Keywords

2.1 Introduction

In this first chapter, background information is provided to offer insight into the context in which our framework for popularization discourse is situated. It discusses popularization discourse, science communication and science journalism, older and current models, recontextualization and reformulation as textual construction processes, and the challenges that are faced within the research field and practical field.

2.2 Popularization Discourse

Popularization is a concept with two meanings; it is both a verb and a noun. On the one hand, it can refer to the act of giving insight into academic findings in an understandable and engaging way for a non-academic or non-expert audience, that is, the act of transformation (Calsamiglia & Van Dijk, 2004). On the other hand, it can refer to the discourse that is produced because of that act, which can include multiple discursive-semiotic practices and a multitude of media forms (Calsamiglia & Van Dijk, 2004). To avoid confusion, in this book we use the verb ‘popularization’ to mean the act, and the noun ‘popularization discourse’ to denote the product.

In the academic literature, popularization is discussed from multiple research perspectives: applied linguistics, rhetoric, communication sciences, media studies, history, and science (Myers, 2003). In the field of discourse analysis, multiple views of popularization can be distinguished: as a translation or reformulation of academic discourse into a second discourse, as a discursive genre, as recontextualization, as dependent on processes in the media, or as a form of dialogic relationship between the scientific context and other contexts (Grillo et al., 2016). Popularization discourse is characterized primarily through the context and social situation in which it is constructed. What matters most are the actors, their role in the communication, their knowledge, purposes, and beliefs, and the applicability of their knowledge in everyday life (Calsamiglia & Van Dijk, 2004). According to Calsamiglia (2003), “these days the scientific disciplines express themselves in what for the non-specialist is an unknown, hermetic and difficult language” (p. 141). Through popularization, knowledge produced in these academic and specialized practices is transformed into knowledge for a lay audience: the resulting discourse connects to everyday life and is written in understandable language (Calsamiglia & Van Dijk, 2004; Gotti, 2014). Or, as Hyland framed it:

This [popular science] is a discourse related to the academy, its work, and its forms of communication but stripped of its more forbidding rhetorical features. While attempting to wield the authority of science, both scientific facts and the argument forms of professional science are transformed in the process. (Hyland, 2010, p. 118)

In this quote, Hyland placed the focus on the adaption of rhetorical features in the process of popularization. At the same time, tension exists between the discourse of research and discourse of public communication, as Baram-Tsabari and Lewenstein pointed out: “Unfortunately, the two discourses are sometimes in tension: One rewards jargon, the other penalizes it; one rewards precision, the other accepts approximation; one rewards quantification, the other rewards storytelling and anecdotes” (Baram-Tsabari & Lewenstein, 2013, p. 80).

Even though popularization discourse is based on academic discourse, it is often defined by its differences to or adaptations from it. Popularization discourse brings the worlds of research and of society and everyday life closer together. Yet the different regard academic discourse and popularization discourse possess for scientific objects forms an obstacle in the ‘translation’ of academic findings from one discourse to the other:

[F]or the former (the scientists) the object has an immanent value in scientific and specialist contexts. For the latter (the public) the value is external to all the theories and methods: what is important is its application, its utility, and the consequences of its use in people’s lives. (Calsamiglia, 2003, p. 140)

This difference in positionality leads to one of the main themes in the process of constructing popularization discourse: the genre shift from scientific reports, which establish the validity of the observations, to science journalism texts, which celebrate academic research and underpin its significance. This is what Myers described in the following way:

The professional articles create what I call a narrative of science; they follow the argument of the scientist, arrange time into a parallel series of simultaneous events all supporting their claim, and emphasize in their syntax and vocabulary the conceptual structure of the discipline. The popularizing articles, on the other hand, present a sequential narrative of nature in which the plant or animal, not the scientific activity, is the subject, the narrative is chronological, and the syntax and vocabulary emphasize the externality of nature to scientific practices. (1990, p. 142 as quoted in Giannoni, 2008)

