Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2023-4
Who should be a science communicator? The struggle for ‘legitimate’ status as science communicators between Chinese scientists and citizens on a Chinese knowledge-sharing platform
Qualitative interviews with Chinese scientist science communicators (n = 15) and citizen science communicators (n = 15) on Zhihu suggest that there is a struggle between the two groups to be seen as legitimate science communicators online. Public users tried to show their enthusiasm as science communicators, integrate into the circle of science communicators and blur the boundary between scientists and themselves. The participating scientists tend to discount such activity and indicate that they are more legitimate science communicators, possessing the requisite scientific literacy and noble personal morality.
AndersonMSRonningEAVriesRDMartinsonBC (2010) Extending the Mertonian norms: Scientists’ subscription to norms of research. The Journal of Higher Education81(3): 366–393.
2.
BesleyJCDudoADYuanSAbi GhannamN (2016) Qualitative interviews with science communication trainers about communication objectives and goals. Science Communication38(3): 356–381.
3.
BlackerSKimuraAHKinchyA (2021) When citizen science is public relations. Social Studies of Science51: 780–796.
4.
BonneyRCooperCBDickinsonJKellingSPhillipsTRosenbergKV, et al. (2009) Citizen science: A developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. BioScience59(11): 977–984.
5.
BorkmanT (1976) Experiential knowledge: A new concept for the analysis of self-help groups. Social Service Review50(3): 445–456.
6.
BorkmanT (1990) Experiential, professional, and lay frames of reference. In: PowellTJ (ed.) Working With Self-Help. Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers, pp. 3–30.
7.
BrossardDLewensteinBBonneyR (2005) Scientific knowledge and attitude change: The impact of a citizen science project. International Journal of Science Education27(9): 1099–1121.
8.
BultitudeK (2011) The why and how of science communication. In: RosulekP (ed.) ‘Science Communication’. Pilsen: European Commission, pp. 1–18.
9.
BurnsTWO’ConnorDJStocklmayerSM (2003) Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science12(2): 183–202.
ConstantNRobertsL (2017) Narratives as a mode of research evaluation in citizen science: Understanding broader science communication impacts. Journal of Science Communication16(4): A03.
12.
CooterR (1999) The Cultural Meaning of Popular Science: Phrenology and the Organization of Consent in Nineteenth-Century Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
CormickCNielssenOAshworthPLa SalleJSaabC (2015) What do science communicators talk about when they talk about science communications? Engaging with the engagers. Science Communication37(2): 274–282.
14.
DaviesSRHorstM (2016) Science Communication: Culture, Identity and Citizenship. Berlin: Springer.
FahyDNisbetMC (2011) The science journalist online: Shifting roles and emerging practices. Journalism12(7): 778–793.
17.
FjæstadB (2008) Why journalists report science as they do. In: BauerMWBucchiM (eds) Journalism, Science and Society. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 135–144.
18.
FoellJ (2021) Social media science communication is a nonstop academic conference for all. Nature Human Behaviour5: 812.
19.
GierynTF (1983) Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review48: 781–795.
20.
GierynTF (1995) Boundary work. In: JasanoffSMarkleGEPetersenJCPinchT (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 293–332.
21.
GierynTF (1999) Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
22.
GuCFengY (2022) Influence of public engagement with science on scientific information literacy during the COVID-19 pandemic: Empirical evidence from college students in China. Science & Education31(3): 619–633.
23.
GuestGMacQueenKMNameyEE (2012) Themes and codes. In: GuestGMacQueenKMNameyEE (eds) Applied Thematic Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 49–79.
24.
HutchinsATindallNT (eds) (2016) Public Relations and Participatory Culture: Fandom, Social Media and Community Engagement. New York, NY: Routledge.
25.
IllingworthSMRoopHA (2015) Developing key skills as a science communicator: Case studies of two scientist-led outreach programmes. Geosciences5(1): 2–14.
26.
JiaHPFanJQ (2015) Who is blocking the road to genetically modified science?Food Industry3: 45–50.
27.
JiaHPLiuL (2014) Unbalanced progress: The hard road from science popularisation to public engagement with science in China. Public Understanding of Science23(1): 32–37.
28.
Kelemen-FinanJScheuchMWinterS (2018) Contributions from citizen science to science education: an examination of a biodiversity citizen science project with schools in Central Europe. International Journal of Science Education40(17): 2078–2098.
29.
