Digitality in the Open Science age: practices and genres
No matter where we are in the revolution versus evolution debate, digitality has undoubtedly brought about radical changes of practices and genres. Today digital genres born in the Internet age as New Media resources (science news reports or science blogs) compete with a traditional print-based genre of a research article. Although few works have synthesized the interaction of these “old” and “newly-born” genres, the Open Science digitality context has not received considerable treatment in genre scholarship, and little attention has been given to such features of scientific genres as multimodality, interdiscursivity, participatory culture. Thus, the relevance is in the reconceptualization of the Open Science practices and classifying the Internet-born genres of science communication. The qualitative method of discourse analysis is used in the lens of the social semiotic and the social genre theory proposed by the New Rhetoric School. As a result, four groups are suggested: research genres, promotional genres, trans-scientific genres, presentational genres. As a result of the analysis, we have come to the following conclusions. First, hybridization penetrates all the discourse and language levels: written discourse is combined with oral discourse, scientific style – with spoken style, scientific discourse – with journalism. Second, multimodality competes with the writing-based space, thus getting the potential of a meaning-making tool. As a result, the concept “science” has been reconsidered; science has become not only the professional community property but an active area of engagement with other fields and audiences in the process of science popularization. Digitality serves more than a medium and genres are not only recontextualized but gained more complexity.
Figures
Alenkina, T. B. (2024). Digitality in the Open Science age: practices and genres, Research Result. Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, 10 (1), 3-16. DOI: 10.18413/2313-8912-2024-10-1-0-1
While nobody left any comments to this publication.
You can be first.
Alsop, S. and Gardner, S. (2014). Language in a digital age: Be not afraid of digitality, Proceedings from the 24th European Systemic Functional Linguistics conference and workshop, Coventry University, Coventry, UK. (In English)
Askehave, I. and Ellerup Nielsen, A. (2005). Digital genres: a challenge to traditional genre theory, Information Technology and People, 18 (2), 120-141. https://doi.org/10.1108/09593840510601504(In English)
Barroga, E. (2020). Innovative strategies for peer review, Journal of Korean Medical Science, Mar; 35 (20), e138. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e138 (In English)
Bartling, S. and Friesike, S. (2014).Towards another scientific revolution, in Bartling, S. and Friesike, S. (eds.), Opening science: The evolving guide on how the Internet is changing research, collaboration and scholarly publishing, Springer Open, Heidelberg, Germany, 3-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_1(In English)
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, USA. (In English)
Beavers, A. F. (2012). In the beginning was the word and then four revolutions in the history of information, in Demir, H.(ed.), Luciano Floridi’s philosophy of technology. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, 8, Springer, Dordrecht, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4292-5_5(In English)
Berkowitz, J. (2013). Video abstracts, the latest trend in scientific publishing. [Online], available at: https://universityaffairs.ca/features/feature-article/video-abstracts-the-latest-trend-in-scientific-publishing/ (Accessed 10 February 2024). (In English)
Bhatia, V. K. (2010). Interdiscursivity in professional discourse, Discourse and Communication, 4 (1), 32-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481309351208(In English)
Bhatia, V. K. (2016). Critical Genre Analysis: Investigating interdiscursive performance in professional practice, Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315690315(In English)
Bruce, I. (2010). Evolving Genres in Online Domains: The Hybrid Genre of the Participatory News article, in Mehler, A., Sharoff, S., Santini, M. (eds.), Genres on the Web. Text, Speech and Language Technology, 42, Springer, Dordrecht, Germany, 323-348. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9178-9_15(In English)
Caliendo, G. (2014). The popularization of science in web-based genres, in Bongo, G. and Caliendo, G. (eds.), The language of popularization: Theoretical and descriptive models, Sprache in Kommunikation und Medien, Band 6, Peter Lang, Bern, Germany, 116-140. (In English)
Cohen, J. L. R. (2017). History and genre, in Rowlett, J. L. (ed.), Genre theory and historical change: Theoretical essays of Ralph Cohen, University of Virginia Press, USA, 85-104. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1v2xtv6.10(In English)
Connors, R. J. (1981). The rise and fall of the modes of discourse, College Composition and Communication, 32, 444-455. (In English)
Darian, S. G. (2003). Understanding the language of science, University of Texas Press, Austin, USA. (In English)
Derrida, J. (1980). The law of genre, Critical Inquiry, 7 (1), 55-81. (In English)
Devitt, A. J. (2015). Genre, in Heilker, P. and Vandenberg, P. (eds.), Keywords in Writing Studies, University of Colorado Press, Boulder, USA, 82-87. (In English)
Giltrow, J. and Stein, D. (2009). Genres in the Internet: Innovation, evolution, and genre theory, in Giltrow, J. and Stein, D. (eds.), Genres in the Internet: Issues in the theory of genre, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.188.01gil(In English)
Gomez, J. (2008). Print is Dead: Books in Our Digital Age, Macmillan, London, New York, UK. (In English)