Myers positioned academic texts with a focus on the researcher and research, whereas popularized texts focus on the phenomenon itself. Fahnestock talked about the same phenomenon and described the two main rhetorical arguments in science journalism to be those of ‘the wonder’ and ‘the application.’ Concurrently, the rhetorical life of scientific observations cycles from the nature of a phenomenon toward its values and consequences in everyday life (Fahnestock, 1986). Scientific findings travel along a ‘communicative path’ that moves from the intraspecialistic (disciplinary) stage to the interspecialistic (academic, non-disciplinary) stage to the pedagogical and finally the popular stage. In each of these stages, details and meaning are removed and findings are solidified as (simple) facts (Bucchi, 2008). The presented information therefore changes: uncertainty is removed and direct quotes from authors are added (Fahnestock, 1986). In this process, scientific research that is conducted to gain more understanding of a phenomenon (‘the wonder’) is transformed and re-presented in a way that connects with society and everyday life (‘the application’), while the focus shifts from the producer of the knowledge (the researcher) in the academic discourse back to the phenomenon as it appears in nature in the popularization discourse. These changes are made in order to make the presented information interesting and usable for a broad audience.

2.3 Science Communication versus Science Journalism

Popularization discourse consists of two main subgenres: science communication and science journalism. In science communication, researchers communicate about findings from their own research. Although in some settings this is assumed to be one-way communication, other definitions assume a broader spectrum of communicative activities (Bultitude, 2011). An example is the definition from Burns et al., who viewed science communication as a culmination of four types of expertise: the use of appropriate skills, media, activities, and dialogue. Science communication may also be practiced by practitioners, mediators, and members of the general public. The aim of science communication is to elicit a personal response to research in the form of awareness, enjoyment, interest, opinion, or understanding (Burns et al., 2003, p. 191). Effective science communication is also defined as a means to inform the public to facilitate decision making (Fischhoff, 2013). Science communication includes, but is not the equivalent of, public awareness of science, public understanding of science, scientific literacy, and scientific culture (Burns et al., 2003). Science communication can be found on an institutional level, where motivations mostly lie on a utilitarian, economic, cultural, and democratic level, or on the individual level of the researcher, who can use science communication to boost their career or network, to develop new skills, or to obtain additional funding (Bultitude, 2011). Apart from written science communication, there are also plenty of spoken and interactive science communication options, such as lectures, science cafes, and festivals—although we will not specifically address these in this book.

In science journalism, a journalist—who has usually received extensive academic training—communicates about academic insights published by researchers in a clear and appealing way (Molek-Kozakowska, 2015). In the nineteenth century, popularization used to be part of a researcher’s job, but this changed in the twentieth century when ongoing demarcation of science away from society meant that pursuing popularization activities could destroy a researcher’s career. Mass media, on the other hand, had an unwavering interest in stories about academic research (although they were not always considered as such, specifically), which meant that journalists took on the popularization function. Even nowadays, when popularization is once again a popular activity for researchers, science journalists are still responsible for a large number of the stories about academic advancements (Dunwoody, 2014).

Science journalism is a mixed discourse of informative and explanatory elements. It explains research findings but also places them in the framework of public concern (Gotti, 2014). Its interdiscursivity is formed through three types of discourse: academic discourse, journalistic discourse, and pedagogical discourse. The latter is used as a learning tool, to provide scaffolding for readers to grasp new scientific information (Motta-Roth & Scherer, 2016). Science journalism, therefore, means not only a recontextualization of the research presented but also a framing and interpretation through which the public understanding is influenced (Molek-Kozakowska, 2015). Furthermore, features from both journalism and science communication are used. This combining of discourses poses some difficulties, as they do not share the exact same goal: where science communication primarily tries to offer a credible presentation of the research, journalism includes a double appeal of both remarkable science and appealing news stories (Molek-Kozakowska, 2015).

Another complicating factor is that although professional journalists are responsible for the re-presentation of research, they, in turn, are part of and dependent on the institutional organization of the media (Gotti, 2014). Newsworthy stories are more likely to be profitable, which means stories that score well on timeliness, impact, and proximity are more likely to be picked up (Molek-Kozakowska, 2015, 2017). It is exactly this pursuit of newsworthiness that might put the focus too much on infotainment and hamper the understanding of the actual research (Molek-Kozakowska, 2017). This also explains why science journalism faces criticism of “inaccuracy, sensationalism, oversimplifications and failing to engage audiences in meaningful debate about scientific issues”—although these claims are also contested (Secko et al., 2013, p. 62).

