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.
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
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.
Bazerman, Charles
1997 “
Discursively Structured Activities.”
Mind, Culture, and Activity 4: 293–308.
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.
Beaufort, Anne
2007 College Writing and Beyond: A New Framework for University Writing Instruction. Logan: Utah State University Press.
Bizzell, Patricia
2009 Academic Discourse and Critical Consciousness. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
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.
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.
Cummings, Jonathon N., and Sara Kiesler
2005 “
Collaborative Research across Disciplinary and Organizational Boundaries.”
Social Studies of Science 35 (5): 703–722.
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.
Davis, Jenny L., and Nathan Jurgenson
2014 “
Context Collapse: Theorizing Context Collusions and Collisions.”
Information, Communication & Society 17 (4): 476–85.
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.
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.
Fahnestock, Jeanne
1986 “
Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts.”
Written Communication 3 (3): 275–296.
Giltrow, Janet, and Dieter Stein
Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss
1967 The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
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.
Hine, Christine
2006 “
Databases as Scientific Instruments and Their Role in the Ordering of Scientific Work.”
Social Studies of Science 36 (2): 269–98.
Hine, Christine
2015 Ethnography for the Internet: Embedded, Embodied and Everyday. London: Bloomsbury.
Kiernan, Vincent
2003 “
Diffusion of News about Research.”
Science Communication 25 (1): 3–13.
Levine, Herbert J.
1997 “
Rest Heart Rate and Life Expectancy.”
Journal of the American College of Cardiology 30 (4): 1104–1106.
Lauer, Janice M.
2004 Invention in Rhetoric and Composition. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
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.
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.
Lillis, Theresa, and Janet Maybin
2017 “
Introduction: The Dynamics of Textual Trajectories in Professional and Workplace Practice.”
Text & Talk 37 (4): 409–414.
Marincola, Elizabeth
2006 “
Why is Public Science Education Important?”
Journal of Translational Medicine 4: 7.
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.
Myers, Greg
1990 Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Myers, Greg
1992 “
Textbooks and the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge.”
English for Specific Purposes, 11, 3–17.
Myers, Greg
2003 “
Discourse Studies of Scientific Popularization: Questioning the Boundaries.”
Discourse Studies 5 (2): 265–79.
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.
Pham, Daniel
2016 “
Public Engagement is Key for the Future of Science Research.”
npj Science of Learning 1,
Article no: 16010.
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.
Porter, James E.
1986 “
Intertextuality and the Discourse Community.”
Rhetoric Review 5 (1): 34–47.
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.
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.
Ridolfo, Jim, and Dànielle N. DeVoss
2009 “
Composing for Recomposition: Rhetorical Velocity and Delivery.”
Kairos 13 (2): n.p.
Roozen, Kevin
2010 “
Tracing Trajectories of Practice: Repurposing in One Student’s Developing Disciplinary Writing Processes.”
Written Communication 27 (3): 318–354.
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.
Saldaña, Johnny
2009 The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. London: Sage.
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.
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.
Swales, John M.
2004 Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
Zachry, Mark
2000 “
Communicative Practices in the Workplace: A Historical Examination of Genre Development.”
Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 30 (1): 57–79.
Cited by
Cited by 3 other publications
Albero-Posac, Sofía & María José Luzón
Freddi, Maria
2020.
BLURRING THE LINES BETWEEN GENRES AND AUDIENCES: INTERACTION IN SCIENCE BLOGS.
Discourse and Interaction 13:2
► pp. 9 ff.
Kruse, Otto & Chris M. Anson
2023.
Writing and Thinking: What Changes with Digital Technologies?. In
Digital Writing Technologies in Higher Education,
► pp. 465 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 april 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.