Abstract
Research dissemination has recently undergone a profound transformation with the advent of numerous new digital genres. Some researchers now present and promote their research through academic tweets, conference tweets, and tweetorials, but little is known about how universities, in turn, communicate about this research on X (or Twitter).
Our aim is to investigate the functions and forms of University Research Tweets (URTs) and to explore potential differences in the way research is reported in Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) versus Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics and Medicine (STEMM).
The corpus contains two hundred URTs published by high-ranking Anglophone universities in SSH and in STEMM. After carrying out a content analysis (identification of topics, purposes, moves, attachments, visuals and reader reactions) across the two sets of tweets, we analyse the linguistic and multimodal resources used to express stance and engagement in the tweets, principally relying on Hyland’s framework (2005) and Luzón’s (2023b) adaptation of the model.
Results reveal that URTs share a number of organisational, semiotic and linguistic features to promote research within a limited space. Some disciplinary differences are also pointed out. STEMM URTs are for instance more likely to contain traditional moves such as ‘rationale’ or ‘methods’, and adopt stance positions to underline authorial authority and highlight the importance of the research. SSH URTs try harder to engage with the reader through “orientation” and “action” moves, proximity-creating and attention-seeking resources. The article ends with a discussion of these differences and future avenues of research.
References
Bombaci, S. P., Farr, C. M., Gallo, H. T., Mangan, A. M., Stinson, L. T., Kaushik, M., & Pejchar, L. (2016). Using Twitter to communicate conservation science from a professional conference. Conservation Biology, 30(1), 216–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12570
Bondi, M., Cacchiani, S., and Mazzi, D. (Eds.). (2015). Discourse In and Through the Media: Recontextualizing and Reconceptualizing Expert Discourse. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing
Büchi, M. (2017). Microblogging as an extension of science reporting. Public Understanding of Science, 26(8), 953–968. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516657794
Carter-Thomas, S., & Rowley-Jolivet, E. (2020). Three Minute Thesis presentations: Recontextualisation strategies in doctoral research. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 48, 100897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100897
Cislaru, G. (2015). Emotions in tweets: From instantaneity to preconstruction. Social Science Information, 54(4), 455–469.
Côté, I. M., & Darling, E. S. (2018). Scientists on Twitter: Preaching to the choir or singing from the rooftops? FACETS, 3(1), 682–694. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2018-0002
Darling, E. S., Shiffman, D., Côté, I. M., & Drew, J. A. (2013). The role of twitter in the life cycle of a scientific publication (arXiv:1305.0435). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1305.0435
Fairclough, N. (1993). Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: The universities. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 133–168.
Graham, S. S. (2021) Misinformation inoculation and literacy support tweetorials on COVID-19. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 35 (1) (2021), 7-14.
Greenhow, C., & Gleason, B. (2012). Twitteracy: Tweeting as a New Literacy Practice. The Educational Forum, 76(4), 464–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2012.709032
Harwood, N. (2005). We do not seem to have a theory…the theory I present here attempts to fill this gap: Inclusive and exclusive pronouns in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 343- 375
Holmberg, K., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communication. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1027–1042. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1229-3
Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20(3), 207- 226
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192.
Hyland, K. & Bondi M. (Eds.) (2006). Academic Discourse Across Disciplines. Bern: Peter Lang.
Jordan, K. (2019). From Social Networks to Publishing Platforms: A Review of the History and Scholarship of Academic Social Network Sites. Frontiers in Education, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdigh.2019.00005
Kimmons, R., Veletsianos, G., & Woodward, S. (2017). Institutional Uses of Twitter in U.S. Higher Education. Innovative Higher Education, 42(2), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-016-9375-6
Linvill, D. L., McGee, S. E., & Hicks, L. K. (2012). Colleges’ and universities’ use of Twitter: A content analysis. Public Relations Review, 38(4), 636–638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.05.010
Luzón, M. J. (2013). Public communication of science in blogs: Recontextualizing scientific discourse for a diversified audience. Written Communication, 30(4), 428–457.
Luzón, M.-J. (2023a). Forms and functions of intertextuality in academic tweets composed by research groups. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 64, 101254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2023.101254
Luzón, M. -J. (2023b). Multimodal practices of research groups in Twitter: An analysis of stance and engagement. English for Specific Purposes, 70 (2023), pp. 17-32
Luzón, M.-J., & Pérez-Llantada, C. (2019). Science Communication on the Internet. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Mauranen, A. (2013). Hybridism, edutainment, and doubt: Science blogging finding its feet. Nordic journal of English studies, 12(1), 7-36
Mogaji, E., Watat, J. K., Olaleye, S. A., & Ukpabi, D. (2021). Recruit, Retain and Report: UK Universities’ Strategic Communication with Stakeholders on Twitter. In M. A. Camilleri (Ed.), Strategic Corporate Communication in the Digital Age (pp. 89–114). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80071-264-520211006
Myers, Greg. 2010. The Discourse of blogs and wikis. London: Continuum.
Orpin, D. (2019). Recontextualizing the content of epidemiology reports on Twitter. Science Communication on the Internet: Old Genres Meet New Genres, 308, 173.
Puschmann, C. (2014). (Micro)Blogging Science? Notes on Potentials and Constraints of New Forms of Scholarly Communication. In S. Bartling & S. Friesike (eds.), Opening Science (pp. 86-106). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_6
Rowley-Jolivet, E., & Carter-Thomas, S. (2019). Scholarly soundbites: Audiovisual innovations in digital science and their implications for genre evolution. In Science Communication on the Internet: Old genres meet new genres (pp. 81–106). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.308.05row
Rowley-Jolivet, E., & Carter-Thomas, S. (2023) Research Visibility and Speaker Ethos: A Comparative Study of Researcher Identity in 3MT Presentations and Research Group Videos. In: Plo-Alastrué, R., Corona, I. (eds) Digital Scientific Communication. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38207-9_12
Sugimoto, C. R., Work, S., Larivière, V., & Haustein, S. (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. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23833
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge University Press.
Thelwall, M., Tsou, A., Weingart, S., Holmberg, K., & Haustein, S. (2013). Tweeting links to academic articles. https://digital.csic.es/handle/10261/174572
Villares, R. (2022). Las presentaciones en los congresos Twitter: un análisis retórico y semiótico de un género digitale emergente. Elia, 125–167. https://doi.org/10.12795/elia.2022.i22.05
Villares, R. (2023). Exploring Rhetorical Strategies of Stance and Engagement in Twitter Conference Presentations. ESP Today, 11(2), 280–301. https://doi.org/10.18485/esptoday.2023.11.2.5
Zou, H., Hyland K. (2020).Think about how fascinating this is: Engagement in academic blogs across disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes : 43, 1–12.
Copyright (c) 2024 Claire Kloppmann-Lambert, Shirley Carter-Thomas
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.