The new stage of public engagement with science in the digital media environment: citizen science communicators in the discussion of GMOs on Zhihu

References

• Bennett, W. L., and A. Segerberg. 2012. “The Logic of Connective Action: Digital Media and the Personalization of Contentious Politics.” Information, Communication & Society 15 (5): 739–768.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett, W. L., and A. Segerberg. 2013. The Logic of Connective Action: Digital Media and the Personalization of Contentious Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bogdan, R. C., and S. K. Biklen. 2007. Research for Education: An Introduction to Theories and Methods. New York: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Bombaci, S. P., C. M. Farr, H. T. Gallo, A. M. Mangan, L. T. Stinson, M. Kaushik, and L. Pejchar. 2016. “Using Twitter to Communicate Conservation Science from a Professional Conference.” Conservation Biology 30 (1): 216–225.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonney, R. 1996. “Citizen Science: A Lab Tradition.” Living Bird 15 (4): 7–15.
   Google Scholar
• Boulianne, S., and Y. Theocharis. 2020. “Young People, Digital Media, and Engagement: A Meta-Analysis of Research.” Social Science Computer Review 38 (2): 111–127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bucchi, M. 2008. “Of Deficits, Deviations and Dialogues: Theories of Public Communication of Science.” In Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, edited by M. Bucchi and B. Trench, 71–90. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Burns, T. W., D. J. O’Connor, and S. M. Stocklmayer. 2003. “Science Communication: A Contemporary Definition.” Public Understanding of Science 12 (2): 183–202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, F., Y. Shi, and F. Xu. 2009. “An Analysis of the Public Scientific Literacy Study in China.” Public Understanding of Science 18 (5): 607–616.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chilvers, J., and M. Kearnes. 2016. “Science, Democracy and Emergent Publics.” In Remaking Participation: Science, Environment and Emergent Publics, edited by J. Chilvers and M. Kearnes, 1–28. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Chu, H., J. Z. Yang, and S. Liu. 2021. “Not My Pandemic: Solution Aversion and the Polarized Public Perception of COVID-19.” Science Communication 43 (4): 508–528.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins, H. 2014. “Rejecting Knowledge Claims Inside and Outside Science.” Social Studies of Science 44 (5): 722–735.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins, K., D. Shiffman, and J. Rock. 2016. “How are Scientists Using Social Media in the Workplace?” PLoS One 11 (10): e94654.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darling, E. S., D. Shiffman, I. M. Côté, and J. A. Drew. 2013. “The Role of Twitter in the Life Cycle of a Scientific Publication.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1305.0435.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, S. R., and M. Horst. 2016. Science Communication: Culture, Identity and Citizenship. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Dickel, S., and M. Franzen. 2016. “The ‘Problem of Extension’ Revisited: New Modes of Digital Participation in Science.” Journal of Science Communication 15 (1): A04.
   Google Scholar
• Didegah, F., N. Mejlgaard, and M. P. Sørensen. 2018. “Investigating the Quality of Interactions and Public Engagement Around Scientific Papers on Twitter.” Journal of Informetrics 12 (3): 960–971.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiMaggio, P., E. Hargittai, C. Celeste, and S. Shafer. 2004. “Digital Inequality: From Unequal Access to Differentiated use.” Social Inequality 3 (1): 355–400.
   Google Scholar
• Durant, D. 2008. “Accounting for Expertise: Wynne and the Autonomy of the Lay Public Actor.” Public Understanding of Science 17 (1): 5–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fahy, D., and M. C. Nisbet. 2011. “The Science Journalist Online: Shifting Roles and Emerging Practices.” Journalism 12 (7): 778–793.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Felt, U., and S. R. Davies, eds. 2020. Exploring Science Communication: A Science and Technology Studies Approach. London: SAGE Publications Limited.
