Thus far, few studies have examined how scientists choose different social media platforms, or how using multiple platforms of social media is related to public engagement with science. This article investigates the role of social media in China’s science communication and scientists’ selective use of them. We found that social media enabled Chinese scientists to avoid relying on legacy media and to develop more interdisciplinary collaborations. In the process, these scientists strategically chose different social media platforms to increase controllability. Despite their preference for the approach of knowledge dissemination rather than dialogues, Chinese scientists tried to avoid the bureaucratic practice of science communication, and instead, they promoted some level of public participation.

This article examines the emerging phenomenon of the non-use of WeChat Moments. Drawing upon semi-structured interviews with 21 users who used Moments for at least 6 months, then voluntarily discontinued their use of the feature, we discuss the complex dynamics of Moments use, exploring the implicit micro-behavioral process of social media practice. Countering the purported hyper-centrality of WeChat, we identified a periodic loop of “use, non-use, reuse” of Moments, suggesting that people suspend their use of Moments periodically to “re-domesticate” technology. Through the prism of the domestication approach, we argue that the re-domestication of Moments is a “reboot” of the whole process of domestication through four key stages: re-appropriation, re-objectification, re-incorporation, and re-conversion. Re-domestication is a process that allows people to take a retrospective look at their lives and transform Moments from a disruptive app feature into an instrumental apparatus conducive to their personal and professional well-being. By examining this process, we discuss how people use innovative ways to regain their autonomy and agency in their daily interactions with WeChat.

No abstract

No abstract

Drawing on domestication theory and intersectionality theory, this study explores the multiple roles dating apps play in Chinese gay men’s lives amid changing personal and social circumstances. We present in-depth narratives of three Blued users from different generations and classes with unique relationship statuses. The app’s geo-locative features strengthened the gay capital of our younger participant but threatened our middle-aged, closeted participant. Although coming from a homophobic generation, our senior participant had no issue becoming an online celebrity on the app because his wife had passed away, pointing out the intersectional influence of generational and relational backgrounds. Our participants’ socio-economic positions also shaped whom they would interact with on Blued and how these interactions took place. These observations illustrate the relationship between users’ intersectional positions and their domestication of Blued, complementing existing dating app studies that skew toward younger users and focus only on certain elements of app use.

No abstract

No abstract

Chinese English‐language journals in science, technology, and medicine have received scholarly attention, but little is known about their counterparts in the humanities and social sciences. A full understanding of the internationalization of Chinese English‐language humanities and social sciences journals (CELHSSJs) is not possible without an exploration of the phenomenon's social, political, and economic roots. Based on interviews with 26 stakeholders, including journal editors, heads of academic institutes, personnel from related regulatory state administrations, and international publishers, this article explores the implications of the development of CELHSSJs. Rather than treating the realms of academia and politics as distinct, opposing factors, we examine the complicated situation in China. English‐language journals carry out the political mission of the government's ‘going out’ propaganda policy. For academics and universities, they are largely a means for competing for resources domestically and a venue for power negotiations with overseas publishing groups. Based on our investigation of the dynamics and contradictions involved in the development of CELHSSJs, we argue that the power dynamics and social contexts in which Chinese English‐language journals operate shape China's knowledge production and dissemination as much as the content of these journals does.