2.4 Views and Models of Popularization Discourse

Across time, different views and models have existed about popularization discourse. One of the earliest views on popularization was the culturally dominant or canonical view, in which popularization discourse only included texts for non-specialists (Myers, 2003). Popularizations were seen as a simplified and often degraded version of scientific knowledge, and were presented in stark contrast with “pure, genuine scientific knowledge” (Hilgartner, 1990, p. 519). Myers explained the canonical view in the following way: “Popularization includes only texts about science that are not addressed to other specialist scientists, with the assumption that the texts that are addressed to other specialists are something else, something much better: scientific discourse” (Myers, 2003, p. 265).

This way of thinking of popularization discourse as a less worthy, toned down version of academic discourse creates a divide between the two discourses. Consequently, it also leads to a gap between the academic and non-academic world. Indeed, the canonical view was politicalized to demarcate research as only accessible for academic experts and to give those experts authority (Hilgartner, 1990). In doing so, a chasm was created between experts and lay people. Connected to the culturally dominant view of popularization are dissemination models, the most well known of which is the deficit model, which has been heavily critiqued since. The deficit model assumes that lay people (or ‘the public’) show skepticism or resistance to academic research because of a lack of knowledge. Information is the solution to this problem, which researchers can provide in a unilateral way. Popularization is very much seen as a pedagogical function in this model (Besley & Tanner, 2011; Miller, 2001; Trench, 2008).

Newer views do not position popularization discourse and academic discourse as distinct discourses (Myers, 2003). Academic discourse and popularization discourse are rather seen as genres on a continuum, with many different variances in between: “Only from the outside, and from a great distance, does scientific discourse seem to employ a single unified register” (Myers, 2003, p. 270). Or, to put it differently: “Popularization is a matter of degree” (Hilgartner, 1990, p. 528). This means that there is no one set form or mode of popularization discourse, and that there is no clear demarcation of where academic discourse ends and popularization discourse begins. Newer views see popularization discourse as more broadly applicable than just as a way of conveying information; it also gives center stage to persons, identities, experiences, and interaction. Therefore, popularization discourse also raises questions about the actors, institutions, and forms of authority involved (Myers, 2003). Hyland introduced the idea of proximity to explain “… the ways writers manage their display of expertise and interactions with readers through rhetorical choices that contextually construct both the writer and reader as people with similar understandings and goals” (Hyland, 2010, p. 116).

In doing so, the divide between the writer as ‘expert’ and reader as ‘layperson’ is fading, with both parties forming an integral part in the communication. The focus of popularization discourse, then, moves away from the pedagogical function and onto explaining the social stakes of issues involved (Moirand, 2003). Models connected to this view are those of dialogue and conversation. In dialogue models, different target audiences with their own background, information, and needs are taken into consideration. Communication based on these models is often still a one-way process, but the aim is to create two-way communication between researchers and their audience, and interaction plays a bigger role (Trench, 2008). Conversation models operate on the idea that researchers and the audience can work together to shape the communication, and non-academic voices and information are taken into consideration. In doing so, a three-way form of communication is created (Besley & Tanner, 2011; Miller, 2001; Trench, 2008).

In the early 2000s, ideas about popularization discourse became more centered on social representation of scientific knowledge, which in turn became largely mediated by the news media (Calsamiglia, 2003). Journalists recreate the original discourse within a new situation, which means actors and institutions involved in research get a different degree of authoritativeness assigned to them. Consequently, mass media become an active creator in the production of knowledge, insights, and opinions about research (Gotti, 2014). The media also show the influence of research on everyday life, its social or human side, and ways in which it can be (ab)used within society (Calsamiglia & Van Dijk, 2004).

