)), an engagement device fre-

quent in popularizations (Giannoni, 2008; Hyland, 2010). Explicit references

to readers and second person pronouns represent the readers as participants in

the interaction and help the blogger guide the reader toward a particular

interpretation.

(21) For thousands of years, human beings have looked down on their

emotions. Weve seen them as primitive passions, the unfortunate

legacy of our animal past. (TFC)

(22) I was half-tempted just to post the link to the study (which it really

isnt, not really) and letyou, my readers, have some fun. (RI)

Questions were a frequent strategy in the posts in the corpus (61.3% of

the posts). They are also common in popularizations and occur with various

frequencies in other academic genres, for example, journal editorials, text-

books, or research papers (Giannoni, 2008; Hyland, 2002). Questions were

used for a range of different rhetorical functions in the posts in the corpus:

to catch the audience attention presenting the readers with a puzzle to solve

or with a question whose answer is highly relevant for their life (e.g., (23a)),

to challenge the validity of the results, claims, methods, and so on of the

reported research, sometimes in combination with irony/sarcasm or with

reference to the reader (e.g., (23b)), to organize the text, announcing what

is to come next or to create a dialogue where the questions are assumed tobe asked by the audience. This is the case of the post Shedding Light on

Quantum Gravity (see example (23d)), structured as a dialogic interaction,

through which the blogger explains the researchers proposal of a new way

to search for quantum gravity.



25/32


(23) a. But what if our emotions know more than we know? What if our

feelings are smarter than us? (TFC)

b. . . . but seriously, would you conclude from this data that immune

response is correlated with attractiveness? (WB) c. OK, so whats the deal with this quantum gravity stuff? Are you

telling me they can make a black hole with lasers, now? [answer

omitted]

Wait, what? What does that even mean? [answer omitted]

[more questions and answers omitted] (UP)

The last type of strategy used by bloggers to engage the readers is

related to the expression of evaluation or stance. Although in most poststhere were fragments devoted to commenting on research, evaluation was

not restricted to these fragments: Explicit evaluation occurred in any part

of the post, even in titles (e.g., The CERN/Cloud results are surprisingly

interesting). Previous research has shown that evaluation is a genre-

bound phenomenon (Hunston, 1993; Hyland, 2010) and that differences in

how writers use evaluation in specialized papers and popular texts are

related to different ways of establishing objectivity and negotiating prox-

imity (Hyland, 2010). When writing for a specialized audience, scholarsuse hedges to distance themselves from the claim and avoid attitude mark-

ers to convey the idea of objectivity. Explicit negative evaluation, both of

the writers own ideas and of other researchers, is also avoided, in order to

stress solidarity rather than conflict. Writers of popular texts do make a

high use of attitude markers to evaluate aspects of the content, with the

goal of encouraging readers to engage with the topic. However, they do not

use evaluation to position themselves or express their commitment to

claims: They just report others (the experts) opinions without evaluating

research, results, or claims.

The posts in the corpus displayed a high frequency of evaluative devices,

expressing both affective attitude (i.e., evaluation in terms of interest,

importance, accuracy, etc.; e.g., This is an immensely exciting finding)

and epistemic attitude (i.e., commitment to the truth of a proposition; e.g.,

Im not sure). Of the posts, 69.3% included positive evaluation of previ-

ous research (e.g., these findings are important, intriguing result, a

fascinating new paper), usually with a justification of such evaluation

(this paper is amazing because . . .). Unlike in research papers and popu-larizations, there was also a high percentage of posts displaying expressions

of explicit negative evaluation of previous research (41.3% of the posts).

This negative evaluation helps bloggers to put their ideas forward and



26/32

Luzn 451

defend them against competing claims and is therefore an important device

for their role as public intellectuals.

The following examples show how bloggers used negative evaluation to

reject the researchers results, methodology, or claims:

(24) a. The original paper in the JAMA was remarkable for its non-pub-

lishing of crucial data necessary to validate the claims within it.

(DAB)

b. Before I come back to the horrendously bad methodology. . . ?

