The public understanding of science has produced a large body of research about general attitudes toward science. However, most studies of science attitudes have been carried out via surveys or in experimental conditions, and few make use of the growing contexts of online science communication to investigate attitudes without researcher intervention. This study adopted corpus-based discourse analysis to investigate the negative attitudes held toward science by users of the social media website Reddit, specifically the forum r/science. A large corpus of comments made to r/science was collected and mined for keywords. Analysis of keywords identified several sources of negative attitudes, such as claims that scientists can be corruptible, poor communicators, and misleading. Research methodologies were negatively evaluated on the basis of small sample sizes. Other commenters negatively evaluated social science research, especially psychology, as being pseudoscientific, and several commenters described science journalism as untrustworthy or sensationalized.
AugustTCardDHsiehGSmithNAReineckeK (2020) Explain like I am a scientist: The linguistic barriers of entry to r/science. In: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Honolulu, HI, 25–30 April, pp. 1–12. New York, NY: ACM Digital Library.
3.
BakerP (2006) Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum.
4.
BauerMBucchiM (eds) (2007) Journalism, Science and Society. London; New York, NY: Routledge.
5.
BauerMPetkovaKBoyadjievaP (2000) Public knowledge and attitudes to science: Alternative measures that may end the “science war.”Science, Technology, & Human Values25(1): 30–51.
6.
BauerMWFaladeBA (2014) Public understanding of science: Survey research around the world. In: BucchiMTrenchB (eds) Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 140–159.
7.
BiberDConnorUUptonTA (2007) Discourse on the Move: Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure. Amsterdam; Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
8.
BlankJMShawD (2015) Does partisanship shape attitudes toward science and public policy? The case for ideology and religion. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science658: 18–35.
9.
BodmerW (1985) The Public Understanding of Science. London: Royal Society.
10.
BrezinaV (2018) Statistics in Corpus Linguistics: A Practical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
BrookesGBakerP (2017) What does patient feedback reveal about the NHS? A mixed methods study of comments posted to the NHS Choices online service. BMJ Open7: e013821.
12.
CalsamigliaHVan DijkT (2004) Popularization discourse and knowledge about the genome. Discourse & Society15(4): 369–389.
13.
CassidyA (2014) Communicating the social sciences: A specific challenge? In: BucchiMTrenchB (eds) Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 186–197.
14.
DaviesSHaraN (2017) Public science in a wired world: How online media are shaping science communication. Science Communication39(5): 563–568.
15.
DudoABrossardDShanahanJScheufeleDAMorganMSignorelliN (2011) Science on television in the 21st century: Recent trends in portrayals and their contributions to public attitudes toward science. Communication Research38(6): 754–777.
16.
EdwardsMZieglerC (2022) Examining science communication on Reddit: From an “Assembled” to a “Disassembling” approach. Public Understanding of Science31(4): 473–488.
17.
FentonNBrymanADeaconD (1998) Mediating Social Science. London: SAGE.
18.
GauchatG (2011) The cultural authority of science: Public trust and acceptance of organized science. Public Understanding of Science20: 751–770.
19.
GierthLBrommeR (2020) Attacking science on social media: How user comments affect perceived trustworthiness and credibility. Public Understanding of Science29(2): 230–247.
20.
GoldenbergM (2016) Public misunderstanding of science? Reframing the problem of vaccine hesitancy. Perspectives on Science24(5): 552–581.
21.
GottiM (2014) Reformulation and recontextualization in popularization discourse. Iberica27: 15–34.
22.
HaraNAbbazioJPerkinsK (2019) An emerging form of public engagement with science: Ask Me Anything (AMA) sessions on Reddit r/science. PLoS ONE14(5): e0216789.
23.
HilgartnerS (1990) The dominant view of popularization: Conceptual problems, political uses. Social Studies of Science20(3): 519–539.
24.
House of Lords (2000) Science and Society. London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office.
25.
HuberBBarnidgeMDe ZúñigaHGLiuJ (2019) Fostering public trust in science: The role of social media. Public Understanding of Science28(7): 759–777.
26.
