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/5/27/2018 Blogs Luzon
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.pdf5/27/2018 Blogs Luzon
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/5/27/2018 Blogs Luzon
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
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/5/27/2018 Blogs Luzon
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
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/5/27/2018 Blogs Luzon
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
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/5/27/2018 Blogs Luzon
7/32
432 Written Communication 30(4)
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
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/5/27/2018 Blogs Luzon
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
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/5/27/2018 Blogs Luzon
9/32
434 Written Communication 30(4)
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:
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/5/27/2018 Blogs Luzon
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.
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/5/27/2018 Blogs Luzon
11/32
436 Written Communication 30(4)
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
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/5/27/2018 Blogs Luzon
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
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/5/27/2018 Blogs Luzon
13/32
438 Written Communication 30(4)
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.
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/5/27/2018 Blogs Luzon
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
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/5/27/2018 Blogs Luzon
15/32
440 Written Communication 30(4)
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]
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/5/27/2018 Blogs Luzon
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)
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/5/27/2018 Blogs Luzon
17/32
442 Written Communication 30(4)
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
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/5/27/2018 Blogs Luzon
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
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/5/27/2018 Blogs Luzon
19/32
444 Written Communication 30(4)
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. . . .
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/5/27/2018 Blogs Luzon
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)
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/5/27/2018 Blogs Luzon
21/32
446 Written Communication 30(4)
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
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/5/27/2018 Blogs Luzon
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
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/5/27/2018 Blogs Luzon
23/32
448 Written Communication 30(4)
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
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/5/27/2018 Blogs Luzon
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.
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/5/27/2018 Blogs Luzon
25/32
450 Written Communication 30(4)
(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
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/5/27/2018 Blogs Luzon
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)).
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/5/27/2018 Blogs Luzon
27/32
452 Written Communication 30(4)
(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
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/5/27/2018 Blogs Luzon
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.
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/5/27/2018 Blogs Luzon
29/32
454 Written Communication 30(4)
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.
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/5/27/2018 Blogs Luzon
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.
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/5/27/2018 Blogs Luzon
31/32
456 Written Communication 30(4)
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.
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.comTop Related