(RI)

c. In my humble opinion, XX (2011) is a silly paper, making many

claims with no support from science. . . .I would not be surprisedif rumours about the journals lacking rigourare true. (RC)

In the posts analyzed there were several examples of the bloggers using

blunt and explicit criticism to debunk what they consider misconceptions

about a scientific issue. Example (24c), for instance, is part of the concluding

paragraph of a post where the blogger uses different devices (e.g., negative

evaluation, argument) to invalidate the methodology and conclusions reached

in a paper about climate change. The high incidence of both positive andnegative explicit evaluation in these posts suggests their relation to academic

genres where evaluation of research plays a prominent role, for example,

review articles and editorials (Salager-Meyer, 2001) or peer reviews

(Hewings, 2004), and indicates that some of these posts are intended as post-

publication peer reviews.

A high percentage of posts in the corpus (69.3%) displayed personal expres-

sions of epistemological stance, that is, expressions of stance that include a first

person pronoun (I think, I believe, I suspect, Im sure, Im skeptical

of, I remain unconvinced that, it is not clear to me), revealing the contin-

gency and informality of this type of discourse. These expressions are uncom-

mon in research papers, since they convey the impression of subjectivity, but

also in popularizations, where the validity of the reported research is taken for

granted and writers do not resort to expressions of epistemic stance to evaluate

it and position themselves regarding the certainty of claims.

Another common evaluative element in the posts analyzed (52% of the

posts) was the expression of the bloggers feelings or emotional reactions

(Im impressed, Im happy, I feel a bit guilty, Ill be pleased if,Im excited, sadly, unfortunately, Im puzzled). In many cases, the

bloggers seem to intend to arouse the same feeling or reaction in the readers

(e.g., (25)).



27/32


(25) A couple of weeks ago, I was horrified to learn of a new biomed treat-

ment that has been apparently gaining popularity in autism circles.

The prominent role of evaluation in these posts can be explained by con-sidering that blogs are both personal and public spaces. The high frequency

of personal expressions of evaluation and emotional reaction shows that

these posts enable bloggers to discuss and evaluate research in a public forum

adopting a personal position, which facilitates the connection with the gen-

eral public.

Discussion and Conclusions

This study has explored how the content of scientific papers is recontextual-

ized in science blogs. The analysis has revealed that science bloggers deploy

a variety of rhetorical strategies to contextualize scientific knowledge for a

diverse audience and situate this knowledge in public life, thus helping the

public make informed decisions, but also to position themselves regarding

the research reported and to persuade the readers of their own interpretation,

especially in controversial issues regarding civic life.

Research-commenting posts enable bloggers to play different roles whencommunicating science. They can act as academics who seek to share scien-

tific knowledge with peers and to self-portray themselves as expert reviewers

providing a critical analysis of published research; and as civic scientists who

understand that communication to a public audience is part of developing

science and thus seek to explain science, contribute to the public understand-

ing of science, and prompt the public to make decisions based on this under-

standing. These identities often get blurred in research-commenting posts,

especially in those cases where the reported research is used by bloggers to

express their standpoint on a controversial socioscientific issue and bring

readers to this position.

The strategies employed by bloggers are related to their roles as experts

sharing information and as civic scientists (science communicators and

public intellectuals): (a) they use discursive strategies to simultaneously

adjust to the background knowledge and information needs of diverse

audiences (e.g., providing links to definitions in the Wikipedia but also to

specialized information); (b) they select only specific information reported

in the original paper, foregrounding the main claim and focusing on theexplanation and evaluation of results and on their significance (for science

development, for the audiences daily life, for policy making); (c) they use

explicit positive and negative evaluation and commentary to support or



28/32

Luzn 453

refute the validity of others claims, usually providing a one-sided view of

scientific issues, especially controversial ones, in an attempt to align the

readers interests and perspectives with those of the blogger. When blog-

gers comment on published research in their blogs, they do not intend tobecome just passive mediators who bring new research to the attention of

their peers and disseminate scientific knowledge to a public audience.

