Keywords

8.1 Introduction

Re-presenting Research has focused on the analysis of popularization discourse. In Chaps. 2 and 3, the theoretical and methodological backgrounds and underpinnings for popularization discourse and its analysis were put forward. In Chap. 4, we presented our analytical framework for the analysis of popularization strategies in popularization discourse. The framework is constructed through the iterative analysis of a corpus of student-written newspaper articles through which an a priori list of codes (or strategies) was improved. This code list was then validated using a corpus of professional science journalism texts. The analytical framework consists of 34 strategies in five themes, which are specified in Chap. 4 and identified through application remarks and further reading suggestions. In Chaps. 5 and 6 we showed the application of the framework on the level of the individual text and on a corpus level. In Chap. 7, we added an extra, inductive step, to show how the analytical framework can also be a starting point for the further categorizing of how a strategy is employed in a specific corpus of texts.

8.2 Theoretical and Applied Insights Generated Through This Book

Previous studies into popularization strategies have offered insight into the textual features used in a specific subgenre of popularization discourse. Yet none of these studies has turned these insights into a framework that can be used in subsequent studies or projects, in other words, a framework that is applicable to code other texts or corpora than the one(s) under discussion in that specific academic paper. Our framework is the first analytical framework for popularization discourse. As such, it adds to the methodology of text analysis of popularization discourse and presents an addition to the methodological options available in the fields of science communication, discourse analysis, and communication studies.

Our framework is compliant with the four requirements of a proper analytical framework that were discussed in Chap. 4. The framework is usable in any subgenre of popularization discourse and any disciplinary, multidisciplinary, or interdisciplinary setting because the presented strategies are general enough to overarch constraints imposed by subgenres of popularization or disciplinary boundaries. Furthermore, as the framework is developed by using two raters and validated through a high inter-rater reliability, and since it includes application remarks for each strategy, it is workable and reliable in analyses using multiple raters. The framework also contains an explanation of each strategy to make it easy to apply and usable in other studies, or indeed by professionals in the fields of science communication and science journalism, or teachers and students in educational settings. As such, our framework enables both quantitative and instrumental as well as qualitative and inductive analysis (see Kuckartz, 2019; Roberts, 2000): it can be used to show numerical values about how often each strategy is used, as well as categorical data about in what way each strategy is used.

Concurrent with the theoretical insights that were presented about popularization discourse as a whole, this book has also offered insights for the applied use of a framework for popularization discourse. In Chap. 6 we focused on professional writing and in Chap. 7 on student writing, which shows that the analytical framework can be applied to different corpora within the genre of popularization discourse. Even though a direct comparison between the two corpora is outside of the scope of the research that we have conducted, anecdotally, we were able to share the insight that the use of strategies was denser in professional writing compared to student writing.

8.3 Options for Further Investigation and Research

Where do we go next? This book has hopefully given readers insight into textual strategies in popularization discourse, in the set-up of (analytical) frameworks, and in popularization discourse as a whole—but of course, research is never finished. In our research, the focus has been firmly on textual representations of science communication and science journalism. As such, the analytical framework is only applicable to written text. It does not cover spoken, visual, and interactive science communication or science journalism—but the framework could very well be adapted to evaluate these types of communication. The analysis of these types of popularization therefore remains for future studies.

Furthermore, this book has only dealt with the product of popularization, in other words text. Other relevant and adjacent avenues of investigation could consider the producer and the recipient of popularization: the writer and the reader. Such studies could, for example, ask: Which competences—knowledge, skills, and attitudes—are needed for popularized writing? What should popularization writing training focus on, and which of the framework’s strategies are trainable? To give an example: How can you learn to use humor in writing? Which aspects of metacognitive awareness do professional science writers employ while writing, compared to student writers? How do readers perceive science journalism texts: Do they recognize the framework’s strategies, and do they rate the quality of texts that use many strategies higher than those that use fewer? And what does ‘quality’ mean in this regard? Do readers get a better understanding, or appreciation, of academic discourse through reading science journalism? Similarly, we have only focused on text analysis using strategies. Other relevant questions would be: What does a good science journalism text look like, or a creative text, or trustworthy text? Another interesting research direction would be to study text production, in other words to investigate the actual writing processes taking place to construct popularization texts.

