Citizen Science Communicators, Boundary-Work and Scientific Authority: Struggle for Discourse Authority between Scientists and the Public in the Digital Media Environment of China

With recent developments in both public engagement with science and the digital media environment in China, the relationship between Chinese scientists and the Chinese public is being increasingly affected by online science communication processes. Against such a background, this study explores the online science communication process in the Chinese context. It specifically focuses on the struggle of discourse authority between Chinese scientists and the Chinese public, exploring the topic of genetically modified food on Zhihu, the biggest Chinese knowledge-sharing social network site. The study raises three main research questions: RQ1. How has the traditional authoritative position of scientists been challenged in the online science communication process in China? RQ2. How do Chinese scientists address such challenges? RQ3. What do these dynamics say about the features and structure of contemporary online science communication in China? The study’s theoretical background draws upon science communication, public understanding of science, public engagement with science, philosophy of science, and digital sociology, specifically engaging with debates focused on citizen science, discourse authority of science and the ‘boundary-work’ of Thomas Gieryn and the digital participatory cultures of Henry Jenkins. This research takes a mixed-methods approach, incorporating online ethnography via observation and interviews, critical discourse analysis and digital methods aided by social network analysis. The online ethnography findings show that a number of Zhihu users without a professional scientific background – which I call ‘citizen science communicators’ – actively assume the social responsibility of science communication. The study shows that the emergence and popularity of this group in the digital media environment weakens scientists’ absolute control of the science communication process and deconstructs some of the characteristics that science communication has traditionally had in the Chinese context. This shows that scientists’ discourse authority in the science communication process seems to be challenged in the context of digital media in China. The online ethnography toward the scientist user’ online behaviour on Zhihu and critical discourse analysis of scientists’ discourse on Zhihu both provides evidence of Chinese scientists’ attempts to strengthen the boundary between themselves and the public by employing specific discourse techniques. Chinese scientists on Zhihu emphasize the difference between ‘we/us’, who are qualified as science communicators, and the public ‘you’, who are not qualified to be science communicators. Such a power struggle was further investigated through interviews with a sample of Zhihu users. The social network analysis of Zhihu interactions clearly shows that in this power struggle scientists are still seen as the most authoritative sources of science communication and interactions among scientists and non-scientists are limited. Overall, the study results indicate that, despite recent developments in the digital media environment and the science communication process in China, interactions between scientists and non-scientists are still limited and affected by traditional power divides. Further investigation into discourse dynamics between scientists and the public may provide new perspectives to improve science communication processes and enhance public engagement with science in the digital media environment.