They want to be actors in the promotion of the public understanding of

science and in the construction of opinions about scientific issues; (d) they

use features of conversational discourse and strategies of dialogic involve-

ment in order to construct intimacy and solidarity, and thus encourage the

readers to contribute to the discussion and to collaborate in the construc-

tion of knowledge; (e) they also engage the public by resorting to the con-tingent repertoire of scientific discourse (Gilbert & Mulkay, 1984),

including personal expressions of opinion or expressions of feelings and

emotional reaction. What distinguishes science blogging from other types

of scientific discourse is this combination of features. Research-

commenting posts are hybrid discursive spaces that incorporate practices

from public and personal/private discourses (self-reference, informality,

expression of feelings), from popularized discourse (humor, metaphors,

references to reader), and from different genres of specialist discourse:Bloggers adopt strategies from research papers, but also strategies to con-

strue conflict and express criticism, typical of genres like peer reviews,

book reviews, or editorials.

Some of the strategies above are also shared with other types of computer-

mediated communication and are highly facilitated by the affordances of the

medium and the nature of the blog. Two clear examples are the recourse to

features of conversational discourse and the use of links to cater to the infor-

mation needs of the multiplicity of audiences. Similarly, the nature of the

blog, an open space where the personal and the public are integrated, facili-

tates the venting of personal opinions about public issues and promotes eval-

uation and commentary.

To conclude, this study contributes to the discussion of how knowledge is

recontextualized within public spaces and to research on the role of online

media in the public understanding of science. When commenting on previous

research bloggers harness the affordances of new media and combine rhetori-

cal strategies from different discourses to adapt to multiple and complex

audiences and achieve various rhetorical purposes: promote the understand-ing of science, review published research and persuade of its validity and

significance or, by contrast, of its lack of validity and deficiencies, and situate

science research in public life.



29/32


Appendix

List of Blogs From Which Posts

to Make Up the Corpus Have Been TakenAetiology (http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/) (Aetiology)

Cosmic Variance (http://cosmicvariance.com/) (CV)

Dienekes: Anthropology Blog (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/index.html) (DAB)

Gene Expression (http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2008/10/) (GE)

In the Pipeline (http://pipeline.corante.com/) (ITP)

Inspiring Science (https://inspiringscience.wordpress.com/) (IS)

Laelaps (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/laelaps/) (Laelaps)

Lawn Chair Anthropology (http://lawnchairanthropology.blogspot.com.es/)

(LCA)

Neuroskeptic (http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com.es/) (Neuroskeptic)

RealClimate (http://www.realclimate.org/) (RC)

Respectful Insolence (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/) (RI)

The Frontal Cortex (http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/) (TFC)

Uncertain Principles (http://scienceblogs.com/principles/) (UP)

We Beasties (http://scienceblogs.com/webeasties/) (WB)

Wired Cosmos (http://wiredcosmos.com/) (WC)

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank the editor, Christina Haas, and the anonymous review-

ers for their very useful comments and suggestions.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,

authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,

authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research for this article has been

funded by the project FFI2009-09792 (Spanish Ministry of Science and

Innovation).

Note

1. The term affordance was coined by Gibson (1979) to refer to the possibilities

for action that an environment offers an animal.



30/32

Luzn 455

References

Batts, S., Anthis, N. J., & Smith, T. (2008). Advancing science through conversations:

Bridging the gap between blogs and the academy. PLoS Biology, 6(9), e240.

doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060240Blanchard, A. (2011). Science blogs in research and popularization of science: Why,

how and for whom? In M. Cockell, J. Billotte, F. Darbellay & F. Waldvogel

(Eds.), Common knowledge: The challenge of transdisciplinarity(pp. 219-232).

Lausanne, Switzerland: EPFL Press.

Brett, P. (1994). A genre analysis of the results sections of sociology articles.English

for Specific Purposes, 13, 47-59.

Bucchi, M. (2008). Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: Theories of public com-

munication of science. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of public

communication of science and technology(pp. 57-76). London, UK: Routledge.Calsamiglia, H., & Van Dijk, T. A. (2004). Popularization discourse and knowledge

about the genome.Discourse & Society, 15(4), 369-389.

Clancy, K. (2011).Networking, scholarship and service: The place of science blog-

ging in academia. Retrieved from http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/context-

and-variation/2011/12/14/science-blogging-in-academia/#comment-276

Clotre, M., & Shinn, T. (1985). Expository practice: Social, cognitive and epistemo-

logical linkages. In M. Cloitre & T. Shinn (Eds.),Expository science: Forms and

functions of popularisation(pp. 31-60). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel.