HubnerABondR (2022) I am a scientist . . . Ask me anything: Examining differences between male and female scientists participating in a Reddit AMA session. Public Understanding of Science31(4): 458–472.
27.
HunstonS (1994) Evaluation and organization in academic discourse. In: CoulthardM (ed.) Advances in Written Text Analysis. London: Routledge, pp. 191–218.
28.
HunstonS (2010) Corpus Approaches to Evaluation: Phraseology and Evaluative Language. London: Routledge.
29.
HylandK (2010) Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science. English for Academic Purposes9: 116–127.
30.
JonesRReineckeKColussoLHsiehG (2019) r/science: Challenges and opportunities for online science communication. In: Proceedings of the CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Glasgow, 4–9 May, pp. 1–14. New York, NY: ACM Digital Library.
31.
Knobloch-WesterwickSJohnsonBKSilverNWesterwickA (2015) Science exemplars in the eye of the beholder: How exposure to online science information affects attitudes. Science Communication37(5): 575–601.
32.
LaiDWangDCalvanoJRajaASHeS (2020) Addressing immediate public coronavirus (COVID-19) concerns through social media: Utilizing Reddit’s AMA as a framework for public engagement with science. PLoS ONE15(10): e0240326.
33.
LeeSKimS-H (2018) Scientific knowledge and attitudes toward science in South Korea: Does knowledge lead to favorable attitudes?Science Communication40(2): 147–172.
34.
MassaraniLBuysBAmorimLHVeneuF (2007) Growing, but foreign source dependent: Science coverage in Latin America. In: BauerMBucchiM (eds) Journalism, Science and Society. London; New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 71–79.
35.
MillerS (2001) Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science10: 115–120.
36.
MoriartyDMehlenbacherAR (2019) The coaxing architecture of Reddit’s r/science: Adopting ethos-assessment heuristics to evaluate science experts on the Internet. Social Epistemology33(6): 514–524.
37.
National Science Board, National Science Foundation (2020) Science and technology: Public attitudes, knowledge, and interest. Science and Engineering Indicators 2020. NSB-2020-7. Alexandria, VA: National Science Board, National Science Foundation. Available at: https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20207/ (accessed 15 December 2021).
PartingtonADuguidATaylorC (2013) Patterns and Meanings in Discourse: Theory and Practice in Corpus-Assisted Discourse Studies (CADS). Amsterdam; Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
40.
PellechiaMG (1997) Trends in science coverage: A content analysis of three US newspapers. Public Understanding of Science6(1): 49–68.
41.
PetersHPBrossardDDe CheveigneSDunwoodySKallfassMMillerS, et al. (2008) Interactions with the mass media. Science321: 204–205.
42.
PutscheLHormelLMihelichJStorrsD (2017) “You end up feeling like the rest of the world is kind of picking on you”: Perceptions of regulatory science’s threats to economic livelihoods and Idahoans’ collective identity. Science Communication39(6): 1–26.
R Core Team (2020) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: https://www.R-project.org/
45.
RothmundTFarkhariFZiemerC-TAzevedoF (2022) Psychological underpinnings of pandemic denial—Patterns of disagreement with scientific experts in the German public during the COVID-19 pandemic. Public Understanding of Science31(4): 437–457.
46.
SchäferMS (2012) Taking stock: A meta-analysis of studies on the media’s coverage of science. Public Understanding of Science21(6): 650–663.
47.
SchmierbachM (2005) Method matters: The influence of methodology on journalists’ assessments of social science research. Science Communication26(3): 269–287.
48.
ScottM (1997) PC analysis of key words—And key key words. System25(2): 233–245.
SturgisPAllumN (2004) Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science13: 55–74.
51.
ThompsonG (2014) Introducing Functional Grammar. New York, NY; London: Routledge.
52.
TrenchB (2008) Towards an analytical framework of science communication models. In: ChengDClaessensMGascoigneTMetcalfeJSchieleBShiS (eds) Communicating Science in Social Contexts: New Models, New Practices. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 119–135.
53.
WeissCHSingerE (1988) Reporting of Social Science in the National Media. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
54.
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.
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.
