Deconstruction of science hegemony: discursive strategies of Chinese science communication on genetically modified foods

References

• Ampadu-Ameyaw R, Essegbey GO, Amaning EO. Public awareness, participation and attitude toward the national biosafety framework and genetically modified organisms in Ghana. J Biosafety & Biosecurity. 2021;3(2):147–53. doi:10.1016/j.jobb.2021.10.003.
   Google Scholar
• Cook G. Genetically modified language. London and New York: Routledge; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Cook G, Pieri E, Robbins PT. The scientists think and the public feels: expert perceptions of the discourse of GM food. Discourse Soc. 2004;15(4):433–49. doi:10.1177/0957926504043708.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mmbndo GS. The legal aspect of the current use of genetically modified organisms in Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda. GM Crops & Food. 2023;14(1):1–12. doi:10.1080/21645698.2023.2208999.
   Google Scholar
• Motion J, Doolin B. Out of the laboratory: scientists’ discursive practices in their encounters with activists. Discourse Stud. 2007;9(1):63–85. doi:10.1177/1461445606072110.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toke D. The politics of GM food: a comparative study of the UK, US and EU. London and New York: Routledge; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Yamaguchi T. Controversy over genetically modified crops in India: discursive strategies and social identities of farmers. Discourse Stud. 2007;9(1):87–107. doi:10.1177/1461445607072107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang Z. Deconstruction of the discourses authority of scientists in Chinese online science communication: Investigation of citizen science communicators on Chinese knowledge sharing networks. Public Underst Sci. 2021;30(8):993–1007. doi:10.1177/09636625211005106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Attar A, Genus A. Framing public engagement: a critical discourse analysis of GM nation? Technol Forecast Soc. 2014;88:241–50. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2014.07.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamaguchi T, Suda F. Changing social order and the quest for justification: GMO controversies in Japan. Sci Technol Human Values. 2010;35(3):382–407. doi:10.1177/0162243909345837.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gieryn TF. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. Am Sociol Rev. 1983;48(6):781–195. doi:10.2307/2095325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cui K, Shoemaker SP. Public perception of genetically-modified (GM) foods: a nationwide Chinese consumer study. NPJ Sci Food. 2018;2(1):1–8. doi:10.1038/s41538-018-0018-4.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lv L, Chen HD. Chinese public’s risk perceptions of genetically modified food: from the 1990s to 2015. Sci, Technol & Soc. 2016;21(1):110–28. doi:10.1177/0971721815622743.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chu JY, Wang JR. Uncertain communication: controversy of science in new media coverage. Media Observer. 2019;8:41–49.
   Google Scholar
• Jia HP, Fan JQ. Why genetically modified crops are resisted: a systematic review of science communication studies. Studies On Sci Populariz. 2015;10:83–92.
   Google Scholar
• Lin JR. For or against genetically modified foods: different discursive strategies in Chinese social media. Public Underst Sci. 2021;30(8):1058–72. doi:10.1177/09636625211003823.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• You CH, Jin JB. The impact of scientific knowledge on attitudes towards controversial technology in China: a case study on genetically modified organisms (GMO). Chinese J Journalism & Communicat. 2020;42:81–98.
   Google Scholar
• Fairclough N. Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language. New York: Longman Publishing; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Fairclough N. Critical discourse analysis and critical policy studies. Critical Policy Studies. 2013;7(2):177–97. doi:10.1080/19460171.2013.798239.
   Google Scholar
• Fairclough N, Wodak R. Critical discourse analysis. In: van Dijk TA, editor. Discourse as social interaction. London: Sage; 1977. pp. 258–84.
   Google Scholar
• Wodak R. Critical discourse analysis, discourse-historical approach. In: Tracy K, IIie C Sandel T, editors. The international encyclopedia of language and social interaction. Publication:John Wiley & Son; 2015. pp. 1–14. doi:10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi116.
   Google Scholar
• Fairclough N. CDA as dialectical reasoning. In: Flowerdew J, Richardson JE, editors. The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies. London: Routledge; 2018. pp. 13–25.
   Google Scholar
• Van Leeuwen T. Discourse and practice: new tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Schleppegrell JM. Linguistic features of the language of schooling. Ling Educ. 2001;12(4):431–59. doi:10.1016/S0898-5898(01)00073-0.
   Google Scholar
• Gieryn TF. Cultural boundaries of science: credibility on the line. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1999. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226824420.001.0001.
   Google Scholar
• Meyers A. Toward a definition of irony. In: Fasold R Shuy R, editors. Studies in language variation. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press; 1973. pp. 171–83.
   Google Scholar
• Qiu YP, Hong G. A study of implicature of quotation marks. J Zhejiang Normal Univ (Soc Sci). 2007;32:65–69.
   Google Scholar
• Van Dijk TA. Critical discourse analysis. In: Tannen D, Hamilton HE Schiffrin D, editors. The handbook of discourse analysis. Publication:John Wiley & Son; 2015. pp. 466–85. doi:10.1002/9781118584194.ch22.
   Google Scholar
• Fairclough N. Discourse and social change. London: Routledge; 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Adami E. The rhetoric of the implicit and the politics of representation in the age of copy-and-paste. Learn Media Technol. 2012;37(2):131–44. doi:10.1080/17439884.2011.641567.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gieryn TF. Boundaries of science. In: Jasanoff SS, Markle G, Petersen J, and Pinch T, editors. Handbook of science and technology Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1995. pp. 393–443.
   Google Scholar
• Martin JR. Discourses of science: recontextualization, genesis, intertextuality and hegemony. In: Martin JR Veel R, editors. Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. London: Routledge; 1998. pp. 3–14.
   Google Scholar