Davies, J., & Merchant, G. (2007). Looking from the inside out: Academic blogging

as new literacy. In C. Lankshear & M. Knobel (Eds.), A new literacies sampler

(pp. 167-198). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Dobrin, D. (1983). What is technical about technical writing? In P. V. Anderson, R.

J. Brockmann & C. R. Miller (Eds.),New essays in technical and scientific com-

munication(pp. 227-250). Farmingdale, NY: Baywood.

Fahnestock, J. (1998). Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts.

Written Communication, 15, 330-350. (Original work published 1986)

Fahnestock, J. (2004). Preserving the figure: Consistency in the presentation of scien-

tific arguments. Written Communication, 21, 6-31.

Giannoni, D. S. (2008). Popularizing features in English journal editorials. English

for Specific Purposes, 27(2), 212-232.

Gibson, J. J. (1979). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.),

Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology(pp. 67-82).

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gilbert, G. N., & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandoras box: A sociological analy-

sis of scientists discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Gramling, C. (2008). Science bloggers question their role. Geotimes, 53(6), 47.

Hewings, M. (2004). An important contribution or tiresome reading? A study

of evaluation in peer reviews of journal article submissions. Journal of Applied

Linguistics, 1, 247-274.

Hilgartner, S. (1990). The dominant view of popularization: Conceptual problems,

political uses. Social Studies of Science, 20(3), 519-539.



31/32


Hunston, S. (1993). Evaluation and ideology in scientific discourse. In M.

Ghadessy (Ed.),Register analysis: Theory and practice(pp. 57-73). London,

UK: Pinter.

Hyland, K. (2002). What do they mean? Questions in academic writing. Text, 22(4),529-557.

Hyland, K. (2010). Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and profes-

sional science.English for Academic Purposes, 9, 116-127.

Kalleberg, R. (2000). Universities: Complex bundle institutions and the projects of

enlightenment. Comparative Social Research, 19, 219-255.

Kyvik, S. (2005). Popular science publishing and contributions to public discourse

among university faculty. Science Communication, 26, 288-311.

Luzn, M. J. (2011). Interesting post, but I disagree: Social presence and antisocial

behaviour in academic weblogs.Applied Linguistics, 32(5), 517-540.Mortensen, T., & Walker, J. (2002). Blogging thoughts: Personal publication as an online

research tool. In A. Morrison (Ed.), Researching ICTs in context (pp. 249-279).

Oslo, Norway: InterMedia Report.

Myers, G. (2003). Discourse studies of scientific popularization: Questioning the

boundaries.Discourse Studies, 5(2), 265-279.

Myers, G. (2010). The discourse of blogs and wikis. London, UK: Continuum.

Nwogu, K. (1991). Structure of science popularizations: A genre analysis approach

to the schema of popularized medical texts. English for Specific Purposes, 10,

111-123.Nwogu, K. (1997). The medical research papers: Structure and functions.English for

Specific Purposes, 16(2), 119-138.

Paul, D. (2004). Spreading chaos: The role of popularizations in the diffusion of sci-

entific ideas. Written Communication, 21(1), 32-68.

Qian, H., & Scott, C. (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

Salager-Meyer, F. (2001). From self-highlightedness to self-effacement: A genre

based study of the socio-pragmatic function of criticism in medical discourse.LSP and Professional Communication, 1(2), 63-84.

Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Trench, B. (2008). Internet: Turning science communication inside-out. In M. Bucchi

& B. Trench (Eds.),Handbook of public communication of science and technol-

ogy(pp. 185-198). London, UK: Routledge.

Varghese, S. A., & Abraham, S. A. (2004). Book-length scholarly essays as a hybrid

genre in science. Written Communication, 21(4), 201-231.

Whitley, R. (1985). Knowledge producers and knowledge acquirers: Popularisationas a relation between scientific fields and their publics. In T. Shinn & R. Whitley

(Eds.), Expository science: Forms and functions of popularisation (pp. 3-28).

Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel.

http://wcx.sagepub.com/http://wcx.sagepub.com/http://wcx.sagepub.com/http://wcx.sagepub.com

blogs luzon

Documents

blogs luzon

comdownloaded fromhttp

version of recordat

written communication304

comc version

onlinefirst version

information forhttp

comcgialertsemail alerts