Another avenue of research is to consider the application of the framework in other settings. What would happen if professional science journalists used the framework in their writing? This would mean that research would focus on the use of the framework on the production side of text, and not solely on the analysis side of text production. It would also entail a transdisciplinary component to the research, where academics and practitioners could work together in research about text production. On the production side of texts, there are also opportunities to explore the inherent tension that exists for science communicators and science journalists who are responsible for the translation of academic insights to a broad target audience: there is a fine line between presenting new insights in an understandable manner and oversimplification, and between focusing on newsworthiness and becoming inaccurate. In this line of research, the interrelation between science journalists and press officers should not be glossed over. Press officers working, for instance, at universities or research institutes often produce the first recontextualization and reformulation steps when writing a press release about new research. Science journalists often use these press releases to determine which stories to write about and as a stepping stone for their own text. Research about science journalism text production should therefore take both science journalists and press officers into consideration as producers of popularization discourse.

Furthermore, teachers could use the framework in an educational setting. The current framework is usable to teach about the production of popularization discourse. However, it lacks an evaluative component; the framework cannot give any insight into if a strategy is used ‘properly’ or ‘effectively,’ nor can it be used as a rubric to grade popularization writing. Future research could focus on the addition of an evaluative component and the adaptation of the framework into the form of a rubric.

Popularization discourse is often produced about controversial topics or can give rise to societal debate about research topics that lead to controversy. Although controversy as such has been outside of the scope of this book, it should be noted that it is an integral part of the genre of popularization. An unexpected finding in our research is that controversy is hardly ever found on the level of a single text, which is why there is no strategy in the framework dedicated to it. Perhaps controversy is constructed intertextually, or in the interaction between discourse and society, or between author/text and reader, but more research is needed to provide better insight into this matter.

8.4 Considerations for Readers Who Want to Develop Their Own Framework

In Re-presenting Research, we showed how we constructed our analytical framework and how it can be applied in practice. For those readers wanting to develop their own framework, we would like to share some practical considerations that we developed throughout our research.

  1. 1.

    Do not try to develop a framework on your own. One of the most valuable aspects in the construction of our framework, we found, was the opportunity to thoroughly discuss the text analysis that we were working on, particular codes or texts with which we struggled, and adaptations to the framework. Discussion also offers you a clear reflection of your own frame of reference; the way you code a text fragment might be totally clear to you but could come under scrutiny by your fellow coders. Having discussions about how you code and why you do so is therefore very insightful and necessary in the development of a framework that has the aim of being as objective as possible.

  2. 2.

    Start working from an existing framework, not from scratch. Starting from an existing framework enables you to have a base to work from—if themes or strategies/codes in this existing framework do not match up with the data you are working with, this will become clear soon enough, and it can offer a stepping stone for discussions about adaptations of the framework.

  3. 3.

    Use a big corpus of texts to construct and validate your framework, but do not go overboard. As was shown by August et al. (2020), coding of very big samples of text (that is, a 128,000-document corpus) is only really possible by employing data science techniques. Even then, hand-coding of a portion of those texts is needed in the validation of the computational analysis. The biggest hand-coded corpus that we encountered while researching popularization discourse frameworks was 337 texts, once again from the research by August et al. (2020)—though this analysis was performed on the sentence level. The chosen level of detail in a framework, and subsequently, the analysis of texts, also influences the number of texts that is realistically codable with the available number of analysts and within the set timeframe of the research. Keep in mind that there are two limiting factors in text analysis: it is necessary to achieve saturation (that is, you have coded all that needs to be coded according to your own coding parameters or theoretical framework) versus the time that is available. The higher the level of detail you include in your framework, the smaller the number of texts that are codable within a certain timeframe while still maintaining saturation of data.