   Google Scholar
• Field, H., and P. Powell. 2001. “Public Understanding of Science Versus Public Understanding of Research.” Public Understanding of Science 10 (4): 421–426.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitzgerald, R. T., and A. Radmanesh. 2015. “Social Media and Research Visibility.” American Journal of Neuroradiology 36 (4): 637–637.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haklay, M. 2013. “Citizen Science and Volunteered Geographic Information: Overview and Typology of Participation.” In Crowdsourcing Geographic Knowledge, edited by M. Haklay, 105–122. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Hart, P. S., and E. C. Nisbet. 2012. “Boomerang Effects in Science Communication: How Motivated Reasoning and Identity Cues Amplify Opinion Polarization about Climate Mitigation Policies.” Communication Research 39 (6): 701–723.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatzilacou, D., G. Kallis, A. Mexa, H. Coccosis, and E. Svoronou. 2007. “Scenario Workshops: A Useful Method for Participatory Water Resources Planning?” Water Resources Research 43 (6): 1–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hecker, S., R. Bonney, M. Haklay, F. Hölker, H. Hofer, C. Goebel, M. Gold, et al. 2018. “Innovation in Citizen Science–Perspectives on Science-Policy Advances.” Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 3 (1): 1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Hine, C. 2000. Virtual Ethnography. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Horlick-Jones, T., J. Walls, G. Rowe, N. Pidgeon, W. Poortinga, and T. O’riordan. 2006. “On Evaluating the GM Nation? Public Debate about the Commercialisation of Transgenic Crops in Britain.” New Genetics and Society 25 (3): 265–288.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irwin, A. 2001. “Constructing the Scientific Citizen: Science and Democracy in the Biosciences.” Public Understanding of Science 10 (1): 1–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irwin, A. 2014. “From Deficit to Democracy (Re-visited).” Public Understanding of Science 23 (1): 71–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irwin, A., M. Bucchi, and B. Trench. 2014. “Risk, Science and Public Communication.” In Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, edited by M. Bucchi and B. Trench, 160–172. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jahng, M. R., and N. Lee. 2018. “When Scientists Tweet for Social Changes: Dialogic Communication and Collective Mobilization Strategies by Flint Water Study Scientists on Twitter.” Science Communication 40 (1): 89–108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jia, H., and L. Liu. 2014. “Unbalanced Progress: The Hard Road from Science Popularisation to Public Engagement with Science in China.” Public Understanding of Science 23 (1): 32–37.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, R. A. 2014. “Reflecting on Public Engagement and Science Policy.” Public Understanding of Science 23 (1): 27–31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joss, S., and J. Durant, eds. 1995a. Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe. London: NMSI Trading Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Joss, S., and J. Durant. 1995b. “The UK National Consensus Conference on Plant Biotechnology.” Public Understanding of Science 4 (2): 195–204.
   Google Scholar
• Ju, Y. H. 2019. “An Analysis of the Characteristics of Popular Science Communication in the Social Question-Answer Community—Taking Zhihu as an Example.” Audiovisual 10: 45–51.
   Google Scholar
• Jünger, J., and B. Fähnrich. 2020. “Does Really No One Care? Analyzing the Public Engagement of Communication Scientists on Twitter.” New Media & Society 22 (3): 387–408.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahle, K., A. J. Sharon, and A. Baram-Tsabari. 2016. “Footprints of Fascination: Digital Traces of Public Engagement with Particle Physics on CERN’s Social Media Platforms.” PLoS One 11 (5): e0156409.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laurent, B. 2011. “Technologies of Democracy: Experiments and Demonstrations.” Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4): 649–666.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marcus, G. E. 1995. “Ethnography In/of the World System: The Emergence of Multi-Sited Ethnography.” Annual Review of Anthropology 24 (1): 95–117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markham, A. N. 2005. “The Methods, Politics, and Ethics of Representation in Online Ethnography.” In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N. K. Denzen and Y. S. Lincoln, 793–820. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Michailidou, A. 2017. “Twitter, Public Engagement and the Eurocrisis: More Than an Echo Chamber?” In Social Media and European Politics, edited by M. Barisione and A. Michailidou, 241–266. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. 2015. Public Engagement on Genetically Modified Organisms: When Science and Citizens Connect: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nisbet, M. C., and D. A. Scheufele. 2009. “What’s Next for Science Communication? Promising Directions and Lingering Distractions.” American Journal of Botany 96 (10): 1767–1778.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park, H. W., and M. Thelwall. 2006. “Web-science Communication in the Age of Globalization.” New Media & Society 8 (4): 629–650.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearce, W., K. Holmberg, I. Hellsten, and B. Nerlich. 2014. “Climate Change on Twitter: Topics, Communities and Conversations About the 2013 IPCC Working Group 1 Report.” PLoS One 9 (4): e94785.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters, H. P., S. Dunwoody, J. Allgaier, Y. Y. Lo, and D. Brossard. 2014. “Public Communication of Science 2.0.” EMBO Reports 15 (7): 749–753.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PGP-UK Consortium. 2018. “Personal Genome Project UK (PGP-UK): A Research and Citizen Science Hybrid Project in Support of Personalized Medicine.” BMC Medical Genomics 11 (1): 108.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rogers-Hayden, T., A. Mohr, and N. Pidgeon. 2007. “Introduction: Engaging with Nanotechnologies-Engaging Differently?” NanoEthics 1 (2): 123–130.
