Cover not available
Part of
Science Communication on the Internet: Old genres meet new genres
Edited by María José Luzón and Carmen Pérez-Llantada
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 308] 2019
► pp. 219–238

Chapter 11
Public- and expert-facing communication

A case study of polycontextuality and context collapse in Internet-mediated citizen science

This chapter describes a qualitative case study of digitally-mediated production and communication of research in the biological sciences. The study focuses on the citizen science “Heartbeats Project,” conceived by a U.S.-based evolutionary biology lab to explore the data behind the well-known rule that, on average, mammals’ hearts beat one billion times per lifetime. Our analysis describes three ways that polycontextuality and context collapse figured in the team’s production of digital, spoken, and print-based genres arising from their work. These dynamics complicate traditional understandings of the relationships between scientific and public genres, as well as existing conceptions of composition, genre, authors, and audiences in the production and circulation of scientific findings and the (re)production of science.
Keywords: scientific communication, scientific writing, digital writing, digital genres, citizen science, public understanding of science, polycontextuality, context collapse
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction and theoretical framework
  • 2.Research context
  • 3.Design and methods of the study
  • 4.Analysis of the case
    • 4.1Public communication as scientific invention
    • 4.2Composing for recomposition
    • 4.3Composing for and with the public to change science
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 4 December 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.308.11rei
References (46)
References
Anson, Chris M., and Deanna Dannels. 2004. “Writing and Speaking in Conditional Rhetorical Space.” In Classroom Space(s) and Writing Instruction, ed. by Ed Nagelhout, and Carol Rutz, 55–70. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
Bazerman, Charles. 1997. “Discursively Structured Activities.” Mind, Culture, and Activity 4: 293–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beaulieu, Anne. 2010. “Research Note: From Co-Location to Co-Presence: Shifts in the Use of Ethnography for the Study of Knowledge.” Social Studies of Science 40 (3): 453–470. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beaufort, Anne. 2007. College Writing and Beyond: A New Framework for University Writing Instruction. Logan: Utah State University Press.Google Scholar
Bizzell, Patricia. 2009. Academic Discourse and Critical Consciousness. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Bruckman, Amy. 2002. “Studying the Amateur Artist: A Perspective on Disguising Data Collected in Human Subjects Research on the Internet.” Ethics and Information Technology 4 (3): 217–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charmaz, Kathy. 2003. “Qualitative Interviewing and Grounded Theory Analysis.” In Inside Interviewing: New Lenses, New Concerns, ed. by James A. Holstein, and Jaber F. Gubrium, 311–30. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Cummings, Jonathon N., and Sara Kiesler. 2005. “Collaborative Research across Disciplinary and Organizational Boundaries.” Social Studies of Science 35 (5): 703–722. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, Sarah R., and Noriko Hara. 2017. “Public Science in a Wired World: How Online Media Are Shaping Science Communication.” Science Communication 39 (5): 563–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davis, Jenny L., and Nathan Jurgenson. 2014. “Context Collapse: Theorizing Context Collusions and Collisions.” Information, Communication & Society 17 (4): 476–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donahue, Tiane. 2017. “Writing and Global Transfer Narratives: Situating the Knowledge Transformation Conversation.” In Critical Transitions: Writing and the Question of Transfer, ed. by Chris M. Anson, and Jessie L. Moore, 107–136. Anderson, SC: Parlor Press and the WAC Clearinghouse.Google Scholar
Engeström, Yrjö, Ritva Engeström, and Merja Kärkkäinen. 1995. “Polycontextuality and Boundary Crossing in Expert Cognition: Learning and Problem Solving in Complex Work Activities.” Learning and Instruction 5 (4): 319–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fahnestock, Jeanne. 1986. “Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts.” Written Communication 3 (3): 275–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giltrow, Janet, and Dieter Stein (eds.). 2009. Genres in the Internet: Issues in the Theory of Genre. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gupta, Akhil, and James Ferguson. 1997. “Discipline and Practice: ‘The Field’ as Site, Method, and Location in Anthropology.” In Anthropological Locations: Boundaries and Grounds of a Field Science, ed. by Akhil Gupta, and James Ferguson, 1–47. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Hine, Christine. 2006. “Databases as Scientific Instruments and Their Role in the Ordering of Scientific Work.” Social Studies of Science 36 (2): 269–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Ethnography for the Internet: Embedded, Embodied and Everyday. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Kiernan, Vincent. 2003. “Diffusion of News about Research.” Science Communication 25 (1): 3–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levine, Herbert J. 1997. “Rest Heart Rate and Life Expectancy.” Journal of the American College of Cardiology 30 (4): 1104–1106.Google Scholar
Lauer, Janice M. 2004. Invention in Rhetoric and Composition. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.Google Scholar