LiangJLiuXZhangW (2019) Scientists vs laypeople: How genetically modified food is discussed on a Chinese Q&A website. Public Understanding of Science28(8): 991–1004.
30.
LiuH (2009) Three models and three stages of science communication. Study on Science Popularization4(19): 10–18.
31.
MertonRK (1973) The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
MeyerG (2018) The Science Communication Challenge: Truth and Disagreement in Democratic Knowledge Societies. London: Anthem Press.
34.
MichailidouA (2017) Twitter, public engagement and the Eurocrisis: More than an echo chamber? In: BarisioneMMichailidouA (eds) Social Media and European Politics. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 241–266.
35.
MuellerMPTippinsDJ (2012) Citizen science, ecojustice, and science education: Rethinking an education from nowhere. In: FraserBJTobinKMcRobbieCJ (eds) Second International Handbook of Science Education. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 865–882.
36.
NerlichBKoteykoNBrownB (2010) Theory and language of climate change communication. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change1(1): 97–110.
37.
PetersHP (2013) Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences110(Suppl. 3): 14102–14109.
38.
Ramírez-i-OlléM (2015) Rhetorical strategies for scientific authority: A boundary-work analysis of ‘climategate’. Science as Culture24(4): 384–411.
39.
RouseJ (1993) What are cultural studies of scientific knowledge?Configurations1(1): 1–22.
40.
SimisMJMaddenHCacciatoreMAYeoSK (2016) The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication?Public Understanding of Science25(4): 400–414.
41.
StrasserBBaudryJMahrDSanchezGTancoigneE (2019) ‘Citizen science’? Rethinking science and public participation. Science & Technology Studies32(2): 52–76.
42.
StraussACorbinJ (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
43.
SturgisPAllumN (2004) Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science13(1): 55–74.
44.
SturmUTschollM (2019) The role of digital user feedback in a user-centred development process in citizen science. Journal of Science Communication18(1): A03.
45.
TangS (2019) Some reflections on science popularization and science culture in China. Cultures of Science2(3): 227–234.
46.
TreiseDWeigoldMF (2002) Advancing science communication: A survey of science communicators. Science Communication23(3): 310–322.
47.
TrenchB (2008) Towards an analytical framework of science communication models. In: ChengDClaessensMGascoigneTMetcalfeJSchieleBShiS (eds) Communicating Science in Social Contexts. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 119–135.
48.
Van DijckJ (2003) After the ‘two cultures’: Toward a ‘(multi)cultural’ practice of science communication. Science Communication25(2): 177–190.
49.
VicariS (2021) Is it all about storytelling? Living and learning hereditary cancer on Twitter. New Media & Society23(8): 2385–2408.
50.
WangSCornerAChapmanDMarkowitzE (2018) Public engagement with climate imagery in a changing digital landscape. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change9(2): e509.
51.
WardJK (2019) Journalists and science: Boundary-making in the media coverage of the 2009 pandemic flu vaccine’s safety in France. Sociologie10(4): 377–394.
52.
WuQLLuoC (2019) A preliminary study on the science communication model of social science issues in my country – Taking the ‘PX Project’ event as an example. Science and Society9(2): 92–110.
53.
WynnJ (2017) Citizen Science in the Digital Age: Rhetoric, Science, and Public Engagement. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
54.
YangZ (2021a) Citizen science communicators, boundary-work and scientific authority: Struggle for discourse authority between scientists and the public in the digital media environment of China. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Sheffield, Sheffield.
55.
YangZ (2021b) Deconstruction of the discourse authority of scientists in Chinese online science communication: Investigation of citizen science communicators on Chinese knowledge sharing networks. Public Understanding of Science30: 993–1007.
56.
YangZ (2022a) How do Chinese scientists maintain their discourse authority? Critical discourse analysis of discourse ‘boundary work’ in genetically modified organisms discussion on a Chinese knowledge-sharing network. Chinese Journal of Communication. Epub ahead of print 16 May. DOI: 10.1080/17544750.2022.2075904.
57.
YangZ (2022b) The new stage of public engagement with science in the digital media environment: Citizen science communicators in the discussion of GMOs on Zhihu. New Genetics and Society. Epub ahead of print 26 April. DOI: 10.1080/14636778.2022.2063826.
58.
YearleyS (1994) Understanding science from the perspective of the sociology of scientific knowledge: An overview. Public Understanding of Science3(3): 245.
59.
ZhengY (2008) Technological Empowerment. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
