Similar Attitudes, Different Strategies: A Limited Survey of the Discourse Strategies to Oppose Genetically Modified Organisms Conspiracy Theories by Chinese Scientist Communicators and Citizen Communicators on Zhihu

Abstract

The development of the digital media environment has led to a diversification in the role of science communicators. Both scientists and non-scientist citizens can act as science communicators in relation to online discussion of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Through a limited study, based on thematic and open coding of 60 answers provided by scientist science communicators and citizen science communicators on GMOs on Zhihu, the biggest Chinese knowledge sharing network, it has been found that “business conspiracy theories” about GMOs are the most mentioned and discussed theories, followed by the conspiracy theory of “GMOs as state control tool” on Zhihu. Both citizen science communicators and scientist science communicators are inclined to show oppositional attitudes to GMOs conspiracy theories on Zhihu, despite the differences in their scientific backgrounds; however, they use very different discourse strategies. Citizen science communicators tend to use “lay logic” with more rhetoric, while scientist science communicators tend to use direct scientific knowledge and logic with less rhetoric.

Differentiated Trust Strategies and Rebellious Acceptance: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis of the Trust Strategies Used by Scientist Communicators and Citizen Science Communicators in Chinese Online Climate Communication

“…Scientists tend to construct identity boundaries with the audience in science communication; while citizen science communication tends to dissolve such boundaries with the audience. This result works in concert with the findings from many previous studies (such as Besley & Tiffany, 2023; Brondi et al, 2021; McLoughlin, 2021; Yang, 2021, 2022b).…”

“…Scientists tend to construct identity boundaries with the audience in science communication; while citizen science communication tends to dissolve such boundaries with the audience. This result works in concert with the findings from many previous studies (such as Besley & Tiffany, 2023;Brondi et al, 2021;McLoughlin, 2021;Yang, 2021Yang, , 2022b. The different biases between the two groups of communicators in rational and emotional trust strategies echo Fiske and Dupree's (2014) discovery that trust in science communication is not just about logic and knowledge, but also about emotions and values, which can be summarized as "warmth" and "competence."…”

“…Studies have also found that audiences have different trust preferences and expectations when facing communicators with different identities (Jin, 2018; Seebauer & Babcicky, 2018; Yang, 2022b). For example, Nicolaisen (2022) found that in climate science communication, when scientists are communicators, the public expects them to have a certain degree of emotional expression, that is, greater use of emotional discourse strategies; in terms of climate journalists as communicators, the public trusts them more when they demonstrate a neutral attitude.…”

“…Similarly, when faced with different trust strategies, they will also have different and motivated responses. Studies have also found that in the communication and discussion of some specific controversial scientific issues, the trust discourse strategies of citizen science communicators and scientist communicators are indeed not the same (Cox et al, 2020; Yang, 2022b).…”

Sociocultural Norm Similarities and Differences via Situational Alignment and Explainable Textual Entailment

“…Chinese social media platforms like Weibo, and Wechat are mandated by law (Xu and Albert, 2014) to implement censorship policies on the content created by their users. Zhihu is no different; the presence of inherent content bias introduced by this form of active moderation of user content has an effect on influencing the landscape of public discourse (Yang, 2022b) and the data that we rely on to derive Chinese social norms. In particular, past work has shown the existence of censorship programs aimed at prohibiting "collective action by silencing comments that represent, reinforce, or spur social mobilization" across primary Chinese social media services (King et al, 2013).…”