Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton February 8, 2020

Reproduced, reinterpreted, lost: Trajectories of scientific knowledge across contexts

Julio Gimenez, Mark Baldwin, Paul Breen, Julia Green, Ernesto Roque Gutierrez, Richard Paterson, Jayne Pearson, Martin Percy, Doug Specht and Guy Waddell
From the journal Text & Talk


This article reports on a research project that uses two innovative heuristics to examine the changes that texts – produced to disseminate new scientific knowledge – undergo when they travel across space and time. A critical analysis of such transformations would enhance our understanding of the processes involved in knowledge dissemination and inform the practice of communicating scientific knowledge to a variety of audiences. Based on our study of 520 closely linked science and science-related sources collected over 12 months in 2016, we argue that when scientific knowledge is re-contextualized to be disseminated to different audiences, it is not simply rephrased or simplified to make it more accessible. Rather, it also undergoes transformational processes that involve issues of social power, authority and access that require new analytical tools to surface more clearly. We report on the methodology of the study with a particular focus on its heuristics, and the transformations that result from a critical analysis of the data collected. We finally discuss a number of theoretical and practical implications in relation to contemporary practices for re-entextualizing scientific knowledge.


Pattern 1

Emspak, Jesse. 11 May 2016. What we would actually do to stop a ‘doomsday’ asteroid. BBC Future. (accessed 9 October 2017).

Zhang, Qicheng, Kevin J. Walsh, Carl Melis, Gary B. Hughes, & Philip Lubin. 2015. Orbital simulations for directed energy deflection of near-earth asteroids. Procedia Engineering, 103. 671–678.

Pattern 2

Carrington, Damian. 23 May 2016. World could warm by massive 10C if all fossil fuels are burned. The Guardian. (accessed 9 October 2017).

Gertz, Emily J. 23 May 2016. New study predicts an intolerably hot world. TakePart. (accessed 9 October 2017).

Tokarska, Katarzyna B., Nathan P. Gillett, Andrew J. Weaver, Vivek K. Arora, & Michael Eby. 2016. The climate response to five trillion tonnes of carbon. Nature Climate Change, 6(9). 851–855.

Pattern 3

Coghlan, Andy. 16 March 2016. Rats learn to sense infrared in hours thanks to brain implants. The New Scientist, 3066, 45. (accessed 9 October 2017).

Gray, Richard. 17 March 2016. Could we soon have superhero NIGHT VISION? Brain implants could give us a ‘sixth sense’ by making us see infrared. Mail Online. (accessed 9 October 2017).

Hartmann, Konstantin, Eric E. Thomson, Ivan Zea, Richy Yun, Peter Mullen, Jay Canarick, Albert Huh, & Miguel A. L. Nicolelis. 2016. Embedding a panoramic representation of infrared light in the adult rat somatosensory cortex through a sensory neuroprosthesis. Journal of Neuroscience, 36(8). 2406–24.


Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1986. The problem of speech genres. In Mikhail Bakhtin, Caryl Emerson & Michael Holquist (eds.), Speech genres and other late essays, 60–102. Austin: University of Texas Press.10.2307/40141318Search in Google Scholar

Bauman, Richard & Charles L. Briggs. 1990. Poetics and performance as critical perspectives on language and social life. Annual Review of Anthropology 19. 59–88.10.1007/978-1-349-92299-4_41Search in Google Scholar

Bernstein, Basil. 1990. The structuring of pedagogic discourse. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Blommaert, Jan. 2005. Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511610295Search in Google Scholar

Blommaert, Jan. 2010. The sociolinguistics of globalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511845307Search in Google Scholar

Bucchi, Massimiano. 2008. Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: Theories of public communication of science. In Massimiano Bucchi & Brian Trench (eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology, 57–76. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203928240Search in Google Scholar

Budach, Gabriele, Donna Patrick & Teevi Mackay. 2015. “Talk around objects”: Designing trajectories of belonging in an urban Inuit community. Social Semiotics 25(4). 446–464.10.1080/10350330.2015.1059575Search in Google Scholar

Burningham, Kate, Julie Barnett, Anna Carr, Roland Clift & Walter Wehrmeyer. 2012. Industrial constructions of publics and public knowledge: a qualitative investigation of practice in the UK chemicals industry. Public Understanding of Science 21(1). 23–43.10.1177/0963662506071285Search in Google Scholar

Cook, Guy, Elisa Pieri & Peter T. Robbins. 2004. The scientists think and the public feels: Expert perceptions of the discourse of GM food. Discourse and Society 15(4). 433–449.10.1177/0957926504043708Search in Google Scholar

Gee, James Paul. 1999. An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. NY: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Gimenez, Julio & Ernesto Roque Gutierrez. 2016. A pedagogy for multiple-audience writing in STEM disciplines: When research and pedagogy meet. Paper presented at the HEA: Horizons in STEM Higher Education, University of Leicester, 30th June –1st July.Search in Google Scholar

