This study examines messages contributed by scientists and laypeople to an online discussion about genetically modified food in China with the aim to understand whether and how scientists and laypeople apply different communication strategies with regard to framing, interaction features, and writing style. Both answers (N = 100) and comments (N = 2416) related to genetically modified food on Zhihu, the most popular social Q&A site in China, were analyzed. The analysis reveals that though there were no significant attitude differences between scientists and laypeople, the two groups tended to frame genetically modified food from quite different perspectives. Also, although scientist users were not perfect rationalists during online discussions, they were more likely to be both high-quality content contributors and active discussion facilitators.
BauerMW (2002) Controversial medical and agri-food biotechnology: A cultivation analysis. Public Understanding of Science11: 93–111.
2.
BrossardDNisbetM (2006) Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding U.S. opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research19(1): 24–52.
3.
BucchiM (2008) Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: Theories of public communication of science. In: BucchiMTrenchB (eds) Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. London: Routledge, pp. 57–76.
4.
BurkhalterSGastilJKelshawT (2002) A conceptual definition and theoretical model of public deliberations in small face-to-face groups. Communication Theory12(4): 398–422.
5.
CarrozzaC (2015) Democratizing expertise and environmental governance: Different approaches to the politics of science and their relevance for policy analysis. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning17(1): 108–126.
ChungDS (2008) Interactive features of online newspapers: Identifying patterns and predicting use of engaged readers. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication13(3): 658–679.
8.
CookGPieriERobbinsPT (2004) The scientists think and the public feels: Expert perceptions of the discourse of GM food. Discourse & Society15(4): 433–449.
9.
DahlgrenP (2005) The Internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication22: 147–162.
10.
DavenportD (2002) Anonymity on the Internet: Why the price may be too high. Communications of the ACM45(4): 33–35.
11.
DeuzeM (2003) The web and its journalisms: Considering the consequences of different types of news media online. New Media & Society5(2): 203–230.
12.
DruckmanJNBolsenT (2011) Framing, motivated reasoning, and opinions about emergent technologies. Journal of Communication61(4): 659–688.
13.
DudoA (2015) Scientists, the media, and the public communication of science. Sociology Compass9(9): 761–775.
14.
FahyDNisbetMC (2011) The science journalist online: Shifting roles and emerging practices. Journalism12(7): 778–793.
15.
FuntowiczSORavetzJR (1995) Science for the post normal age. In: WestraLLemonsJ (eds) Perspectives on Ecological Integrity. Berlin: Springer, pp. 146–161.
16.
GbrichC (2007) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
17.
GladneyGAShapiroICastaldoJ (2007) Online editors rate web news quality criteria. Newspaper Research Journal28(1): 55–69.
18.
GregoryJMillerS (1998) Science in Public: Communication, Culture, and Credibility. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
19.
GuanWGaoHYangMLiYMaHQianW, et al. (2014) Analyzing user behavior of the micro-blogging website Sina Weibo during hot social events. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications395: 340–351.
20.
HaslbergerA (2001) GMO contamination of seeds. Nature Biotechnology19(7): 613–628.
21.
HendriksCM (2006) Integrated deliberation: Reconciling civil society’s dual role in deliberative democracy. Political Studies54(3): 486–508.
22.
HoPVermeerEBZhaoJH (2006) Biotechnology and food safety in China: Consumers’ acceptance or resistance?. Development and Change37(1): 227–254.
23.
HoSSScheufeleDACorleyEA (2013) Factors influencing public risk-benefit considerations of nanotechnology: Assessing the effects of mass media, interpersonal communication, and elaborative processing. Public Understanding of Science22(5): 606–623.
24.
JamiesonKHCappellaJN (2008) Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
25.
JenkinsH (2006) Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York, NY: New York University Press.
26.
KahanD (2012) Why we are poles apart on climate change. Nature488(7411): 255.
KimSHKimJNBesleyJC (2013) Pathways to support genetically modified (GM) foods in South Korea: Deliberate reasoning, information shortcuts, and the role of formal education. Public Understanding of Science22(2): 169–184.
29.
KrippendorffK (2018) Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
30.
LeshedG (2009) Silencing the clatter: Removing anonymity from a corporate online community. In: DaviesTGangadharanSP (eds) Online Deliberation: Design, Research, and Practice. Wayne, PA: CLSI Publications, pp. 243–252.
31.
