A case study for the analysis of the rhetoric of crowdfunding communication
Palabras clave:
micromecenazgo científico, géneros digitales, Inglés para Fines Académicos, comunicación científica, retóricaResumen
En los contextos de investigación actuales, los científicos utilizan cada vez más las plataformas científicas de crowdfunding (micromecenazgo) para hacer visible su trabajo al tiempo que invitan a al público a realizar donaciones y a conocer su opinión sobre temas científicos. Tomando como caso de estudio un proyecto de biología experimental en Experiment.com, el objetivo de este trabajo es analizar y evaluar críticamente la lógica de la organización retórica de este género digital para comprender las demandas sociales que conlleva la construcción de estos proyectos. Los resultados muestran un punto en común entre los géneros tradicionales y digitales, así como una intención comunicativa común entre el proyecto analizado y el de los artículos de investigación tradicionales. Se concluye que las propuestas de proyectos de crowdfunding requieren comunicar el conocimiento científico de forma clara y accesible pero también transmitir profesionalidad y credibilidad para persuadir a audiencias que pueden no estar especializadas en la materia que trata el proyecto.
Descargas
Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.
Citas
Aalbersberg, I. J, Heeman, F., Koers, H., and E. Zudilova-Seinstra. (2012). “Elsevier’s Article of the Future: Enhancing the user experience and integrating data through applications”, Insights 25 (1), 33–43.
Bhatia, V. (2017). Critical Genre Analysis: Investigating Interdiscursive Performance in Professional Contexts, research monograph. London / New York, Routledge (October 2016).
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Bazerman, C. 1994. “Systems of genres and the enactment of social intentions”, In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Genre and the New Rhetoric. London: Taylor & Francis, 79-101.
Bazerman, C. (2016). “Social changes in science communication: Rattling the information chain”, In J. Buehl and A. Gross (eds) Science and the Internet: Communicating Knowledge in a Digital Age. Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing, 267-282.
Berkenkotter, C. and T. N. Huckin. (1995). Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication: Cognition/Culture/Power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Buehl, J. (2016). “Revolution or evolution? Casing the impact of digital media on the rhetoric of science”, In A. Gross and J. Buehl (eds) Science and the Internet: Communicating Knowledge in a Digital Age (pp. 1-9). Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing.
Conor, U. (1998). “Comparing Research and Not-for-profit Grant Proposals”, In Written Discourse in Philanthropic Fund Raising: Issues of Language and Rhetoric. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Center on Philanthropy, 98–113.
Connor, U. (2000). “Variation in Rhetorical Moves in Grant Proposals of US Humanists and Scientists”, Text 20 (1), 1–28.
Connor, U., and A. Mauranen. 1999. “Linguistic Analysis of Grant Proposals: European Union Research Grants”, English for Specific Purposes 18(1), 47-62.
Connor, U., and L. Wagner. (1998). “Language Use in Grant Proposals by Nonprofits: Spanish and English”, New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 1998 (22), 59–74.
Cotos, E., Huffman S. and S. Link. (2015). “Furthering and applying move/step constructs: Technology-driven marshalling of Swalesian genre theory for EAP pedagogy”, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 19, 52-72.
Cotos, E., Huffman S. and S. Link. (2017). “A move/step model for methods sections: Demonstrating Rigour and Credibility”, English for Specific Purposes, 46, 90-106.
CRUE. (2019). Compromisos de las universidades españolas ante la Open Science. <http://www.crue.org/Documentos%20compartidos/Informes%20y%20Posicionamientos/2019.02.20-Compromisos%20CRUE_OPENSCIENCE%20VF.pdf> [04/03/2023]
EUA. (2018). Roadmap on research assessment in the transition to open science. https://eua.eu/downloads/publications/eua-roadmap-on-research-assessment-in-the-transition-to-open-science_v20-08-2019.pdf [04/03/2023]
European Commission. (2016). Open innovation, open science, open to the world: A vision for Europe. Brussels: European Commission. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. https://publications.europa.eu/s/fzsT. [retrieved: 4.10.2022]
Foster. (2018). The future of science is open. https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/ [04/10/2022]
Gross, A. G., and J. E. Harmon. (2014). Science from Sight to Insight: How Scientists Illustrate Meaning. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
Herring, S. C. (2012). “Grammar and electronic communication”, In C. Chapelle (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 2338– 2346). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Herring, S. (2013). “Discourse in Web 2.0: Familiar, reconfigured, and emergent”, In D. Tannen & A. Trester (Eds.), Discourse 2.0, (pp. 1-25). Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.
Hyland, K. and K. Jiang. (2017). “Is academic writing becoming more informal?” English for Specific Purposes 45, 40–51.
Kelly, A.R. and C. Miller. (2016). “Intersections: Scientific and para-scientific communication on the Internet”, In A. Gross and J. Buehl (eds) Science and the Internet: Communicating Knowledge in a Digital Age, (pp. 221–245). Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing.
