Twitter conference discussion sessions: How and why researchers engage in online discussions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32714/ricl.13.01.05Keywords:
Twitter, discussion session, digital genres, communicative functions, digital discourse analysis, interactivityAbstract
Twitter for academic purposes has been analysed from multiple perspectives such as genre analysis, the use of multimodality and hypertextuality, or type of participants; yet interactivity between writers and readers remains under-researched. This study analyses academic-related conversations from the Twitter conference genre, particularly focusing on the discussion session of such a digital genre. Its objective is to identify the main interactional patterns, communicative functions, and digital discourse features in tweets. Dialogic turns were classified into comments, questions, responses, follow-up conversations, and automatic comments. Findings reveal that the main reasons behind online interaction correspond with community building and knowledge construction purposes. The digital medium does shape the form of tweets, which shows a high level of evaluative language, conversational style features, hedging, and emojis. All in all, these discursive features help create a welcoming and engaging style needed to engage in online science communication practices on social media.
Downloads
References
Belcher, Diane D. 2023. Digital genres: What they are, what they do, and why we need to better understand them. English for Specific Purposes 70: 33–43.
Büchi, Moritz. 2016. Microblogging as an extension of science reporting. Public Understanding of Science 26/8: 953–968.
Côté, Isabelle M. and Emily S. Darling. 2018. Scientists on Twitter: Preaching to the choir or singing from the rooftops? FACETS 3/1: 682–694.
Darling, Emily S., David Shiffman, Isabelle M. Côté and Joshua A. Drew. 2013. The role of Twitter in the life cycle of a scientific publication. Ideas in Ecology and Evolution 6: 32–43.
Hyland, Ken. 2005. Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies 7/2: 173–192.
Hyland, Ken. 2009. Academic Discourse: English in a Global Context. New York: Continuum.
Konzett, Carmen. 2012. Any Questions? Identity Construction in Academic Conference Discussions. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Krippendorff, Klaus. 2004. Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Lee, Mi Kyung, Ho Young Yoon, Marc Smith, Hye Jin Park and Han Woo Park. 2017. Mapping a Twitter scholarly communication network: A case of the association of internet researchers’ conference. Scientometrics 112/2: 767–797.
Luzón, María José. 2023. Multimodal practices of research groups in Twitter: An analysis of stance and engagement. English for Specific Purposes 70: 17–32.
Luzón, María José and Sofía Albero-Posac. 2020. ‘Had a lovely week at #conference2018’: An analysis of interaction through conference tweets. RELC Journal 51/1: 33–51.
Luzón, María José and Carmen Pérez-Llantada. 2022. Digital Genres in Academic Knowledge Production and Communication: Perspectives and Practices. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Mauranen, Anna. 2013. Hybridism, edutainment, and doubt: Science blogging finding its feet. Nordic Journal of English Studies 12/1: 7–36.
Mehlenbacher, Ashley Rose. 2019. Science Communication Online: Engaging Experts and Publics on the Internet. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.
Miller, Carolyn R. 1984. Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech 70: 151–167.
Orpin, Deborah. 2019. #Vaccineswork: Recontextualizing the content of epidemiological reports on Twitter. In María José Luzón and Carmen Pérez- Llantada eds. Science Communication on the Internet: Old Genres Meet New Genres. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 173–194.
Paulus, Trena. 2022. Digital tools for digital discourse analysis. In Camilla Vásquez ed. Research Methods for Digital Discourse Analysis. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing, 115–137.
Pérez-Llantada, Carmen, Olga Abián, Cristina Cadenas-Sánchez, Oana Carciu, Jesús Clemente-Gallardo, Idoia Labayen, Bienvenido León, Maria Carmen Erviti, Alfonso Ollero, Maddi Oses Recalde, Diego Rivera, Alberto Vela, Adrian Velazquez-Campoy, Rosana Villares and Ana Cristina Vivas Peraza. 2022. Digital Science: Sustainable, Transformative and Transversal. Final Report. Mendeley Data V1. https://doi.org/10.17632/2yv5brwxg5.1
Querol-Julián, Mercedes and Inmaculada Fortanet-Gómez. 2012. Multimodal evaluation in academic discussion sessions: How do presenters act and react? English for Specific Purposes Journal 3/4: 271–283.