McBurneyPParsonsS (2001) Dialogue games in multi-agent systems. Informal Logic22(3): 257–274.
32.
NeuendorfKA (2002) The Content Analysis Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
33.
NicoliaAManzoAVeronesiFRoselliniD (2014) An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology34(1): 77–88.
34.
NordleeJATaylorSLTownsendJAThomasLABushRK (1996) Identification of a Brazil-nut allergen in transgenic soybeans. New England Journal of Medicine334(11): 688–692.
35.
OhOAgrawalMRaoHR (2013) Community intelligence and social media services: A rumor theoretic analysis of tweets during social crises. MIS Quarterly37: 407–426.
36.
Parales-QuenzaCJ (2004) Preferences need no inferences, once again: Germinal elements in the public perceptions of genetically modified foods in Colombia. Public Understanding of Science13(2): 131–153.
37.
PariserE (2011) The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. London: Penguin Books.
38.
ParsonsECMShiffmanDSDarlingESSpillmanNWrightAJ (2014) How twitter literacy can benefit conservation scientists. Conservation Biology28(2): 299–301.
39.
PetersHP (2008) Scientists as public experts. In: BucchiMTrenchB (eds) Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. London: Routledge, pp. 131–146.
40.
PhippsRHParkJR (2002) Environmental benefits of genetically modified crops: Global and European perspectives on their ability to reduce pesticide use. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences11(1): 1–18.
41.
RavetzJ (2006) The no-nonsense guide to science. Oxford: New Internationalist.
42.
RisslerJMellonMG (1996) The Ecological Risks of Engineered Crops. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
43.
RobinsonC (1997) Genetically modified foods and consumer choice. Trends in Food Science & Technology8(3): 84–88.
44.
RoweGHorlick-JonesTWallsJPidgeonN (2005) Difficulties in evaluating public engagement initiatives: Reflections on an evaluation of the UK GM Nation? public debate about transgenic crops. Public Understanding of Science14(4): 331–352.
45.
RungeKKBrossardDScheufeleDARoseKMLarsonBJ (2017) Attitudes about Food and Food-Related Biotechnology. Public Opinion Quarterly81: 577–596.
46.
SantanaAD (2014) Virtuous or vitriolic: The effect of anonymity on civility in online newspaper reader comment boards. Journalism Practice8: 18–33.
47.
ShiffmanDS (2012) Twitter as a tool for conservation education and outreach: What scientific conferences can do to promote live-tweeting. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences2(3): 257–262.
48.
SouthwellB (2017) Promoting popular understanding of science and health through social networks. In: JamiesonKHKahanDScheufeleDA (eds) The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 223–232.
49.
SteenbergenMRBächtigerASpörndliMSteinerJ (2003) Measuring political deliberation: A discourse quality index. Comparative European Politics1(1): 21–48.
50.
TavellaE (2016) How to make participatory technology assessment in agriculture more “participatory”: The case of genetically modified plants. Technological Forecasting and Social Change103: 119–126.
51.
ThurmanN (2008) Forums for citizen journalists? Adoption of user generated content initiatives by online news media. New Media & Society10; 139–157.
52.
TriunfolML (2004) Dynamics of list-server discussion on genetically modified foods. Public Understanding of Science13(2): 155–175.
53.
Van MeijlHVan TongerenF (2004) International diffusion of gains from biotechnology and the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy. Agricultural Economics31: 307–316.
54.
Vilella-VilaMCosta-FontJ (2008) Press media reporting effects on risk perceptions and attitudes towards genetically modified (GM) food. The Journal of Socio-economics37(5): 2095.
55.
WaltonDKrabbeEC (1995) Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. New York, NY: State University of New York Press.
56.
WangWGuoL (2018) Framing genetically modified mosquitoes in the online news and Twitter: Intermedia frame setting in the issue-attention cycle. Public Understanding of Science27(8): 937–951.
57.
WenNWeiR (2018) Examining effects of informational use of social media platforms and social capital on civic engagement regarding genetically modified foods in China. International Journal of Communication12: 3729–3750.
58.
WynneB (2006) Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science: Hitting the notes, but missing the music?Community Genetics9(3): 211–220.
59.
YooCY (2011) Modeling audience interactivity as the gratification-seeking process in online newspapers. Communication Theory21(1): 67–89.
60.
ZhangW (2016) The Internet and New Social Formation in China: Fandom Publics in the Making. Abingdon: Routledge.
