How is science-based expertise communicated in times of science denialism and competing voices of experts-by-experience? In my presentation, I introduce different discursive resources and rhetorical strategies that are used to construct authorial voice and expertise and interaction with reader in popular science texts written by Finnish scholars.
Public engagement with science and interaction with lay audience is expected from scientists. At the same time, science-based authority is being tested and even denied in public discussion and social media. (E.g. Väliverronen & Saikkonen 2013.) How is science-based information communicated in times of polarized public discussion, science denialism and competing voices? It has been argued that academics have started to utilize same kind of rhetorics and individual experiences as a proof of credibility as experts-by-experience (e.g. Huovila & Saikkonen 2015).
In my presentation, I introduce different rhetorical strategies that are used to construct authorial voice and expertise and interaction with reader in popular science texts. These observations are based on my PhD research-in-progress, and the data consists of texts from popular health blogs and printed literary non-fiction books written by Finnish scholars.
The voice of writer-in-the-text is a complex combination of several linguistic and discursive strategies and constructed in dialogue with other voices and reader-in-the-text (Thompson & Thetela 1995). I examine the phenomenon of authorial voice by analyzing different affordances and linguistic resources creating interaction and polyvocality in popular science texts: hyperlinks (in blog postings), personal expressions, negative clauses, and presented discourse and irony (in literary non-fiction books). I study the functions these affordances and expressions have in texts and the role they play in constructing authorial presence and interaction with reader and present examples of my data to illustrate my observations and arguments.
References:
Huovila & Saikkonen 2015: Establishing credibility, constructing understanding: The epistemic struggle over healthy eating in the Finnish dietetic blogosphere. Health 4, 383–400.Thompson & Thetela 1995: The sound of one hand clapping. The management of interaction in written discourse. – Text 1 pp. 103–127.Väliverronen & Saikkonen 2013: Popularisoinnista osallistavaan tiedeviestintään. Kriittinen arvio "demokraattisesta" käänteestä. [From popularization to public engagment of science. A critical review of the "democratic" turn.] Yhteiskuntapolitiikka78(2013):4, s. 416–424.