   Google Scholar
• Schäfer, M. S., and J. Metag. 2021. Audiences of Science Communication Between Pluralisation, Fragmentation and Polarisation, 291–304. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Schäfer, M. S., J. Metag, J. Feustle, and L. Herzog. 2018. “Selling Science 2.0: What Scientific Projects Receive Crowdfunding Online.” Public Understanding of Science 27: 496–514.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Segerberg, A., and W. L. Bennett. 2011. “Social Media and the Organization of Collective Action: Using Twitter to Explore the Ecologies of Two Climate Change Protests.” The Communication Review 14 (3): 197–215.
   Google Scholar
• Shirk, J. L., H. L. Ballard, C. C. Wilderman, T. Phillips, A. Wiggins, R. Jordan, and R. Bonney. 2012. “Public Participation in Scientific Research: A Framework for Deliberate Design.” Ecology and Society 17 (2): 29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stilgoe, J., S. J. Lock, and J. Wilsdon. 2014. “Why Should We Promote Public Engagement with Science?” Public Understanding of Science 23 (1): 4–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strasser, B., J. Baudry, D. Mahr, G. Sanchez, and E. Tancoigne. 2019. “‘Citizen Science’? Rethinking Science and Public Participation.” Science & Technology Studies 32: 52–76.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sugimoto, C. R., S. Work, V. Larivière, and S. Haustein. 2017. “Scholarly Use of Social Media and Altmetrics: A Review of the Literature.” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 68 (9): 2037–2062.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trench, B. 2008. “Towards an Analytical Framework of Science Communication Models.” In Communicating Science in Social Contexts, edited by D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, and S. Shi, 119–135. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Usher, N., J. Holcomb, and J. Littman. 2018. “Twitter Makes It Worse: Political Journalists, Gendered Echo Chambers, and the Amplification of Gender Bias.” The International Journal of Press/Politics 23 (3): 324–344.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valve, H. 2008. “GM Plants as Sources of Im/Possibility: A Developmental Systems View of Stabilization.” New Genetics and Society 27 (4): 339–352.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vicari, S., and F. Cappai. 2016. “Health Activism and the Logic of Connective Action. A Case Study of Rare Disease Patient Organisations.” Information, Communication & Society 19 (11): 1653–1671.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, S. 2021. “Platformization, Panentertainment and Piracy: What the Fast-Changing Chinese Mediasphere Tells Us about Technology, Policy and the State.” Journal of Digital Media & Policy 8: 1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, D. P., Q. Zhong, and H. P. Jia. 2015. “From Science Populairzation to Public Engagement with Science—Thoughts Initiated by Cui Yongyuan and Lu Daru’s Genetic Modification Debate.” Journalists 6: 8–15.
   Google Scholar
• Weller, K., and C. Puschmann. 2011. “Twitter for Scientific Communication: How Can Citations/References Be Identified and Measured.” In Proceedings of the ACM WebSci’11. http://journal.webscience.org/500/2/Fig1.png.
   Google Scholar
• Wynne, B. 1996. “A Reflexive View of the Expert-Lay Knowledge Divide.” In Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology, vol. 40, edited by S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, and B. Wynne, 44. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, Z. 2016. “The Practice of New Media in the Field of Science Communication—Analysis Based on Zhihu.” Chinese Popular Science Theory and Practice Exploration 1 (1): 6–10.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, Z. 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 diss., University of Sheffield.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, Z. 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 Science 30 (8): 993–1007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, Z. 2022. “Inadequate Interactions and Unbalanced Power Between Scientists and the Public in the Chinese Knowledge Sharing Network: Social Network Analysis of the Topic of Genetically Food.” Social Science Computer Review. Forthcoming.
   Google Scholar