Gross, A. G. and Harmon, J. E. (2014). Science from sight to insight: How scientists illustrate meaning, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA. (In English)
Harnad, S. (1991). Post-Gutenberg Galaxy: The Fourth Revolution in the means of production of knowledge, The Public-Access Computer Systems Review, 2 (1), 39-53. (In English)
Hyland, K. and Zou, H. (2021). “I believe the findings are fascinating”: Stance in three-minute theses, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 50, 100973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100973(In English)
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide, New York University Press, New York, USA. (In English)
Kress, G. R. (2003). Literacy in the New Media Age, Routledge, London, New York, UK. (In English)
Lange, C. and Costley, J. (2020). Improving online video lectures: Learning challenges created by the media, International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17, https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00190-6(In English)
Luzon, M. J. (2013). Public Communication of Science in Blogs: Recontextualizing Scientific Discourse for a Diversified Audience, Written Communication, 30 (4), 428-457. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088313493610(In English)
Lyons, A. (2015). Multimodality, in Zhu, H. (ed.), Research methods in intercultural communication: A practical guide, Wiley-Blackwell, USA, 266-280. (In English)
Mehlenbacher, A. R. (2019a). Registered reports: Genre evolution and the research article, Written Communication, 36 (1), 38-67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088318804534(In English)
Mehlenbacher, A. R. (2019b). Science communication online: Engaging experts and publics on the Internet, Ohio State University Press, Columbus, USA. https://doi.org/10.26818/9780814213988(In English)
Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action, Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70. (In English)
Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital, Knopf, New York, USA. (In English)
Nentwich, M. (2003). Cyberscience: Research in the age of Internet, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, Austria. (In English)
O’Reilly, S. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software [Online], available at: https://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html (Accessed 13 February 2024). (In English)
Owen, J. S. M. (2005). The Scientific article in the age of digitization, Ph.D. Thesis, Amsterdam University, Amsterdam, Netherlands. (In English)
Paltridge, B. (2001). Genre and the language learning classroom, Michigan University Press, Ann Arbor, USA. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.23749(In English)
Perez-Llantada, C. (2021).Research genres across languages: Multilingual communication online, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108870528(In English)
Piller, C. (2021). Disgraced COVID-19 studies are still routinely cited, Science, 371 (6527), 331-332. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.371.6527.331(In English)
Prem, E., Lindorfer, M, Sanz, F. and Joerg, I. (2014). Open Digital Science, Technical report, Eutema, Hamburg [Online], available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303855957_Open_Digital_Science (Accessed 14 February 2024). (In English)
Qiu, X. and Jiang, K. (2021). Stance and engagement in 3 MT presentations: How students communicate disciplinary knowledge to a wide audience, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 51, 100976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100976 (In English)
Rowland, F. (1999). Electronic publishing: Non-commercial alternatives, Learned Publishing, 12 (3), 209-216. https://doi.org/10.1087/09531519950145805(In English)
Rubin, M. (2017). When does HARKing hurt? Identifying when different types of undisclosed post hoc hypothesizing harm scientific progress, Review of General Psychology, 21 (4), 308-320. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000128(In English)
Serafini, F. W. (2014). Reading the visual: An introduction to teaching multimodal literacy, Teachers College Press, New York, USA. (In English)
Swan, A. (2012). Policy guidelines for the development and promotion of open access [Online], available at: https://en.unesco.org/open-access/sites/open-access/files/215863e.pdf (Accessed 14 February 2024). (In English)
Valauskas, E. J. (1997).Waiting for Thomas Kuhn: First Monday and the Evolution of Electronic Journals [Online], available at: https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/download/567/488?inline=1 (Accessed 14 February 2024). (In English)
Waldrop, M. M. (2008). Science 2.0 – Is posting raw results online, for all to see, a great tool or a great risk?, Scientific American, 298 (5), 68-73. (In English)
Weller, M. (2011). The Digital scholar: How technology is transforming scholarly practice, Bloomsbury Academic, London, UK. (In English)
West, C. C., Lindsay, K. J. and Hart, A. (2020). Promoting your research using infographics and visual abstracts, Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, 73 (12), 2103-2105. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2020.08.054(In English)
Xia, S. A. and Hafner, C. A. (2021). Engaging the online audience in the digital era: A multimodal analysis of engagement strategies in TED talk videos, Iberica, 42, 33-58. https://doi.org/10.17398/2340-2784.42.33(In English)
Yang, W. (2020). A keyword analysis of stance and engagement in Three-Minute Thesis (3 MT) presentations, GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 20 (2). http://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2020-2002-01 (In English)
Zou, H. and Hyland, K. (2021). A tale of two genres: Engaging audiences in academic blogs and Three Minute Thesis presentations, Australian Journal of Linguistics, 41 (2), 131-151. https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2021.1918630(In English)