In contemporary media discourses, researchers may be perceived to communicate something they do not intend to, such as coldness or irrelevance. However, researchers are facing new responsibilities concerning how popular formats used to present science will impact science’s cultural authority (Bucchi, 2017). Currently, there is limited research on the microlevel practices of digital science communication involving researchers as actors. Therefore, this qualitative study explores how digital academic discourse practices develop, using the tweeting and blogging of researchers involved in a multidisciplinary renewable energy research project as a case. The results of a thematic analysis of interviews with researchers (n = 17) suggests that the researchers’ perceptions form a scale ranging from traditional to progressively adjusted practices, which are labelled ‘informing,’ ‘anchoring,’ ‘luring,’ and ‘maneuvering.’ These imply an attempt to diminish the gap between science and the public. The interviewees acknowledge that scientific facts may not be interesting and that they need captivating means that are common in the use of new media, such as buzzwords and clickbait. It appears that trials and experimentation with hybrid genres helped the researchers to distinguish the contours of digital academic discourses. The implications support suggestions to broaden the trajectories of expertise and communication, including issues of culture and identity, trust, and the relevance of science. It is argued that scientists’ embrace of new media channels will refine some articulations of the mediatization processes, and these findings support recent suggestions that mediatization could also be conceptualized as a strategic resource.

中文翻译：

---

“关于社交媒体科学似乎变得更加人性化”：探索研究人员作为数字科学传播者

在当代媒体中，研究人员可能被认为传达了他们不想要的东西，例如冷漠或无关紧要。然而，研究人员面临着新的责任，即用于展示科学的流行形式将如何影响科学的文化权威（Bucchi，2017）。当前，关于数字科学交流的微观实践的研究有限，涉及研究人员作为参与者。因此，本定性研究以参与多学科可再生能源研究项目的研究人员的推文和博客为例，探索了数字学术话语实践的发展方式。对研究人员进行访谈的主题分析结果（n = 17）表明，研究人员的看法形成了从传统到逐步调整的实践范围，分别标记为“通知”，“锚定”，“引诱”和“操纵”。这意味着试图缩小科学与公众之间的差距。受访者承认，科学事实可能并不有趣，他们需要使用流行语和点击诱饵等新媒体常用的迷人手段。似乎，混合体裁的试验和研究帮助研究人员区分了数字学术话语的轮廓。这些含义为扩大专业知识和交流轨迹的建议提供了支持，包括文化和身份，信任和科学相关性的问题。有人认为，科学家对新媒体渠道的拥护将完善中介过程的一些表述，