Luzón, M. J, and C. Pérez-Llantada. (2022). Digital Genres in Academic Knowledge Production and Communication. Perspectives and practices. Studies in knowledge production and participation 4, Multilingual Matters, Bristol: Jackson.
Luzón, M.J. (2013). “Public communication of science in blogs: Recontextualizing scientific discourse for a diversified audience”, Written Communication 30, 428–457.
Luzón, M.J. (2014). “Engaging in scientific controversies in science blogs: The expression of allegiance and ideological commitment”, In H.L. Lim and F. Sudweeks (eds) Innovative Methods and Technologies for Electronic Discourse Analysis (pp. 235–249). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Luzón, M.J. (2017). “Connecting genres and languages in online scholarly communication: An analysis of research group blogs”, Written Communication 34 (4), 441–471.
Mandavilli, A. (2011). “Trial by Twitter”, Nature 469 (7330), 286–287.
Mehlenbacher, A. R. 2017. “Crowdfunding Science: Exigencies and Strategies in an Emerging Genre of Science Communication”, Technical Communication Quarterly 26 (2), 1- 18.
Mehlenbacher, A. R. (2019). Science communication online: engaging experts and publics on the Internet, Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.
OECD. (2015). “Making open science a reality”, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers 25. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Paulus, T. M. and K. R. Roberts. (2018). Crowdfunding a real-life superhero: The construction of worthy bodies in medical campaign narratives. Discourse, Context and Media 21, 64–72.
Pérez-Llantada, C. (2013). “The article of the future: Strategies for genre stability and change”, English for Specific Purposes 32 (4), 221–235.
Pérez-Llantada, C. (2021). “Grammar and discourse style features in digital genres: The case of science-focused crowdfunding projects”, Revista Signos. Estudios de Lingüística 54 (105), 73–96.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis, English in academic and research settings, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J.M. (2004). Research Genres. Explorations and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tardy, C. M. (2003). "A Genre System View of the Funding of Academic Research", Written Communication 20 (1), 7–36
Upton, T. A., and U. Connor. (2001). “Using Computerized Corpus Analysis to Investigate the Text linguistic Discourse Moves of a Genre”, English for Specific Purposes 20(4), 313.
Yang, R. and D. Allison (2003). “Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions”, English for Specific Purposes 22, 365-385.
Bhatia, V. (2017). Critical Genre Analysis: Investigating Interdiscursive Performance in Professional Contexts, research monograph. London / New York, Routledge (October 2016).
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Bazerman, C. 1994. “Systems of genres and the enactment of social intentions”, In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Genre and the New Rhetoric. London: Taylor & Francis, 79-101.
Bazerman, C. (2016). “Social changes in science communication: Rattling the information chain”, In J. Buehl and A. Gross (eds) Science and the Internet: Communicating Knowledge in a Digital Age. Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing, 267-282.
Berkenkotter, C. and T. N. Huckin. (1995). Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication: Cognition/Culture/Power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Buehl, J. (2016). “Revolution or evolution? Casing the impact of digital media on the rhetoric of science”, In A. Gross and J. Buehl (eds) Science and the Internet: Communicating Knowledge in a Digital Age (pp. 1-9). Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing.
Conor, U. (1998). “Comparing Research and Not-for-profit Grant Proposals”, In Written Discourse in Philanthropic Fund Raising: Issues of Language and Rhetoric. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Center on Philanthropy, 98–113.
Connor, U. (2000). “Variation in Rhetorical Moves in Grant Proposals of US Humanists and Scientists”, Text 20 (1), 1–28.
Connor, U., and A. Mauranen. 1999. “Linguistic Analysis of Grant Proposals: European Union Research Grants”, English for Specific Purposes 18(1), 47-62.
Connor, U., and L. Wagner. (1998). “Language Use in Grant Proposals by Nonprofits: Spanish and English”, New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 1998 (22), 59–74.
Cotos, E., Huffman S. and S. Link. (2015). “Furthering and applying move/step constructs: Technology-driven marshalling of Swalesian genre theory for EAP pedagogy”, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 19, 52-72.
Cotos, E., Huffman S. and S. Link. (2017). “A move/step model for methods sections: Demonstrating Rigour and Credibility”, English for Specific Purposes, 46, 90-106.