Since the early 2000s, the landscape in which science communicators and science journalists operate has changed dramatically. With the move toward online media, audiences read and write about academic advances on (science) blogs and online media outlets. Researchers can directly communicate with audiences through Twitter (Brossard & Scheufele, 2013). Search engine algorithms create a latent bias in results, determining which information a user is able to find (Van Dijck, 2010). Online social networks further determine the information users are presented (Brossard, 2013; Brossard & Scheufele, 2013). The mainstream media used gatekeeping to judge what to present as news, yet online citizen journalists now use gatewatching to identify which news stories can be republished or reinterpreted, adding perspective to the story, and expanding coverage (Bruns, 2018). These changes no doubt call into question the changing power dynamics between researchers, the media, and the public. Bruns also noted that more recently, ideas have started appearing around filter bubbles and echo chambers “... that are each subject to their own internal ‘groupthink’, and no longer find the common communicative ground to sustain broader public debate and deliberation” (Bruns, 2018, p. 325). This shows that the media landscape in which science communicators and science journalists now operate is vastly different from 20 or even 10 years ago.

2.5 Reformulation and Recontextualization

As described above, the main characteristics that ultimately form popularization discourse are the social properties of its communicative context (Calsamiglia & Van Dijk, 2004), and the focus on application and consequences (Fahnestock, 1986). Two processes that are responsible for the textual construction of popularization discourse are reformulation and recontextualization (Bondi et al., 2013; Calsamiglia & Van Dijk, 2004; Ciapuscio, 2003; Gotti, 2014).

In recontextualization, part of the discourse is taken from one communicative context and re-presented in another one. For scientific facts, this means a move from an expert context to a lay context (Bondi et al., 2013). Recontextualization, then, entails presenting specialized knowledge in such a way that non-specialized readers can construct and integrate it into their frame of reference (Calsamiglia & Van Dijk, 2004). It might occur on an intratextual, intertextual, or interdiscursive level and can include changes in meaning or content (Bondi et al., 2013). The recontextualization of knowledge works on the level of changes in the cognitive dimension (established versus new knowledge), the situational dimension (interests, intentions, and purposes of writer and reader), and the social dimension (that is, the research process translated into a journalistic genre) (Calsamiglia, 2003). As Hall et al. defined it: “... recontextualization amounts to putting something in a different context and, by doing so, creating a new context for it” (1999 as cited in Ciapuscio, 2003, p. 210).

Recontextualization thus enables non-specialized readers to construct a non-specialist version of the specialized knowledge and integrate it into their frame of reference. For a writer, recontextualization helps to adapt to the constraints of the communicative events in which the popularization discourse appears (Calsamiglia & Van Dijk, 2004). Recontextualization strategies include forms of explanation such as definition, examples, and metaphors to link new knowledge to the reader’s existing knowledge (Calsamiglia & Van Dijk, 2004), narratives, imagery, and specific expressive functions such as example, definition, denomination, description, exemplification, generalization, paraphrase or reformulation (Gotti, 2014), simplification or condensation, refocusing, expansion, and elaboration (Bondi et al., 2013). Differences between academic texts and popularized texts can be found in textual form, sentence subjects, grammatical voice, verb choices, modality, hedging, and rhetorical structure (Gotti, 2014). Through recontextualization, researchers are presented as actors in a “discovery event,” that is, in a direct meeting between researcher and nature (Hyland, 2010, p. 126).

On the other hand, reformulation is a process that does not alter the content or context of the message but does remodel the language to a new target audience by using strategies like metaphor, simile, and figurative language. It is a process that is similar to intralinguistic translation, that is, translation within the same language. Reformulation is often assumed to be the only process in popularization, meaning the language of academic discourse would be adapted but the content would not. This is an assumption that fails to take recontextualization into consideration (Gotti, 2014).

What You Have Learned in This Chapter

  • Popularization discourse used to be seen as separate from and less worthy than academic discourse, but in fact both are part of the same discourse.

  • Popularization is a re-presentation process in which the focus shifts from ‘the wonder’ about nature to ‘the application’ of findings.

  • Science communication is constructed by researchers, while science journalism is a hybrid discourse constructed by (knowledgeable) science journalists.

  • Views and models about popularization have shifted over time, away from deficit models toward participation models.

  • Recontextualization (creating a new context for the information) and reformulation (remodeling on a textual level) are the two main processes through which popularization discourse is constructed.