Querol-Julián, Mercedes and Inmaculada Fortanet-Gómez. 2014. Evaluation in discussion sessions of conference presentations: Theoretical foundations for a multimodal analysis. Kalbotyra 66: 77–98.
Räisänen, Christine. 2002. The conference forum: A system of interrelated genres and discursive practices. In Eija Ventola, Celia Shalom and Susan Thompson eds. The Language of Conferencing. Berlin: Peter Lang, 69–93.
Rowley-Jolivet, Elizabeth and Shirley Carter-Thomas. 2005. The rhetoric of conference presentation introductions: context, argument and interaction. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 15/1: 45–70.
Saldaña, Johnny. 2009. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Swales, John M. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tagg, Carolyne. 2015. Exploring Digital Communication: Language in Action. New York: Routledge.
Tardy, Christine M. 2023. How epidemiologists exploit the emerging genres of Twitter for public engagement. English for Specific Purposes 70: 4–16.
Villares, Rosana. 2023a. Twitter conference presentations: A rhetorical and semiotic analysis of an emerging digital genre. ELIA: Estudios de Lingüística Inglesa Aplicada 22: 125–167.
Villares, Rosana. 2023b. Exploring rhetorical strategies of stance and engagement in Twitter conference presentations. ESP Today 11/2: 280–301.
Walter, Stephanie, Ines Lörcher and Michael Brüggemann. 2019. Scientific networks on Twitter: Analyzing scientists’ interactions in the climate change debate. Public Understanding of Science 28/6: 696–712.
Webber, Patrick. 2002. The paper is now open for discussion. In Eija Ventola, Celia Shalom and Susan Thompson eds. The Language of Conferencing. Berlin: Peter Lang, 227–253.
Wulff, Stefanie, John M. Swales and Kristen Keller. 2009. “We have seven minutes for questions”: The discussion sessions from a specialized conference. English for Specific Purposes 28: 79–92.
Xu, Xiaoyu. 2022a. A genre-based analysis of questions and comments in Q&A sessions after conference paper presentations in computer science. English for Specific Purposes 66: 63–76.
Xu, Xiaoyu. 2022b. Differences between novice and experienced academics in their engagement with audience members in conference Q&A sessions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 60: 101188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101188
Xu, Xiaoyu, Jerois Gevers and Luca Rossi. 2023. “Can I write this is ableist AF in a peer review?”: A corpus-driven analysis of Twitter engagement strategies across disciplinary groups. Ibérica 46: 207–236.
Zappavigna, Michelle. 2017. Twitter. In Christian Hoffmann and Wolfram Bublitz eds. Pragmatics of Social Media. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 201–224.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Research in Corpus Linguistics
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Submission of your paper to this journal implies that the paper is not under submission for publication elsewhere. Material which has been previously copyrighted, published, or accepted for publication will not be considered for publication in this journal. Submission of a manuscript is interpreted as a statement of certification that no part of the manuscript is copyrighted by any other publisher nor is under review by any other formal publication. By submitting your manuscript to us, you agree on these copyright guidelines. It is your responsibility to ensure that your manuscript does not cause any copyright infringements, defamation, and other problems.
Submitted papers are assumed to contain no proprietary material unprotected by patent or patent application; responsibility for technical content and for protection of proprietary material rests solely with the author(s) and their organizations and is not the responsibility of the journal or its editorial staff. The main author is responsible for ensuring that the article has been seen and approved by all the other authors. It is the responsibility of the author to obtain all necessary copyright release permissions for the use of any copyrighted materials in the manuscript prior to the submission.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under the BY Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal
Article submission implies author agreement with this policy.