  4. 4.

    Work in iterative rounds. In our research, we needed seven coding rounds to construct an analytical framework that we were happy with, that produced a very high level of agreement, and that was a true reflection of the texts that we were coding. It is also hugely beneficial for the development of the framework to code new texts from the same corpus in the different iterative rounds. Of course, no two texts are the same, and a new batch of texts often means that you are presented with new coding problems that call for a further adaptation of the framework—until at some point you reach code saturation. Also make sure to code the same texts as your fellow analysts, at least in the construction phase of the framework, to allow for true discussion about the coding.

  5. 5.

    Document everything. This includes difficulties in coding, differences in coding, topics that were under discussion among analysts, and changes made to the framework. The decisions you make might make sense to you now, but ‘future you’ will be thankful to know why a certain decision was made or how the framework was adapted.

  6. 6.

    Determine when your framework is considered to be a finished product. A framework is never truly finished; this is to say that further discussion about the framework and, potentially, adaptations to it is always possible. Even though our framework is presented as a ‘finished product’ in this book and is definitely highly applicable to the genre that it was constructed for, further analysis of texts could always reveal more strategies that had previously not been encountered. To give a concrete example, as we noted in Chap. 5, the science journalist will also sometimes give a voice to researchers that were not part of the research project under discussion in the text. The voice of this other researcher is added either to give an explanation about difficult subject matter or to add an alternative opinion or interpretation. This textual feature is not captured well enough under the strategies giving the researcher an active voice or giving the non-researcher an active voice. It might be coded as explanation, opinion, or additional sources. Alternatively, an extra strategy might need to be added to the framework. The same goes for the use of self-reference in a quote, which therefore cannot be coded as explicit self-reference. Here too, an additional strategy might be needed—but this is also dependent upon the question if and how adding an additional strategy would enrich our understanding of textual features in popularization discourse. All in all, the choice is yours to keep adapting a framework or to mark it as ‘finished’ when it can describe the chosen genre well enough.

8.5 Final Remarks

In 1986, Fahnestock was one of the first researchers to discuss popularization as a discourse. Over time, with the development of popularization discourse as a genre, implicit rules have formed about what can and cannot be done in popularization texts and, consequently, the genre has become rigid (as a sidebar, this process happens for all genres, not just popularization discourse). For popularization discourse, this has meant that the focus is firmly on news value and research results. This is what Fahnestock referred to as ‘the wonder’ and ‘the application’ as the two main themes in the discourse (Fahnestock, 1986). Generally, the produced insights are re-presented as ‘facts’ or ‘the truth’—even though some of the main aims of popularization discourse are to show the audience the value of and need for scientific research, and to convince them that academic research is a reliable process. It would make sense, therefore, to give more attention to the way research is being conducted and scientific findings are produced, but methodology is hardly ever extensively or comprehensively discussed in these texts. The exception to the rule, here, is research where the methodology is very innovative or flashy. And this is where we once again return to the immune therapy research from the Rosalind Franklin Institute and the University of Reading that put Fifi the Llama—and, through Fifi, the methodology that was used—right in the center of their communication. But this is an exception to the current rules about what popularization discourse should look like. In the future, let us focus on alternative and creative ways to talk about research that do not solely focus on results.

What You Have Learned in This Chapter

  • This book has shone a light on popularization discourse as a genre, as well as presenting the first analytical framework with which to analyze this type of discourse.

  • Further investigation could focus on applications of the frameworks for other modes of popularization, on the producer or recipient of popularization discourse, on the application of the framework in the production of science journalism or in educational settings, on the addition of an evaluative component, or on the way that controversy surrounding research findings and popularization discourse is constructed.

  • Considerations for developing a framework for text analysis are: do not try to develop the framework on your own, start working from an existing framework, use a big corpus of texts, work in iterative rounds, document everything, and determine when your framework is considered to be a finished product.