CRUE. (2019). Compromisos de las universidades españolas ante la Open Science. <http://www.crue.org/Documentos%20compartidos/Informes%20y%20Posicionamientos/2019.02.20-Compromisos%20CRUE_OPENSCIENCE%20VF.pdf> [04/03/2023]
EUA. (2018). Roadmap on research assessment in the transition to open science. https://eua.eu/downloads/publications/eua-roadmap-on-research-assessment-in-the-transition-to-open-science_v20-08-2019.pdf [04/03/2023]
European Commission. (2016). Open innovation, open science, open to the world: A vision for Europe. Brussels: European Commission. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. https://publications.europa.eu/s/fzsT. [retrieved: 4.10.2022]
Foster. (2018). The future of science is open. https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/ [04/10/2022]
Gross, A. G., and J. E. Harmon. (2014). Science from Sight to Insight: How Scientists Illustrate Meaning. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
Herring, S. C. (2012). “Grammar and electronic communication”, In C. Chapelle (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 2338– 2346). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Herring, S. (2013). “Discourse in Web 2.0: Familiar, reconfigured, and emergent”, In D. Tannen & A. Trester (Eds.), Discourse 2.0, (pp. 1-25). Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.
Hyland, K. and K. Jiang. (2017). “Is academic writing becoming more informal?” English for Specific Purposes 45, 40–51.
Kelly, A.R. and C. Miller. (2016). “Intersections: Scientific and para-scientific communication on the Internet”, In A. Gross and J. Buehl (eds) Science and the Internet: Communicating Knowledge in a Digital Age, (pp. 221–245). Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing.
Luzón, M. J, and C. Pérez-Llantada. (2022). Digital Genres in Academic Knowledge Production and Communication. Perspectives and practices. Studies in knowledge production and participation 4, Multilingual Matters, Bristol: Jackson.
Luzón, M.J. (2013). “Public communication of science in blogs: Recontextualizing scientific discourse for a diversified audience”, Written Communication 30, 428–457.
Luzón, M.J. (2014). “Engaging in scientific controversies in science blogs: The expression of allegiance and ideological commitment”, In H.L. Lim and F. Sudweeks (eds) Innovative Methods and Technologies for Electronic Discourse Analysis (pp. 235–249). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Luzón, M.J. (2017). “Connecting genres and languages in online scholarly communication: An analysis of research group blogs”, Written Communication 34 (4), 441–471.
Mandavilli, A. (2011). “Trial by Twitter”, Nature 469 (7330), 286–287.
Mehlenbacher, A. R. 2017. “Crowdfunding Science: Exigencies and Strategies in an Emerging Genre of Science Communication”, Technical Communication Quarterly 26 (2), 1- 18.
Mehlenbacher, A. R. (2019). Science communication online: engaging experts and publics on the Internet, Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.
OECD. (2015). “Making open science a reality”, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers 25. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Paulus, T. M. and K. R. Roberts. (2018). Crowdfunding a real-life superhero: The construction of worthy bodies in medical campaign narratives. Discourse, Context and Media 21, 64–72.
Pérez-Llantada, C. (2013). “The article of the future: Strategies for genre stability and change”, English for Specific Purposes 32 (4), 221–235.
Pérez-Llantada, C. (2021). “Grammar and discourse style features in digital genres: The case of science-focused crowdfunding projects”, Revista Signos. Estudios de Lingüística 54 (105), 73–96.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis, English in academic and research settings, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J.M. (2004). Research Genres. Explorations and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tardy, C. M. (2003). "A Genre System View of the Funding of Academic Research", Written Communication 20 (1), 7–36
Upton, T. A., and U. Connor. (2001). “Using Computerized Corpus Analysis to Investigate the Text linguistic Discourse Moves of a Genre”, English for Specific Purposes 20(4), 313.
Yang, R. and D. Allison (2003). “Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions”, English for Specific Purposes 22, 365-385.
Descargas
Publicado
2025-06-30
Cómo citar
Vela Rodrigo, A. Á. (2025). A case study for the analysis of the rhetoric of crowdfunding communication. Revista De Lenguas Para Fines Específicos, 31. Recuperado a partir de https://ojsspdc.ulpgc.es/ojs/index.php/LFE/article/view/1673
Número
Sección
Artículos/Articles
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2025 Alberto Vela Rodrigo
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.
Aquellos autores/as que tengan publicaciones con esta revista, aceptan los términos siguientes:
- Los autores/as conservarán sus derechos de autor y garantizarán a la revista el derecho de primera publicación de su obra, el cuál estará simultáneamente sujeto a la Licencia de reconocimiento de Creative Commons que permite a terceros compartir la obra siempre que se indique su autor y su primera publicación esta revista.
- Los autores/as podrán adoptar otros acuerdos de licencia no exclusiva de distribución de la versión de la obra publicada (p. ej.: depositarla en un archivo telemático institucional o publicarla en un volumen monográfico) siempre que se indique la publicación inicial en esta revista.
- Se permite y recomienda a los autores/as difundir su obra a través de Internet (p. ej.: en archivos telemáticos institucionales o en su página web) antes y durante el proceso de envío, lo cual puede producir intercambios interesantes y aumentar las citas de la obra publicada. (Véase El efecto del acceso abierto).
Revista de Lenguas para fines específicos is licensed under a Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObraDerivada 4.0 Internacional License.