Liang, Xuan, Leona Yi-Fan Su, Sara K. Yeo, Dietram A. Scheufele, Dominique Brossard, Michael Xenos, Paul Nealey, and Elizabeth A. Corley. 2014. “Building Buzz: (Scientists) Communicating Science in New Media Environments.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 91 (4): 772–791. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lillis, Theresa. 2008. “Ethnography as Method, Methodology, and ‘Deep Theorizing’: Closing the Gap between Text and Context in Academic Writing Research.” Written Communication 25 (3): 353–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lillis, Theresa, and Janet Maybin. 2017. “Introduction: The Dynamics of Textual Trajectories in Professional and Workplace Practice.” Text & Talk 37 (4): 409–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marincola, Elizabeth. 2006. “Why is Public Science Education Important?” Journal of Translational Medicine 4: 7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marwick, Alice E., and Danah Boyd. 2011. “I Tweet Honestly, I Tweet Passionately: Twitter Users, Context Collapse, and the Imagined Audience.” New Media & Society 13 (1): 114–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myers, Greg. 1990. Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
. 1992. “Textbooks and the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge.” English for Specific Purposes, 11, 3–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. “Discourse Studies of Scientific Popularization: Questioning the Boundaries.” Discourse Studies 5 (2): 265–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Odell, Lee, Dixie Goswami, and Anne Herrington. 1983. “The Discourse-Based Interview: A Procedure for Exploring the Tacit Knowledge of Writers in Nonacademic Settings.” In Research on Writing: Principles and Methods, ed. by Peter Mosenthal, Lynne Tamor, and Sean A. Walmsley, 221–36. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Pham, Daniel. 2016. “Public Engagement is Key for the Future of Science Research.” npj Science of Learning 1, Article no: 16010. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Phillips, David P., Elliot J. Kanter, Bridget Bednarczyk, and Patricia L. Tastad. 1991. “Importance of the Lay Press in the Transmission of Medical Knowledge to the Scientific Community.” New England Journal of Medicine 325 (16): 1180–1183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Porter, James E. 1986. “Intertextuality and the Discourse Community.” Rhetoric Review 5 (1): 34–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prior, Paul, and Jody Shipka. 2003. “Chronotopic Lamination: Tracing the Contours of Literate Activity.” In Writing Selves/Writing Societies: Research From Activity Perspectives, ed. by Charles Bazerman and David R. Russell, 180–238. Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse.Google Scholar
Rainie, Lee, Cary Funk, and Monica Anderson. 2015. “How Scientists Engage the Public.” Pew Research Center, Internet and Technology. Last accessed June 15, 2019. [URL]
Reid, Gwendolynne. 2017. “Shifting Networks of Science: Citizen Science and Scientific Genre Change.” In Scientific Communication: Practices, Theories, and Pedagogies, ed. by Han Yu, and Kathryn Northcut. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ridolfo, Jim, and Dànielle N. DeVoss. 2009. “Composing for Recomposition: Rhetorical Velocity and Delivery.” Kairos 13 (2): n.p.Google Scholar
Roozen, Kevin. 2010. “Tracing Trajectories of Practice: Repurposing in One Student’s Developing Disciplinary Writing Processes.” Written Communication 27 (3): 318–354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Russell, David R. 1995. “Activity Theory and Its Implications for Writing Instruction.” In Reconceiving Writing, Rethinking Writing Instruction, ed. by Joseph Petraglia, 51–77. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Saldaña, Johnny. 2009. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Shinn, Terry, and Michel Cloître. 1985. “Expository Practice: Social, Cognitive and Epistemological Linkage.” In Expository Science: Forms and Functions of Popularization, ed. by Terry Shinn, and Richard P. Whitley, 31–60. Dordrecht, Netherlands: D. Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stilgoe, Jack, Simon J. Lock, and James Wilsdon. 2014. “Why Should We Promote Public Engagement With Science?” Public Understanding of Science 23 (1): 4–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swales, John M. 2004. Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trench, Brian. 2008. “Internet: Turning Science Communication Inside-out?” In Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, ed. by Massimiano Bucchi, and Brian Trench, 185–98. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wesch, Michael. 2009. “YouTube and You: Experiences of Self-Awareness in the Context Collapse of the Recording Webcam.” Explorations in Media Ecology 8 (2): 19–34.Google Scholar
Zachry, Mark. 2000. “Communicative Practices in the Workplace: A Historical Examination of Genre Development.” Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 30 (1): 57–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Pérez-Llantada, Carmen
2024. Identity construction in digital communication for public engagement in science. Discourse Studies DOI logo
Kruse, Otto & Chris M. Anson
2023. Writing and Thinking: What Changes with Digital Technologies?. In Digital Writing Technologies in Higher Education, ► pp. 465 ff. DOI logo
Rowley-Jolivet, Elizabeth & Shirley Carter-Thomas
2023. Research goes digital: A challenge for genre analysis?. ASp :84 ► pp. 15 ff. DOI logo
Albero-Posac, Sofía & María José Luzón
2021. Chapter 4. Understanding academics online. In Ethnographies of Academic Writing Research [Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 1], ► pp. 62 ff. DOI logo
Freddi, Maria
2020. BLURRING THE LINES BETWEEN GENRES AND AUDIENCES: INTERACTION IN SCIENCE BLOGS. Discourse and Interaction 13:2 ► pp. 9 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.