Abstract

Digital technologies have dramatically changed the way scientists produce, circulate, and disseminate scientific knowledge. Here we investigate women scientists’ writing activity and digitally mediated discursive practices in their professions. Using survey techniques, we identify patterns of professional and public science communication online across the disciplines. We also explore the potentially interrelated genres—“genre systems”—that routinely enact typified rhetorical actions in their professional contexts. The findings show that their socioliterate activity fully reflects the importance that their professional contexts attach to certain “privileged” genres of professional communication (e.g., journal articles), despite the fact that the respondents value highly genres of socially responsible research (e.g., blogs, infographics). Statistical analyses further confirm that “disciplinary culture” is a determining factor in the extent to which respondents engage with collaborative genres and participatory science genres. We report significant differences in the use of digital mediation tools to communicate science online to both expert and lay audiences. Finally, we discuss several implications for writing pedagogy and the development of digital skills to support scientists, especially women, who want or need to promote and disseminate their research widely.

Journal
Written Communication
Published
2025-07-01
DOI
10.1177/07410883251328307
Open Access
OA PDF Green
Topics

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

Cites in this index (8)

  1. Written Communication
  2. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  3. Written Communication
  4. Written Communication
  5. Written Communication
Show all 8 →
  1. Written Communication
  2. Technical Communication Quarterly
  3. Written Communication
Also cites 21 works outside this index ↓
  1. Abramo G. D’Angelo C. A. Di Costa F. (2019). A gender analysis of top scientists’ collaboration behavior: Evi…
  2. 10.1515/9783110220674.305
  3. 10.1075/pbns.308.06bre
  4. Clemente-Gallardo J. Ferrer A. Íñiguez D. Rivero A. Ruiz G Tarancón A. (2019). Do researchers collaborate in …
  5. Finnemann N. O. (2016). Hypertext configurations: Genres in networked digital media. JASIST 68(4) 845–854. ht…
  6. Hyland K. (2018). Narrative identity and academic storytelling. ILCEA 31. http://doi.org/10.4000/ilcea.4677
  7. Kelly A. R. Maddalena K. (2016). Networks genres and complex wholes: Citizen science and how we act together …
  8. Kwok R. (2018). Lab notebooks go digital. Nature 560 269–270. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05895-3
  9. Larivière V. Ni C. Gingras Y. Cronin B. Sugimoto C. R. (2013). Global gender disparities in science. Nature 5…
  10. Loroño-Leturiondo M. Davies S. R. (2018). Responsibility and science communication: Scientists’ experiences o…
  11. Mauranen A. (2013). Hybridism edutainment and doubt: Science blogging finding its feet. Nordic Journal of Eng…
  12. Meibauer G. Phull K. Alejandro A. Ciflikli G. (2023). Alternative metrics traditional problems? Assessing gen…
  13. Orlikowski W. J. Yates J. (1994). Genre repertoire: The structuring of communicative practices in organizatio…
  14. 10.1075/pbns.308.09orp
  15. Pérez-Llantada C. (2021). Research genres across languages: Multilingual science communication online. Cambri…
  16. Prior P. Hengst J. (2010). Exploring semiotic remediation as discourse practice. Palgrave. https://doi.org/10…
  17. Thelwall M. Bailey C. Makita M. Sud P. Madalli D. P. (2019). Gender and research publishing in India: Uniform…
  18. Thelwall M. Bailey C. Tobin C. Bradshaw N. (2019). Gender differences in research areas methods and topics: C…
  19. Thibault R. T. Amaral O. B. Argolo F. Bandrowski A. E. Davidson A. R. Drude N. I. (2023). Open Science 2.0: T…
  20. Trachtenberg Z. M. Burns T. J. de Beurs K. Ellis S. E. Gates K. K. Kelly J. F. Randall A. R. Schlupp I. Soppe…
  21. Yates J. Orlikowski W. J. (1992). Genres of organisational communication: A structurational approach to study…
CrossRef global citation count: 1 View in citation network →