Gimenez, Julio, Guy Waddell & Doug Specht. 2017. Trust is likely to be closely connected to, if not a direct consequence of, how scientists communicate with the public. Times Higher Education. 44–45.Search in Google Scholar

Gourlay, Lesley, Donna M. Lanclos & Martin Oliver. 2015. Sociomaterial texts, spaces and devices: Questioning ‘digital dualism’ in library and study practices. Higher Education Quarterly 69(3). 263–278.10.1111/hequ.12075Search in Google Scholar

Hall, Christopher, Srikant Sarangi & Stef Slembrouck. 1999. Speech representation and the categorization of the client in social work discourse. Text 19(4). 539–570.10.1515/text.1.1999.19.4.539Search in Google Scholar

Hanks, William F. 1989. Text and textuality. Annual Review of Anthropology 18. 95–127.10.1146/ in Google Scholar

Kell, Catherine 2013. Ariadne’s thread: Literacy, scale and meaning making across space and time. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, Paper 81. (accessed 24 March 2016).Search in Google Scholar

Kell, Catherine. 2015. “Making people happen”: Materiality and movement in meaning–making trajectories. Social Semiotics 25(4). 423–445.10.1080/10350330.2015.1060666Search in Google Scholar

Kell, Catherine. 2017. Tracing trajectories as units of analysis for the study of social processes: Addressing mobility and complexity in sociolinguistics. Text & Talk 37(4). 531–551.10.1515/text-2017-0016Search in Google Scholar

Leane, Elizabeth. 2017. Reading popular physics. Disciplinary skirmishes and textual strategies. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315245263Search in Google Scholar

Lillis, Theresa. 2008. Ethnography as method, methodology, and “deep theorizing”: Closing the gap between text and context in academic writing research. Written Communication 25(3). 353–388.10.1177/0741088308319229Search in Google Scholar

Lillis, Theresa. 2017. Imagined, prescribed and actual text trajectories: The “problem” with case notes in contemporary social work. Text & Talk 37(4). 485–508.10.1515/text-2017-0013Search in Google Scholar

Lillis, Theresa & Mary Jane Curry. 2010. Academic writing in a global context. The politics and practices of publishing in English. Abingdon: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Lillis, Theresa & Janet Maybin. 2017. Introduction: The dynamics of textual trajectories in professional and workplace practice. Text & Talk 37(4). 409–414.10.1515/text-2017-0017Search in Google Scholar

Linell, Per. 1998. Discourse across boundaries: On recontextualizations and the blending of voices in professional discourse. Text 18(2). 143–157.10.1515/text.1.1998.18.2.143Search in Google Scholar

Linell, Per & Srikant Sarangi. 1998. Discourse across professional boundaries. [Special Issue]. Text 18. 2.10.1515/text.1.1998.18.2.143Search in Google Scholar

Luzón, Maria José. 2013. Public communication of science in blogs: Recontextualizing scientific discourse for a diversified audience. Written Communication 30(4). 428–457.10.1177/0741088313493610Search in Google Scholar

Myers, Greg. 2003. Discourse studies of scientific popularization: Questioning the boundaries. Discourse Studies 5(2). 265–279.10.1177/1461445603005002006Search in Google Scholar

Rock, Frances. 2017. Recruiting frontstage entextualization: Drafting, artifactuality and written-ness as resources in police – witness interviews. Text & Talk 37(4). 437–460.10.1515/text-2017-0012Search in Google Scholar

Rödder, Simone, Martina Franzen & Peter Weingart (eds.). 2011. The sciences’ media connection: Public communication and its repercussions. London: Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-2085-5Search in Google Scholar

Rymes, Betsy. 2012. Recontextualizing YouTube: From macro-micro to mass-mediated communicative repertoires. Anthropology & Education Quarterly 43(2). 214–227.10.1111/j.1548-1492.2012.01170.xSearch in Google Scholar

Silverstein, Michael & Greg Urban (eds.). 1996. Natural histories of discourse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Simis, Molly J., Haley Madden, Michael A. Cacciatore & Sara K. Yeo. 2016. The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication? Public Understanding of Science 25(4). 400–414.10.1177/0963662516629749Search in Google Scholar

Woydack, Johanna & Ben Rampton. 2016. Text trajectories in a multilingual call centre: The linguistic ethnography of a calling script. Language in Society 45(5). 709–732.10.1017/S0047404516000610Search in Google Scholar

Wynne, Brian. 1982. Rationality and ritual: The Windscale inquiry and nuclear decisions in Britain. Buckinghamshire: The British Society for the History of Science.Search in Google Scholar

Wynne, Brian. 1991. Knowledges in context. Science, Technology & Human Values 16(1). 111–121.10.1177/016224399101600108Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2020-02-08
Published in Print: 2020-05-27

© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston