The Impact of the Internationalisation of Higher Education on Scientists’ Multimodal Communication: A case study from Catalonia

N om / Logot i p de l a U ni v er si t at on s ’ ha lle g it la t e s i The Im pac t of t he Inte rnat iona lisat ion of Highe r Educ ation on Sc ient is ts’ Multim od al Com munica tion: A ca se st udy f rom Ca talonia Helena T orres Purro y http: //hdl. handle. net/10 803/675 566 The I mpact of the I nter nati onalis atio n of Higher Educat io n on Sc ient ists ’ Multim odal C om munic atio n: A cas e study fro m C atalo nia i està subjec te a u na llic ènc ia de Recone ixem ent 3.0 No a da ptad a de Cr eati ve C omm ons (c) 2021 , H elana T or res Purr oy TESI DOCTORAL The Impact of the Internationalisation of Higher Education on Scientists’ Multimodal Communication: A case study from Catalonia Helena Torres Purroy Memòria presentada per optar al grau de Doctor a per la Universitat de Lleida Programa de Doctorat en Territori, Patr imoni i Cultura Director Josep Maria Cots Caimons 2021 i To cite this work: Torres-Purroy, Helena (2021). The Impact of the Internationalisation of Higher Education on Scientists’ Multimodal Communicati on: A case study from Catalonia (Unpublished PhD thesis). Universitat de Lleida. ii A les veritables ci entífiques 1 , le -s-àvies: iaia Maria Jo sé, abuelita Lola, yaya Pilar i padrina Maria Als veritables ci entífics, el -s-avis: pa drí Josep, iaio A ntolín, abuelito Miguel i yayo Frut os To the real scie ntists 2 , our grandmothers and grandfathers 1 Del llatí ‘scienti a’ (coneixement) 2 From the Latin ‘scie ntia’ (knowledge) iii Acknowledgements This thesis would have never been possible without the support and contri butio n of many people to whom I am indebted. First, I want to thank my wife, Sònia, who has been there at every step of this journey, who has “suffered” and enjoyed its loops with me, and who has waited always patie ntly a nd often actively until its end. GRÀCIES per ser-hi sempre. No podia ha ver tingut millor com pany ia en aquesta aventura. I must th ank my (former) colleagues of the Depar tment of English and Linguistics of the University of Lleida for having welcomed me as t heir colleague during the first stage of this project, and in particular to the members and former member s of the research grou p Cercle de lingüística aplicada. I wou ld especially like to thank my supervisor, Josep Maria Cots, for having accepted to work with me, fo r having help ed me initiate th is project, and fo r his support and guidance throughout. This project is particularly indebted to its participan ts, those individuals that accepted selflessly to be observed, asked and recorded during their working h ours; they opened their hearts and minds un conditionally to me and to res earch, often beyond what I would hav e asked. I want to thank the real Cecília, Fran k, Pere and Hans fo r having gi ven me access to their work ing spaces , and the real Mara, Navil, Agus, Carol, Hao, Vince, Joana, Lu rdes, Xènia, Lian, Mik ela, Tània, Ainhoa, Ale, Rober, Isabel , Diana, Pere, Damià, Mil a, Neus, Tòni a, Montse, Dana, Fina, Onofre, Lola, Gina, Yamir, Tira, Alèxia, Charo, Jetta, Bea , Lola, Sonj a, Rita, Franziska, Giulia, Inge, Paola, Trude, Elvira and Andr ei for their generosity. I gratefully acknowledge Jeff Bezemer, who “hosted” me in the Institute of Education (University College London) during my three -month research stay there, for hi s inspiring guidance in my induction in to multimod ality. I am also grateful to other great scholars and better people who m I met in Lo ndon and with who m I had stimulating exchanges: Sophia Diamantopoulou , Jen ifer Ho and very especially Hará Sid iropoulou ( σ’ ευχαριστώ πάρα πολύ ). I must also ackno wledge Gun ther Kress’ contrib ution at a very early stage of my pr oject (may he rest in peace). Very special th anks to Alícia Fuentes - Calle (Linguapax) and her colleagu es from the GELA (research gr oup on end angered lang uages) that introduced me i nto this amazing world of sociolinguistics and passed their love for it on to me. Also remarkable is the valuable contribution to my training of my professors of the MA in Applied linguistics and lang uage acquisition in multilingual con texts, at the University of Barcelona. Thank you. iv I am grateful to my colleagues of the Department of Catalan Philology and Communication of the University of Lleida who have granted me the opportuni ty to give to my learning a practical implication. Also to my students from the University of Lleida for having nurtured my work through our exchanges. And fin ally and very warmly, I wou ld also like to thank my families and friend s. Gràcies, família pel vostre suport i per la vostra paciència. El vo stre escalf ha estat un regal balsàmic. This project has been partially funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (Ministerio de E conomía y Competitividad, scholarship BES-2013-0630 46 ). v Abstract Universities worldwide are urged to engag e in the process of ‘internatio nalisation’ as a hallmark of qu ality and as a lure to attract students. This process often materialises in activities like mobility progra mmes for students and staff, cross-border programme delivery , international credit recognitio n and transfer, and the internationalisation of the curriculum. The current study approaches this issue from the context of Catalan higher education institu tions, which have responded to this trend by designing language policy plans that deal with th e dilemma of supporting the local languag e(s) and at the same ti me e mbracing multilingualism and especially English. The main ai m of this thesis is to examine the i mpact of th e internationalisation of higher education on the daily communication of an under-researched population: scientists. Departing from the a ssumption that science today is done in groups , the research group (RG) has been taken as th e social unit to be analy sed. Ethno graphic data, consisting of field notes, interviews, audio and video recordings of daily practices, photographs and original documents (i.e. emails and paper drafts), have been collected throug hout a period of 11 months from two multinational RGs based in a Catal an university , and contrasted with data taken from a RG based in G ermany and with insights from the researcher’s own RG. From the empirical ob jective has derived a theoretical objective, consisting in designing and proving a suitable theoretical framework to study the pheno menon holistically. To this aim, a n articulated th eoretical fra mework has been devised that combines the community of practice theory (Lave & Wenger, 1991), the ethnography of communication (Hymes, 1964 ), multimodal social semiotics (Kress, 2010 ) and s ome concepts from Bourdieu's (1977) theory of pr actice and Giddens' (1984) structu ration theory. The data have been analy sed th rough content and th ematic analysis. The theoretical fra mework desig ned has gu ided the data analysis by providing an etic coding scheme, which has been combined with an emic approach to th e field (by identifying phenomena, issues and themes that have "emerged" from the data). Following Faiclough's (1992) three -dimensional analy sis, three levels of analy sis (the micro, the meso and the macro) have been ap proached. Critical discou rse analysis has been adopted across all levels in order to unveil ideological stances and power relations across issues and topics. This study aims to contribute to the li mited body of research describing "scientists' actual communication pr actices" (Searle, 2013: 50) , and especially to the literature describ ing scientists’ "informal" and unpublished practices, as well as to the literature on the internationalisation of higher education . On a practical level, this work is intended to ai d in th e improvement of internationalisation policies of higher edu cation institutions in Catalonia, in Europe and potentially in other contexts worldwide. vi Resum Les un iversitats de tot el món són in stades a parti cipar en el procés d ' ‘ internacionalització ’ com a distintiu de qualitat i com a reclam per atraure estudi ants. Aquest procés es materialitza sovin t en activitats com ara els pr ogrames de mobilitat per a estudiants i perso nal, la impartició de programes a l’estranger , el reconeixement i transferència internacional de crèdits i la internacionalització del cur rículum. Aqu est estudi aborda aquesta qü estió des del context de les institucions catalanes d’educació superior , que han respost a aquesta tendència dissenyant plans de política lingüística que t racten el dilema de donar suport a la /les llengua/g ües local/s i, alhora, abraçar el multilingüisme i, sobretot, l’anglès. L'objectiu principal d'aquesta tesi és exa minar l'impacte de la internacionalització de l'educació superior en la comunicació di ària d'un a població poc investigada: els científics. Partint de la suposició que la ciència avui es fa en grups, hem pres el grup de recerca ( RG) com a unitat social analitza da . Les dades etnogràfiques, que consten de notes de camp, entrev istes, enregistrament s d’àudio i vídeo de pràctiques diàries, fotografies i documents origin als ( p. ex. correus electrònics i esborrany s d’ articles), s’han recopilat al llarg d’un període d’11 mesos d ’observació de dos RGs multinacionals amb s eu a una univ ersitat catalana, i s ’han contrast at amb dades extretes d’un RG a mb seu a Ale manya i amb idees inspirades en les pràctiques de l RG de la pròpia investig ador a d’aquest estudi . De l'objectiu empíric n’ ha derivat un ob jectiu teòric, que consisteix a disseny ar i prov ar un marc teòric adequat per estudiar el fenomen prop osat de manera integral. Amb aquest objectiu, s’ ha ideat un m arc teòric articulat que com bina la teoria de la com unitat de pràctica (Lave & Wenger, 1991), l’ etnografia de la comunicació (Hymes, 19 64), la semiòtica so cial multimodal (Kress, 2010) i alguns conceptes de la teori a de la pràctica de Bourdieu (1977) i de la teoria d e l ’estructuració de Gidd ens (1 984). Les dades s’han analitzat mitjançant l’ anàlisi de continguts i l’ anàlisi temàtica. El marc teòric dissenyat ha gu iat l’ anàlisi de dades propor cionant un esquema ètic de codificació, qu e s’ha combinat amb un apropament èmic al camp (mitjançant la identificació de fenò mens, qüestion s i temes que han "emergit" de les dades). Segu int la proposta d'anàlisi tridimensional de Faiclough (1 992), s'ha realitzat un a a nàlisi en tres nivells (el micro, el meso i el macro). L’anàlisi crítica del discurs s’ha adoptat a to ts els nivells per tal de donar a conèixer po stures ideològiques i relacions de poder a través de les diver ses qüestion s i temes. Aquest estudi té l’ objectiu de contribuir a la limita da recerca que descriu les "pràctiques de comunicació reals dels científics" (Searle, 2013: 50), i especialment a la literatura qu e descri u aquelles pràctiques "informals" i inèdit es dels científics, així co m a la literatura sobre la vii internacionalització de l’ ensenyament superior. A nivell pr àctic, aq uest treball pretén contrib uir a la millora de les polítiques d’ internacionalització de les institucions d’enseny ament superior de Cat alunya, d’ Europa i potencialment d’ altres contextos arreu del món. xiv 8.2.4. Resources ................................................................................................................ 575 8.3. Science as a social, politica l and economic instrument ............................................. 588 8.4. Communication, mobility and employment in science ............................................. 597 8.5. Discussion and conclusions .......................................................................................... 612 Chapter 9: Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 629 References ................................................................................................................................ 654 xv List of excerpts Excerpt 1: Focus group [Group A] – ‘Withou t a visual support/’ ................................ ............. 209 Excerpt 2: Interview with Pere [Group B’s l eader] – ‘If Helena could hear us_’ ..................... 221 Excerpt 3: Interview with Hao [Senior researcher – Group A ] - ‘we have inde pendent proj ects’ ................................................................................................................................................... 253 Excerpt 4: Interview with Tània [PhD researcher – Group A] – ‘the doctorate is a very individual thing’ ........................................................................................................................ 253 Excerpt 5: 20 140123_Field notes (Page 8) – ‘To Ono fre’s last conference…’ [PhD student - Group B] .................................................................................................................................... 254 Excerpt 6: Interview with Mara [PhD re searcher – Group A] - ‘getting adequ ate results has to do with getting al ong well with your hirer’ .................................................................................... 255 Excerpt 7: Interview with Pere [Group B’s leader] – ‘each one has been assigned a task’ ...... 256 Excerpt 8: Interview with Frank [Group A’s leader] – ‘There is a community’ ....................... 256 Excerpt 9: Interview with Vince [Senior researcher – Grou p A]- ‘It's indivi dual but…’ ......... 256 Excerpt 10: Tània’s Ph D defense rehear sal 1 [PhD researcher – Grou p A] – ‘this is your thesis’ ................................................................................................................................................... 257 Excerpt 11: 20140718_Field no tes_Tània’s PhD defense rehearsal 1 [PhD researcher – Group A] – ‘continues to use “we”’ ..................................................................................................... 257 Excerpt 12: Interview wit h Hao [senior researcher – Group A] – ‘And sometimes we have informal talks’ ........................................................................................................................... 259 Excerpt 13: Interview with Diana [postdoc , fo rmer group member – Group A] – ‘you don 't know very well what you have to d o’ ....................................................................................... 260 Excerpt 14: Interview with Xènia [BA Student – Group A]_ ‘being it so small_ you either talk to the one next to you {(@) o··r} [it’s too] bad \ ’ ...................................................................... 261 Excerpt 15: Interview with Frank [Group A’s leader] – ‘three times a year I cook fo r the gro up’ ................................................................................................................................................... 262 Excerpt 16: Interview with Carol [PhD researcher – Group A] – ‘Frank used to organise a lunch with every& everyone twice a y ear’ ......................................................................................... 262 Excerpt 17: Interview with Fina [PhD researcher – Group B] – ‘we used to go to the gym together’ .................................................................................................................................... 263 Excerpt 18: Interview with Diana [Postd oc researcher, former member of Group A] – ‘i t’s each person’s personality’ ................................................................................................................. 264 xvi Excerpt 19: Intervi ew wit h Fina [PhD researcher – Group B] – ‘because we had the same schedule’ ................................................................................................................................... 265 Excerpt 20: 20 140327_Informal interview with Agus [PhD re searcher – Gro up A] – ‘ maybe Ainhoa_ Ainhoa_ Carol_ and M ikela_ since they’re from here’ .............................................. 266 Excerpt 21: Interview with Fina [PhD rese archer – Group B] – ‘Then th ere y ou work with other people’ ....................................................................................................................................... 267 Excerpt 22: Intervi ew with Mara [PhD researcher - Group A] – ‘group [work ] o ut of the lab of course it is’ ................................................................................................................................ 268 Excerpt 23: Intervi ew wit h Tània [PhD researcher – Group A] – ‘ I have collaborated with different groups ’ ........................................................................................................................ 268 Excerpt 24: 2014012 3_Field notes (Page 8) [Group B] – ‘collaborations are very usual’ ....... 270 Excerpt 25: Interview with Tàni a [PhD researcher – Grou p A] – ‘... you start an [object of study] that some old [group ] mates have done here’ ................................................................ . 270 Excerpt 26: Tània’s PhD defense rehearsal 1 [PhD researcher – Group A] – ‘ should I add an acknowledgement’ .................................................................................................................... 271 Excerpt 27: Intervie w with Frank [Group A’s leader ] and Cecília [senio r researcher – Group A ] – ‘if you have questions_ go to this person’ .............................................................................. 272 Excerpt 28: Interview with Mara [PhD r esearcher – Group A ] – ‘ B ut ever since she left I’m in a vacuum’ ..................................................................................................................................... 273 Excerpt 29: Interview wit h Tira and Yamir [PhD researcher – Group B] – ‘I didn't know that this is that much important to have a a * a·· language for the comm unication’ ....................... 274 Excerpt 30: Interview with Mara [PhD researcher – Group A] – ‘I’m th e on ly one who does this in the laboratory’ ....................................................................................................................... 274 E xcerpt 31: Interview wit h Pere [Group B’s leader ] – ‘the seminars of th e week_ many times are for this\ ’ ................................................................................................ ............................... 277 Excerpt 32: 2014032 1_Field notes_Intergroup seminar (Page 5) - ‘what we want to do is’ ..... 278 Excerpt 33: 2014031 3_Lab meeting Mara_ Recording – ‘we fou nd one protocol’ .................. 278 Excerpt 34: Interview with Tània [PhD r esearcher – Group A] - ‘also because the topic’ ....... 278 Excerpt 35 : Interview with Fran k [Group A’s leader] – ‘The PhD positions are associated wit h a project’ ...................................................................................................................................... 280 Excerpt 36: Interview wit h Frank 2 [Group A’s leader] – ‘the grou p’s goal ... should be their own personal goal’ .................................................................................................................... 280 Excerpt 37: 20131217_Field notes_Pi lot observation in Grou p A (Page 06 ) – Carol’s research topic [PhD researcher] ............................................................................................................... 281 xvii Excerpt 38 : 20 140630_Informal intervi ew with Joana on experiments and expectations [BA researcher – Group A] ............................................................................................................... 281 Excerpt 39: 20 140313_Field notes from Mara’ s Lab Meeting (Page 02 ) – ‘You need to present...’ ................................................................................................................................... 282 Excerpt 40 : 20140109_Field notes_Observation Group A_Ha o’s Department Seminar (Page 2) – ‘M[ara] looks at mbl’ ............................................................................................................. 282 Excerpt 41: 20140129_Field notes_ Observation Group A_Gro up Meeting (Pag e 4) – ‘I hate it when’ ......................................................................................................................................... 283 Excerpt 42: 20140210_ Fieldnote_ Observation Group A_Lab meeting Ainh oa (Pag e 4) – ‘he told me that he hates these meetings’ ........................................................................................ 283 Excerpt 43 : Interview with Frank [Gro u p A’ s leader] – ‘I had different motivations at different stages of my life’ ....................................................................................................................... 284 Excerpt 44 : Interview with Agus [PhD researcher] – ‘I have realised that I like the jo b but it’ s not my passion’ ................................ ......................................................................................... 284 Excerpt 45: Interview with Carol [PhD r esearcher – Group A] – ‘the project is not mine’ ...... 285 Excerpt 46: Interview with Frank [G roup A’s lead er] – ‘...not to have them gradu ate and become unemployed’ ................................................................................................................ 286 Excerpt 47 Interview with Pere [Group B’s leader] – ‘results in science are publication s’ ...... 287 Excerpt 48: 201403 05_Field notes_Lab meeting Mikela + lab conversations (Page 3) – ‘You cannot publish your stu dy if...’ ................................ .................................................................. 287 Excerpt 49: 20140313_Field notes_Lab meeting Mara (Pag e 2) [G roup A] – ‘Fr ank: You cannot publish’ ...................................................................................................................................... 287 Excerpt 50: 20140613_Focus group with Po stdocs [Group G] – ‘in Sweden we have to publish’ ................................................................................................................................................... 288 Excerpt 51: 20 140508_Field notes_Observation Group B (Pag e 3) – ‘everyone has her own assigned place’ ................................ .......................................................................................... 292 Excerpt 52: 20140630_I nformal intervi ew with Joana (1s t day in the lab) [BA researcher – Group A] – ‘ there are a lot of ro oms ’ ................................................................ ........................ 292 Excerpt 53: 20140508_Observation 7 (Page 4) [Group B] – ‘the spaces typical of the CoP contain...’ ................................................................................................................................ ... 293 Excerpt 54: 20140630_I nterview with Joana [BA Researcher - Group A] – ‘you don’ t know how to use them well until you actually use them ’ ................................................................... 295 Excerpt 55: Interview with Fran k [Group A's le ader] – ‘the univ ersity PhD program does not like our lab at all’ ...................................................................................................................... 296 xviii Excerpt 56 : Interview with Agus [PhD researcher - Goup A] – ‘ I probably was more aligned with the ideas of the lab’ ........................................................................................................... 296 Excerpt 57 : Interview with Vince [Senio r researcher - Grou p A] – ‘Some hav e more experience tha n others_ but yes’ ................................................................................................................. 297 Excerpt 58: Interview with Hao [Senior researcher – Group A] – ‘of course the technique is shared’ ....................................................................................................................................... 298 Excerpt 59: 20140123_Field notes (Page 5) – Jetta [MA resarcher – Grou p B] and Gina [PhD researcher – Group B] – ‘Jetta asks Gina so mething about a machine’ .................................... 299 Excerpt 60: 2014 0123_Field notes (Pag e 7) [PhD researcher – Group B] – ‘you know th at it will stay in a box’ ............................................................................................................................. 300 Excerpt 61: 20 140508_Informal interview with Dan a [Senior researcher – Group B] – ‘for the external world it’s unknown’ .................................................................................................... 300 Excerpt 62: Interview with Tània [PhD researcher – Group A] – ‘they wouldn’t un derstand things from there either ’ ............................................................................................................ 301 Excerpt 63: 20140630_Field notes (Pa ge 4) – [PhD researcher] and Joana [BA researcher ] – Group A – ‘Navil looks up the word o n the Internet’ ............................................................... 305 Excerpt 64: 20140630_Navil [PhD researcher ] and Joana [BA r esearcher] doin g experiments – Group A – ‘In English_ it’s spray squeezer’ ............................................................................. 305 Excerpt 65: Interview with Carol [PhD r esearcher – Group A] – ‘I’ve got used to it now \ ’ .... 307 Excerpt 66: 20 140709_Meeting Hao (senior res.), Carol (PhD res.), Lurdes (BA res.), Xènia (BA res.) and Frank (g roup leader) – Group A – ‘ each line we have three independ ent ’ ......... 308 Excerpt 67: From protocol follo wed in Group A – ‘transfer the tissue’ ................................... 308 Excerpt 68: 20140530_Lab meeting Mara 2 (Page 2) [PhD researcher – Grou p A] – ‘ everything as we do it in the lab’ ................................................................................................................ 310 Excerpt 69: Interview with Tània (PhD researcher – Group A) – ‘this is how it has alway s been done here in the group’ ............................................................................................................. 310 Excerpt 70: 20 140718_Tània’s PhD defense rehears al 1 (Page 3) (Grou p A) – ‘Th e way we [who?] do [present] it is...’ ........................................................................................................ 311 Excerpt 71: Interview with Diana [Postdoc – former member of Group A] - ‘it’s the style that I’ve been developing du ring these four years of the PhD’ ........................................................ 3 11 Excerpt 72: 20140129_Field notes_Gina’s Group seminar (Page 3) [PhD re searcher Group B] – ‘They make jokes and laugh’ .................................................................................................... 315 Excerpt 73: 20140120_Field notes_Observatio n Group A’ s lab (Page 06 ) – ‘You focus on what you have’ ................................................................................................................................... 315 xix Excerpt 74: Interview with Cecília [seni or researcher - Group A] – ‘ all the stud ents have a series of documents and papers that I alway s deal with first’ ............................................................. 318 Excerpt 75 : Interview with Pere [Group B's leader] – ‘ you keep separating from the [experimental] bench more and more \ ’ ..................................................................................... 318 Excerpt 76: 20140109_Hao's departm ent seminar [ senior researcher – Group A] – ‘ I do n't understand’ ................................................................................................................................ 321 Excerpt 77 : Interview with Tània [PhD researcher – Group A] – ‘There was the opt ion to send it to Frankfurt’ .............................................................................................................................. 322 Excerpt 78: Interview with Frank [Group A’s leader ] – ‘I send Ph D students to other labs of other c olleagues’ ....................................................................................................................... 324 Excerpt 79: Interview with Frank [Group A’s leader] – ‘ my principle is to have multiple PhD supervisors for our students’ ..................................................................................................... 324 Excerpt 80: Intervew with Frank 2 [Group A’s leader] – ‘ I'm go ing to bring her back to the lab as a postdoc’ ................................................................................................ .............................. 325 Excerpt 81 : Interview with Pere [Group B's leader ] – ‘ the group must be very well represented when one goes somewhere’ ....................................................................................................... 325 Excerpt 82: Interview with Tània [PhD researcher – Group A] – ‘we have various seminars in every month’ ............................................................................................................................. 327 Excerpt 83 : 20140123_Observation Group B – Spontaneous professional conversation between Lola and Dana [Senior rese archers] – ‘My concentration is poor’ ........................................... 328 Excerpt 84 : 20140123_F ield notes_Observation Group B – ‘When they meet their superviso r’ ................................................................................................................................................... 330 Excerpt 85 : Interview with Frank 2 [Group A’s leader] – ‘I 'm involved in a number of international committees’ ................................................................................................ .......... 331 Excerpt 86: Interview with Frank 2 [Group A’s leader] – ‘I'm chief edito r of two journals’ ... 331 Excerpt 87: Interview with Tània [PhD researcher – Group A] – ‘All this I’ve had to look up’ ................................................................................................................................................... 332 Excerpt 88: Interview with Cecília [senior researcher - Group A] – ‘we need one on ly for us’ 333 Excerpt 89: 20140327_Informal interview with Agu s [PhD researcher – Group A] – ‘I don’t have a good command so as to complain about English’ .......................................................... 334 Excerpt 90: Interview with Vince [senior researcher – Group A] – ‘they ask for quite a lot of help in these groups’ ................................................................................................................. 336 Excerpt 91: Interview with Vince [senior resear cher – Grou p A] – ‘I’m the intermediary’ ..... 337 Excerpt 92: 2014051 4_Field notes_strategy seminars (Page 5) ................................................ 339 xx Excerpt 93 : Interview with Tània [PhD researcher - Group A] – ‘I can’t speak the same way with someone from there’ ......................................................................................................... 340 Excerpt 94: Interview with Tània [PhD researcher - G roup A] – ‘ when I come here I try to make myself understood’ .................................................................................................................... 341 Excerpt 95: Interview with Tània [PhD r esearcher - Group A] – ‘there I say steat osis’ ........... 342 Excerpt 96: Interview with Tània [PhD researcher - Group A] – ‘ I may ask you a very absurd question’ .................................................................................................................................... 344 Excerpt 97 : Intervi ew with Mara [PhD researcher - Group A] – ‘y ou should write your dissertation as if you were explaini ng it for the first time’ ........................................................ 345 Excerpt 98 Interview with Hanns [Group G’s leader] – ‘the way from starting research to product’ ..................................................................................................................................... 346 Excerpt 99 2014 0327_ Interview with Frank [Group A’s leader] and Cecília [senior researcher ] – ‘just drive them through the p rotocols’ .................................................................................. 347 Excerpt 100: 20131115_F ield notes (Page 2) [Group B] – ‘in the lab they’re focused on work’ ................................................................................................................................................... 364 Excerpt 101: 201311 15_Field notes (Page 3) [Group B ] – ‘in general silence reig ns’ ............. 365 Excerpt 102: Focus group with Group A – ‘Would you be able to live without pictures/’(20140527) ................................ ................................................................................. 365 Excerpt 10 3: M eeting with Frank [Group A’s leader ], Hao [Senior res.], C arol [PhD res. ], Xènia and Lurdes [BA res.] – ‘each one o f you are going to get a paper’ ................................ ........... 372 Excerpt 104: Frank ’s [Group leader] feedbac k on Lurdes’ [BA rese archer] written report [Group A] – ‘Please correct all decimals’ ............................................................................................. 376 Excerpt 105: Lurdes’ lab meeting [BA researcher – Group A ] – ‘It is a fact’ .......................... 376 Excerpt 106: Lurdes’ lab meeting [BA res. – Group A] – ‘As you usually do in your lab meetings’ ................................................................................................................................... 376 Excerpt 107: 201407 10_Navil [PhD res.] and Joana [BA res . ] doing experiments [Group A] – ‘It’s not advisable to do with your fin ger’ ................................................................................. 377 Excerpt 108: Interview with Frank [Group leader – Group A] and Cecília [Senior res. – Group A] – ‘she will just be absorbing the lab’ ................................................................................... 379 Excerpt 109: Ale’ s email to the researcher [PhD res. – Group A] – ‘that could be after on e of the formal se minars’ ........................................................................................................................ 384 Excerpt 110: Agus’ e -mail [PhD res. - Group A] – ‘here y ou have the dates fo r the next round of lab meetings’ ............................................................................................................................. 386 xxi Excerpt 11 1: Carol’s email [PhD res. – Group A] – ‘my labmeeting will take place to morrow’ ................................................................................................................................................... 387 Excerpt 112: Focus gro up [Group A] – ‘I never articulated t hat’ ............................................. 390 Excerpt 113: Mara’s ‘lab meeting’ - preparation stage [PhD res. - Group A] – ‘You can start’ ................................................................................................................................................... 392 Excerpt 11 4: Mara’ s ‘lab meeting’ - body [PhD res. - Group A] – ‘today I’m going to speak about…’ ..................................................................................................................................... 394 Excerpt 115: Mara’s ‘lab m eeting’ - Opening the question round [PhD res. - Group A] – ‘Questions/’ ............................................................................................................................... 395 Excerpt 116: Mara’s ‘lab meeting ’ - Closure [PhD res. - Grou p A] – ‘Anything else/’ .......... 395 Excerpt 117: Interview wit h Frank [Group A’s leader] – ‘every body does it in English’ ........ 398 Excerpt 118: Interview with Frank [Group A's leader ] – ‘Fo r me language is irrelevant’ ....... 398 Excerpt 119: In terview wit h Fran k 2 [Gro up A’ s leader] – ‘I do n’t see languag e bein g a barrier to success’ ................................................................ ................................................................ . 399 Excerpt 120: Interview with Cecília [Senior res. – Group A] – ‘It’s… by do ing \ that you see it\ ’ ................................................................................................................................................... 400 Excerpt 121: Navil's [PhD res.] feedbac k on Joana's [BA res. ] written report [Group A] – ‘think of an improved title’ .................................................................................................................. 400 Excerpt 12 2: 20140120_Field notes (page 16) – conversation with Mikela [PhD res. – Group A ] – ‘she has got used to using the langu age’ ................................................................................ 401 Excerpt 12 3: 20140120_Field notes (page 17) – conversation with Mikela [PhD res. – Group A ] – ‘She needs…the pressur e of needing the language’ ............................................................... 402 Excerpt 12 4: 20140120_Field notes (page 18) – conversation with Mikela [PhD res. – Group A ] – ‘it was important the fact that Tim is a scientist’ ................................................................ ... 403 Excerpt 125: Interview with Cecília [Senior res. – Group A ] – ‘ and they acquire it\ 100% of them\ ’ ........................................................................................................................................ 403 Excerpt 126: Frank’s [Group A’s lead er] e- mail to Mara [PhD res. ] - August 2014 – ‘doing the experiments in science is the easy part’ .................................................................................... 405 Excerpt 127: Interview with Frank 2 [Group A’s leader] – ‘Where it beco mes a barrier is post PhD’ .......................................................................................................................................... 406 Excerpt 128: Interview with Cecília [Senior res. - Grou p A] – ‘what has authority are the results’ ....................................................................................................................................... 406 Excerpt 129: Interv iew with Fran k 2 [Group A’s leader] – ‘I correct very few lingui stic errors’ ................................................................................................................................................... 407 xxii Excerpt 13 0: Interview with Frank 2 [Group A’s leader] – ‘I don’t feel it’s my job to improve their linguistic sk ills ................................................................................................ .................. 408 Excerpt 131: 20140718_Tània’s PhD defence rehearsal 1 [Group A] – ‘your thesis is not called’ ................................................................................................................................................... 409 Excerpt 132: 201407 23_Tàn ia’s Ph D defence rehea rsal 2 [Group A ] – ‘y ou’ve made 39 errors’ ................................................................................................................................................... 410 Excerpt 133: Intervi ew with Agu s [PhD res. – Group A] – ‘ the har d part of _ * of English in the lab_’ .......................................................................................................................................... 411 Excerpt 134: Interview wit h Frank [Group A’s leader] – ‘languag e for us is not a problem’ .. 412 Excerpt 135: Frank's email to Mara (April 20 14) – ‘I cannot continue to spend large a mounts of money’ ....................................................................................................................................... 413 Excerpt 136: Joana’s lab notebook [BA res.] – ‘plea se write in English’ ................................ . 414 Excerpt 137: Joana's lab not ebook [BA res.] – ‘proto cols not written clearly’ ......................... 415 Excerpt 138: 201 40710_Interview with Lurdes [BA res. – Gro up A] – ‘And it’s also curious this thing with conflicts’ .................................................................................................................. 415 Excerpt 139: 20 131014_Field notes (page 1) – interview with Cecí lia [Senio r res. - Grou p A] – ‘the 3 rd language will have to b e Chine se’ ................................................................................ 417 Excerpt 14 0: Interview wit h Cecília [Senior res. - Group A] – ‘the way I speak do esn’t bring a penny’ ........................................................................................................................................ 418 Excerpt 141: Intervi ew with Cecília [Senior res. - Group A] – ‘It’s a waste of time’ .............. 418 Excerpt 14 2: Interview with Cecília [Senior res. - Grou p A ] – ‘ Here we all accept to speak English’ ..................................................................................................................................... 420 Excerpt 143: 2013 1113_Field notes_Observation Grou p B (Pages 3 -4) – ‘she speaks Span ish with some, English with others…’ ................................ ............................................................ 422 Excerpt 144: Interview wit h Pere [Group B's leader ] – ‘In Engl ish \ Well_ I think\ ’ ................ 422 Excerpt 145: 20140129_Field notes (Page 2)_Gina’s ‘gro up seminar’ [PhD res. – Group B] – ‘there are titles and words in Catalan’ ....................................................................................... 424 Excerpt 146: Interview wit h Pere [Group B's leader] – ............................................................ 425 Excerpt 147: 20140205_Field notes_Fina’ s group seminar (P age 3) [PhD res. – Group B] – ‘You’re the most important p erson’ .......................................................................................... 425 Excerpt 148: Int erview with Tira and Yamir [PhD res. – Group B] – ‘Catalan is more important ’ ................................................................................................................................................... 426 Excerpt 149: Interview wit h Pere [Grou p B's leader ] – ‘ devote a few hours a week to Engl ish learning’ .................................................................................................................................... 427 xxiii Excerpt 150: Interview with Pere [Group B's leader ] – ‘ here comes the little English one knows’ ................................................................................................................................................... 428 Excerpt 151: In terview with Pere [Group B's leader] – ‘these things yo u usually have to polish’ ................................................................................................................................................... 429 Ex cerpt 152: Interview with Pere [Group B's leader] – ‘They’ll j ust learn it’ .......................... 429 Excerpt 153: Interview with Pere [Group B's leader ] – ‘it’ s very hard for them to have a global overview’ ................................................................................................................................... 431 Excerpt 154: 201401 23_Field notes_Observation Group B (Page 7) – ‘for them it would entail more time and effort’ ................................................................................................................ 433 Excerpt 155: Interv iew with Pere [Group B's leader] – ‘usu ally_ Catalan_ and s ome in English’ ................................................................................................................................................... 433 Excerpt 156: Interview with Fin a [PhD res. – Group B] – ‘Be cause everything y ou read is in English’ ..................................................................................................................................... 43 5 Excerpt 157: Interview wit h Fina [PhD res. – Group B] – ‘I think that the oral p art…I lost it’ 436 Excerpt 158: Intervi ew with Fina [PhD res. – Group B] – ‘I don’t th ink the article cha nges much\ ’ ....................................................................................................................................... 437 Excerpt 159: 20140317_Info rmal inter view with Mara [PhD res. – Group A] – ‘I do n’t know what one must say’ .................................................................................................................... 443 Excerpt 160: 20140321_Field notes (Page 2) – Group A’s seminar with Antonio Ortiz [out - group res.] – ‘the graphs, images, diagrams repre sented…’ ..................................................... 445 Excerpt 161: 20 140305_Field notes (Pag e 2) – Group A’s meeting with out -group collaborators (Alba and Brás) – ‘how results must be presented’ ................................................................... 446 Excerpt 162: Interview with Frank [Group A’s leader] – ‘I call peo ple I know all over the world’ ........................................................................................................................................ 447 Excerpt 163: 20 140305_Field no tes (Page 4) – Conversation with Mara on orderin g a produ ct – ‘she complains about all the (extra) ti me’ ................................................................................. 448 Excerpt 164: Informal interview with Rober [visiting researcher in Group A] – ‘The way of doing science here is very different from [the one] in Mexico’ ................................................ 449 Excerpt 165: Info rmal in terview with Rober [visiting research er in Grou p A] – ‘I came to learn’ ................................................................................................................................................... 449 Excerpt 166: 201401 29_Field notes (Page 5) – Ale’s [PhD res. – Group A] pre sentation at the Institute seminar – ‘Frank is like a director’ ............................................................................. 451 Excerpt 167: 20140219_Field no tes (Page 5) – Carol’s [PhD res. – Group A] presentation at the new strategy meeting with extra -CoP collaborators – ‘Frank has been co ntributing by complementing…’ ..................................................................................................................... 452 xxx List of pictures Picture 1: Data files ................................................................................................................... 204 Picture 2: Database matrix ........................................................................................................ 204 Picture 3: Field notebook page .................................................................................................. 205 Picture 4: Sketch on a field not ebook page ............................................................................... 206 Picture 5: Soundscriber in terface .............................................................................................. 208 Picture 6: Focus group 1 ................................ ............................................................................ 209 Picture 7: ELAN annotation tiers ................................................................ .............................. 212 Picture 8: Vertical multimodal transcriptio n with time ............................................................. 213 Picture 9: Vertical multimodal transcriptio n without time ........................................................ 213 Picture 10: Stimulated recall 2 .................................................................................................. 214 Picture 11: Lab photographs ..................................................................................................... 215 Picture 12: Diagram of Grou p A drawn by Cecília [senior research er] .................................... 260 Picture 13: Acknowledgements slid e from Lian’s PhD defense pre sentation [PhD researcher – Group A] ................................................................................................................................... 271 Picture 14: Materials found in Gro up A’s lab_IMG_0380 ....................................................... 294 Picture 15: Message on wall in Gr oup A’s lab_IMG_ 0380 ...................................................... 294 Picture 16: Message on machine in Group A’s lab_IMG_039 8 ................................ ............... 294 Picture 17: Message on machine in Gro up A’s lab_IMG_0376 ................................ ............... 295 Picture 18: Dossiers and files in Grou p A’s lab_IMG_04 20 .................................................... 296 P icture 19: Diagrams on the wall [Group B’s lab]_IMG_0433 ................................................ 299 Picture 20: Notes in multiple languag es - Grou p A’s lab_ IMG_0411 ..................................... 302 Picture 21: Same sign in two lang uages – ‘Dang er, do not touch’ – Group A’ s lab_ IMG_0401 ................................................................................................................................................... 303 Picture 22: Multilingual Christmas card - Grou p A .................................................................. 303 Picture 23: Note in Catalan – ‘The last one to use the coffee machi ne, please turn it off!!’ - Group B’s lab_ IMG_0439 ....................................................................................................... 304 Picture 24: Note in En glish - Group B’s lab_ IMG_0 450 ......................................................... 304 xxxi Picture 25: Multilingual repertoire in Group B’s lab_ IMG_04 60 ............................................ 304 Picture 26: Poster with the En glish name of the parts of a pla nt – Group A’s lab .................... 305 Picture 27: Object of study – Group A_IMG_03 94 .................................................................. 309 Picture 28: Machine output – Group A_ IMG_0389 ................................................................ 309 Picture 30: Sign on autoclave tape_ IMG_ 0407 ....................................................................... 309 Picture 29: Schemes – Grou p B_ IMG_0397 ............................................................................ 309 Picture 32: Group A – ‘A highly dangerous virus’_ IMG_0417 a ............................................ 313 Picture 31: Group A - 'Western blot'_ IMG_0417b .................................................................. 313 Picture 33: Group A - 'All work and no play '_ IMG_0417c ..................................................... 314 Picture 34: Group A 'Tips'_ IMG_0413 .................................................................................... 314 Picture 35: Lurdes’ lab notebook (p age 37) – Protocol with annotations ................................ . 348 Picture 36: Lab Meeting [Group A] .......................................................................................... 382 Picture 37: Group seminar (seminari de gr up) [Group B] ......................................................... 382 Picture 38: Group A’s Head quarter laboratory ......................................................................... 385 Picture 39: Sala de juntes .......................................................................................................... 385 Picture 40: Wall sign - ‘Lab meetings’ programme .................................................................. 3 87 Picture 41: Agus’ ‘lab meeting’ in ‘sala de juntes’ [PhD res. - Group A] 1 ............................. 388 Picture 42: Agus’ ‘lab meeting’ in ‘sala de juntes’ [PhD res. - Group A] 2 ............................. 388 Picture 43: ‘Group seminar’ (seminari de grup ) [Group B] ...................................................... 389 Picture 44: Mara’s ‘lab meeting’ [PhD res. - Grou p A] ............................................................ 392 Picture 45: Printed document for indi vidual use_ IMG_0455 .................................................. 438 Picture 46: Documents in v arious languages for individu al use_ IMG_0460 ........................... 438 Picture 47: Machine sign 2_ IMG_ 0451 ................................................................................... 439 Picture 48: Machine sign 1_ IMG_ 0452 ................................................................................... 439 Picture 49: ‘Group seminar’ programme [Group B]_ IMG_0441 ............................................ 439 Picture 50: Institutional texts for e mergencies_ IMG_0442 ..................................................... 440 Picture 51: Protocol and prospectus_ IM G_0454 ..................................................................... 441 Picture 52: Protocol with images_ IMG _0459 .......................................................................... 441 xxxii Picture 53: Navil and Joana ....................................................................................................... 484 Picture 54: Navil and Joana ‘doing experiments’ – Planning stage/act .................................... 491 Picture 55: Navil’s u se of writing as a product ......................................................................... 493 Picture 56: Navil supervisin g Joana’s object manipulation ...................................................... 502 Picture 57: Joana’s specialised u se of gaze ............................................................................... 503 Picture 58: Navil and Joana by the shaking machine ................................................................ 504 Picture 59: Joana's lab meeting on September 17th 2014 ......................................................... 515 Picture 60: Joana’s use of object ma nipulation ......................................................................... 515 Picture 61: Joana’s use of still image (on a computer) ................................ .............................. 516 Picture 62: First page of Joana’ s report [edited for confi dentiality reason s] ............................ 521 xxxiii List of tables Table 1: Key terms of the articulated theo retical framework .................................................... 187 Table 2: List of members of th e two main research groups ...................................................... 194 Table 3: The database ................................................................................................ ................ 215 Table 4: Components’ characteristics for ‘lab meetings’ and ‘fo rmal seminars’ [Group A] .... 385 Table 5: Parts of Mara’s ‘lab meeting’ and its boundary markers ............................................ 396 Table 6: Insider description of act 1 .......................................................................................... 493 Table 7: Insider description of act 2 .......................................................................................... 500 Table 8: Insider description of act 3: su b -act 1 ......................................................................... 504 Table 9: Insider’s description of act 3: sub -act 2 ...................................................................... 507 Table 10: Most common ter ms in Joana’s report ...................................................................... 519 Table 11: Most common ter ms in Joana’s report ...................................................................... 524 xxxiv List of figures Figure 1: The articulated theoretical fram ework ......................................................................... 90 Figure 2: The research group 's illustrative formal structu re ................................ ...................... 195 Figure 3: The cases .................................................................................................................... 199 Figure 4: Data collection calendar ............................................................................................ 203 Figure 5: Hierarchy of communicative events .......................................................................... 371 Figure 6: Communicative event n etwork (based on Swales and Feak 2000) ............................ 373 Figure 7: Ideal communicati ve event chain for P hD researchers .............................................. 374 Figure 8: Communicative event n etwork ................................................................ .................. 380 Figure 9: Experiment trajectory stages and texts ...................................................................... 485 xxxv List of abbreviatio ns ACE American Council on Education AGAUR Agència de Gestió d'Ajuts Univ ersitaris i de Recerca AQU Agència per a la Qualitat del Siste ma Universitari de Cataluny a AUCC Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada CDA Critical Discourse Analy sis CDS Critical Discourse Studies CHEA Council for Higher Education Accreditatio n CL Critical Linguistics CoP Community of Practice COST European Cooperation in the Field of Science and Technology CYTED Science and Tecnology for DEv elopment DA Discourse Analysis EAHE European Area of Higher Ed ucation EC European Commission ELF English as a Lingu a Franca EMBC European Conference on Molecular Bio logy EMBL European Laboratory of Molecular Biology EMBO European Molecular Biology Org anisation EMI English as a Medium of Instruction EoC Ethnography of Communication ERA European Research Area ER AC European Research Area and Innovation Committee ESF European Science Foun dation EUA European University Edu cation EUA- CDE European University Associatio n-Council fo r Doctoral Education xxxvi GATS General Agreement of Trade in Services GBAORD Government Budget App ropriations o r Outlays for Research and Develo pment HE Higher Education IoHE Internationalisation of Higher Ed ucation JPI Joint Programming Initiatives L1 First Language L2 Second Language LE Linguistic Ethnography MCDS Multimodal Critical Discou rse Studies MMSS Multimodal Social Semiotics OECD Organisation for Econo mic Co-operation and Development PR Public Relations RD Research Diary RG Research Group SGR Support to Research Groups SME Small-and-Medium-Si zed Enterprises UN United Nations UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation WTO World Trade Organisations 3-D Three-dimensional xxxvii Transcription con ventions (based on Payrató & Altur o, 2002) @ Laughter particles, approximating syllable number; utte rances spo ken laughingly appear between square brackets [] . Prolongation of the immediately prior sound / Rising pitch movement \ Falling pitch movement _ Level pitch * Reformulation (…) Words omitted & Unfinished word + Interjections appear betwe en +: +u h+ = Overlapping talk {(?)} Words or phrases which ca nnot be reliably identified X Unintelligible utterances, app roximating syllable number Utterances in languages other than t he main language used by th e speaker appear between square brackets {} with the language indicated: {(En g)}, {(Spa)}. All repetitions of words and phrases are transcribed. Introduction 1 Introduction Globalisation seems to ha ve influenced European higher edu cation in the sense of pushing universities to wards a pr ocess known as ‘ internationalisation ’ , namely international mobility of students and staff, attracting international students , and implementing measures to "become international", such as increasing the presence of English in courses and official documents. Some of the most e xplici t consequ ences of this ‘international turn’ are the language policy documents that, in the last decade, Euro pean un iversities have started to design, with an interest in highlighting their multilingualism wh ile maintaining the local language /s. The current study is framed within the context of Catalan higher education (HE) institutions, which ar e increasingly called to meet the require ments of internationalisatio n, and which, regarding communication in science, have reflected this process through lang uag e policy plans that deal with th e dilemma of supporting the local language(s) and at the same time embracing multilingualism and expressly the preeminent international language: English. In order to address this pheno menon (the interplay between the in ternationalisa tion of higher education and university language policy, language practices and the belief s of the actors involved ) , t h e research gr oup Cercle de Lin güística Apli cada of the University of Lleida engaged in a project within which this thesis i s framed. Specifically, th e current study is part of the project Intercultural, European citizenship and English as a lingua franca: between policy and practice in in ternational higher edu cation mobility programmes , funded by the Spanish Ministry of Scien ce and Innovation (FFI2012 - 35834, 20 13-2015). The aim of the larger pr oject wa s to explore language po licies, attitudes and communicative practices with relation to multilinguali s m and intercultu rality within university. As part of it, th e current study wa s intended to of fer a complementary perspective to other studies in the project (i.e. Gallego Balsà, 2014 , on incoming mobility students’ language practices, and Mas-Alcolea, 2017, on the impact of study abroad on outgoing Erasmus student s as regards th eir linguistic and cultural development) by shifting the focus of the experience of multilingualism and internationali sation from undergraduate students to researchers working in multinational research group s. The main objective of this study is thus to analyse the im pact of the process of internationalisation of higher education on the daily communi cation of a specifi c and ke y sector of the un iversity population, as researchers are, in order to contribute to the understanding of the internationaisation phenomenon and to the improve ment of int ernationalisation policies of higher education in stitutions. Consequ ently, the first and fo remost research question of the Introduction 2 project is as follows: In what ways does the process of the internationalisation of higher education that prevails nowadays in fluence scientists' daily communication? The phenomenon of globalisation has been ackno wledged to have particularly affected the scientific world as regards communication , in multiple ways. For instance, it has had an impact on the develop ment of global networks, the in creased flo w of information and the augmented mobility of scientists (se e Khattab & Fent on, 2015; Paasi, 2005; Scellato, Franzon i, & Step han, 2015) . Also, a linguistic shift has activated worl dwide through the progressive incorporati on of English as a lingua franca in the scientific field . The globalisation of science may carry effects, disorders, and the interaction of nu merous intervening factors, which may be relevant for the internationalisation of European higher edu cation , which ho sts countless scientific hubs . Consequently, European higher e ducation institutions could potentially benefit from sociolinguistic research tha t contribute s to the comprehension of this process. Despite this urge, research in scientific communication has mainly fo cused on the dissemin ation of research to the general publ ic (Treise & Weigold, 2002), instead of explorin g the m ost frequent communicative practices reported by scientists, that is, the "mixture of informal and formal situations", and especially face- to -face communication (Searle, 2013: 50). This thesis aims to contribute to the limited body of research describing "scientists' actual communication practices" (Searle, 2013: 50), and especially to th e li terature describing "informal" and unpublished practices, which cannot be accessed neither by the general pub lic nor by the media. Departing from th e assu mption that science today is done in groups (either un der the same institution, research pr oject, or official affiliatio n), this research project has been designed as a case stud y of two research groups, with additional data from another gr oup and insigh ts from a fourth group . I departed from the "nearly ven erable already" (Kress, 20 11: 239) ethnographic approach, with th e aim of obtaini ng an emic perspectiv e of the pheno mena observed, to which theoretical perspectives would be added. This study therefore has a twofold objective: empirical and theoretical. On the one hand, it aims at investig ating the influ ence of the Io HE on scientists’ daily communi cation. And on th e other hand, it aims at designing and prov ing a suitable theoretical framework to study th is under - researched phenomenon holistically . This thesis is structu red in nine chapters. Chapter 1, the Literature review , p resents rel evant works in different academic fi elds related wit h either sci enti sts’ communication, the internationalisation of higher education, or both . Section 1.1 tackles the sociological take on scientists' communication (Ly nch & W oolgar, 1988). Section 1.2 is dev oted to the literature on science co mmunication and (multimodal) communication among scientists (Mo ndada, 20 05 ) . Chapter 1: Literature Review 9 communication. Moreover, approaching them from a sociological perspective and with discourse analytical tools is a patent antecedent of th e pr esent research project , which is framed within the area of socioli nguistics. Still within the sociology of science, c ultural and social constructionist perspect iv es consolidated in the 1990s in the form of several edited volumes th at encompassed a multiplic ity of approaches and views on science (i.e. Bijker & Law, 1992; Clarke & Fujimura, 1992; Star, 1995; Galison & Stu mp, 19 96) . Nonetheless, the turn of the centu ry has brough t about a new turn in the sociology of science, coin ciding with the new attentio n drawn by anthropologists and feminists " to macrosociolo gical categories of analy sis, social prob lems, culture and power, and interactions with lay groups and social movements " (Hess, 2006: 124) . This turn has consisted in a renewed attention to structural and institutional factors "such as states, markets, and social movements" (Hess, 2006: 124), often materialised in monograph s, like those on democracy and politics (Kleinman, 2000; Latour, 2004; Brown, 2009; Gauchat, 2012 ; Bolsen & Druckman, 2015) , on the impact of science on culture (Erickson, 2005), on industry-university relations (Croissant & Restivo, 2001) , and on the role of fem inism in science (Creager, Lunbeck & Schiebinger, 20 01). These work s advocated for a renewed foc us on the social con text o f science, as claimed by David L. Kleinman: ...it is impos sible to un derstand the dynamics and character of university biology today without understanding the social environment in which the university and university science are embedded. (...) the practices of univ ersity sciences are s haped by the world in which they are situated, and that commerce, in the broadest possible sense, is a significant feature of that world. (Kleinman, 2003: 138- 9) Th is strand , which focuses on structural and institutional aspects , encompasses "the new studies of regulatory po litics and expertise, commercialization and privatization, civil society, social movements, public understanding of science, and public participation in science" (Hess, 2006 : 124 ). Differently to past stud ies on the social structure of science, t his renewed trend "in vokes a broader and decisively less deterministic analy sis of the social relations of science" and "explicitly avoids the structural-fu nctionalist assumptions characteristic of earlier institutional analyses of science " (Frick el & Moore, 2006: 9) . Some of thes e studies foll ow the strand of Stu art Bl ume's (197 4) political socio logy of science "founded upon the assumption that the social in stitution of modern science is essentially po litical and that, moreover, the scientific role is an integral part of the political system of the modern state" (Blume, 1974: 1). Th e se studies constitute the 'new political sociology of science ' (NPSS), which is "an empirical project gu ided by a neo -Weberian e mphasis on the relation ships Chapter 1: Literature Review 10 embedding scientific kn owledge sy stems within and across economic, legal, po litical, and civil society in stitutions" (Frickel & Moore, 2006: 9) . In this context, 'culture', encompassing "rituals , symbols, language, and other meaning sy stems ", is con ceived as being "embedded in structured relationships of po wer" (Frickel & Moore, 2006 : 9) . This approach , which is "armed theoretically and methodologically to meet new ch allenges posed by the changing political and economic realities that structure the sciences of today and that will indelib ly influence the organisation and conduct of the sciences of tomorrow" (Frickel & Moore, 2006: 5) , inquires about issues like profit -driven research, the conventions that guide decision -making concerning research, acc ess to kn owledge, and the reasons why certain knowledge is co nstructed while other is not . Although the pr esent study does no t focus on the socio logy of scientific knowledge in particular, it is a cross-sectional project, which merges traits fr om thre e strands in th e field: laboratory studies, document analysis and an interest in structural and/or institutional issues of science, especially concerning political aspects and po wer relations . Relevant insights from studies following these trends will b e summarised in what follows, regarding three recurrent topics in the literature that are especially relevant for this thesis. These are: the scientific construction of reality (subsection 1.1 .1), scientific representation (sub section 1.1.2), and the global dimension of science (subsection 1.1 .3) . 1.1.1. The scientific constr uction of reality In this section, works addressing the con structionist natu re of scientif ic knowledge in the field of th e sociology of science will be presented. Ideas included in these works that are relevant for the current thesis, like ho w scientific facts are constructed, both historically and interactionally, how scientific pr oducts are also imbued by persuasion strategies and how scientific knowledge is influenced by con textual factors, will be presented. As a reaction against the traditional, hegemonic standpoint of the socio logy of scientific knowledge studies, whereby science and especially the natural sciences offered faithful representations of 'nature' and thus of 'reality', stud ies in the late 1970s and early 1980 s approached this pheno menon departing from the assumption that such 'representation' wa s instead a 'con struction'. Althou gh these new studies adopted a sociological perspective, communication was also very present in them. This is illu strated, for instance, in Michel Callon's (1984, 198 7) widespread conception of th e aim of th ese stud ies, which he summari se d through the concept of 'translation'. According to Callon, sociolo gist s of s cience had to un veil the methods used by scientists to "articulate conceptions of the natural and social worlds ", to "attempt to impose these on others ", and see "the extent to which such attempts are met with Chapter 1: Literature Review 11 success" (Law, 1986: 3 ). 'Translation' w ould thus refer to the process whereby "actors (including collectivities) struggle to impose versions of reality on others which define (a) the number of those others, both natural and social, that may be said to exist in the world, (b) their characteristics, (c) the na ture of their interrelations, (d) their respective sizes and (e) their positions with respect to the actor attempting the translatio n" (Law, 1986: 6 ). Accordingly, communication, in the form of either the exp ression of representation by a spokesperson, or of negotiation, is a key aspect of the process of transl ation and of power i mposition in science. This constructi on ist perspective has been deemed a promising appro ach th at has constituted a 'flourishing tradition' in the sociology of science (Pinch & Bijker, 1984: 429) . An influential study following this strand was Latour and Woolgar (1986 [1979 ]), already mentioned, wh ich explores diverse issues: (1 ) how facts are constructed in a laboratory , or in other words the historical constructio n of one particular fact , (2 ) th e processes throug h which the social and historical circu mstances of the constr uction of a fact are eliminated, (3 ) the specific negot iations th at take place in the laboratory , (4) how the concrete decisions to back th e construction of a given fact are made , and (5 ) the process throug h which an ordered account o f a fact is fabrica ted. Among these authors' key findings , the most relevant for our sociolinguistic- communicative approach is the fact that reasonin g in science is only part of a complex phenomenon that "comprises local, tacit negotiations, constantly changing evaluations, and unconscious and instit utionalized gestures" (Lato ur & Woolgar, 1986 [1979]: 152). Also relevant is the existence of a significant degree of reliance of group members on one another's knowledge and exp ertise to improve one's own and the idea that th e statement of a fact consists of two main processes: (a) the replace ment of an analo gical path by a logi cal connection, and (b) the replacement of the complexity of local circumstances by flashes of intuition . Ano ther key finding is that when statements stabilise, they take entity on their own, that is, they become a statement about an object and an ob ject on their own . A final finding is that ' out -there-ness' "is the consequence of sci entific work rather th an its cause " (Latour & Woolgar, 19 86 [1979]: 1 82; original emphasis ). This lat ter argument illu strates a constructionist view of scientific knowledge and of 'reality', al so present in other work s of the aforementioned authors, like Latour (1993) and Wo olgar (1988) . Woolgar (1988) considers scientists' management of methodological flaws – which he names 'methodological horrors' – to be an interactional accomplishment: ...descriptions occurring in the course of the interaction are best understood, neither as direct reflections nor mediated (re)presentations of an independent reality, but as ways of actively constituting th e character of the scene which they are taken to be "about". (Woolgar, 1988: 188) Chapter 1: Literature Review 12 Woolgar underscores the importance of the juxtapositio n of sub sequent documents for achieving descriptiv e adequacy and a sense of ob jectivity: when a new docu ment/utterance i s juxtaposed to a previo us one, they both give meaning to each other; the old document adopts a sense of established past and the new juxtaposed document serves to clai m "a similar sense of family membership" (Woolgar, 1988: 198). Lato ur (i.e. 1985 , 1986), in a slightly different sense, makes reference to 'cascades of inscriptions' to name the pr ogressive transition fr om complex inscriptions to simple inscriptions , which are easil y readable for an insider but at the same time do not give too many clues to outsiders . In this sens e, especially pertinent for this proj ect is Latour and Wool gar's (1986 [1979]: 88) view of laboratory activity as "the organisation of persuasion through literary inscription" . 'Inscriptions' are, fo r these authors , the core principle around which both , laboratories and scientific facts, are articulated: We presented the labo ratory as a system of literary inscription, an outcome of which is the occasional conviction of others that so mething is a fact. Such conviction entails the perception that a fact is something which is simply recorded in an article and that it has neither been socially constructed nor possesses its own histo ry of construction. (Latour & Woolgar, 1986 [ 1979 ]: 105) Literary inscription is thus put at the centre of lab work , which is understo od here "in terms of the continual generation of a variety of documents, which are used to effect the transfor mation of state ment types and so enhance or detr act fro m their fact-like status " (Latour & Woolgar, 1986 [ 1979 ]: 15 1). Consequently, fact construction is thus the product of inscription and hence of representation and communication. In a similar vein , Knorr-Cetina (1981) attempts to demonstrate that scientific facts ar e 'productions' and thus that scientific products are "co ntextually specific constructions which bear the mar k of the situatio nal contingency and interest structu re of the process by which they are generated, and which canno t be adequately understood with out analysis of their construction" (Knorr-Cetina, 1981 : 5) . In terms of commun ication among scientists and related to th e impact of the internationalisation of higher education on scientists' communi cation, which are the main interes ts of the current project, the author reflects upon the process of validation of scientific knowledge . It is regard ed as one of consensus achieve ment and dependent on (a) the scientists' perception and anticipation of th e opinion of other members of th e community and (b) the positioning of t he potential academic journal: "Decisions are ba sed on what is ' hot ' and what is ' out ', on what on e ' can ' or 'cannot ' do , on whom they will come up against and with who m they will have to associat e by making a specific point" (Knorr-Cetina, 1981: 7). It is hence the Chapter 1: Literature Review 13 result of a strategy . Moreover , Knorr-Cetina points at the process of 'auto-capitalisatio n' of science as being core for its evolution: ...the selections of previous work constitute a resource which enables scientific enquiry to proceed: they supply the tools, methods, and interpretat ions upon which a scientist may draw in the process of her own research . (.. .) This form o f auto-capitalisation in regard to selectivit y appears as a precondition for the accumulation of scientific results. (Knorr-Cetina, 1981: 6) Knorr-Cetina also explores the evo lution and modifications that scientific discourse un dergoes , from the inception of the idea to th e publication of a pap er and subsequ ent discussion of it, passing through the different draft v ersions as a result of several revisions by different agents. In this respect, the author concludes that "[i]n the transiti on from laboratory work to the scientific paper, the reality of th e laboratory changed" (Knorr-Cetina, 19 81: 130). According to her, "the situationally contingent, opportunistic logic of research " is replac ed by "a generalised context of present and possible worlds" (Knorr-Cetina, 1981: 130) . Furthermore, the discourse style has been found to be different depending on the characteristics of the text analysed (lab work, lab conversations, paper d rafts, final paper), while un dergoing a process of conv ersion: We have seen the reasoned selectivity of laboratory work ov erruled by formulaic recitations of th e doin gs which emerged from this selectivity , and the measured results of these do ings pu rged of all traces of interdependency with their constructive creation. We have seen the in determinacy of the labo ratory reduced to the careful expression of scientific doubt which the paper allows. (Knorr - Cetina, 1981: 130) The author finds her thesis confirmed – that scie n tific facts are productions or contextual constructs – and concludes that "[s]cience illustrates that the perenn ial problem of social order may not be a prob lem of "order", but rather a prob lem of trans for mation, and of social change " (Knorr-Cetina, 1981 : 133). Th is way, th e author highlight s the dyna mic and unstable nature of scientific knowledge and practice. Consistent with Knorr-Cetina 's (1981) and with Latour and Woolgar 's (1986 [ 1979 ]) constructionist view of science, Zenze n and Restivo (1982) depict a con structi oni st pi cture of laboratory facts and un derscore the constitutiv e nature of contingencies in scientific pr actice and objects. These scholars identify a sort of dynamic figure/gro und structure of contingen cies, whereby some of th em play a direct role in the problematisation of things and in determining forced choices by scientists, and others are part of a background environment , in a variab le manner. Among such range of contingencies, there is relative space for researchers ' cr eativity and free will: Chapter 1: Literature Review 14 In the deepe st sense, the available resources in a given laboratory refer to the researchers' capacities for creative and critical thought, persuasion, communication, conflict, and cooperation. The indet er minacy of scientifi c criteria, the "looseness" of laboratory re search, prov ide room for the exercis e of those capacities. (Zenzen & Restivo, 198 2: 466 ) In this sense, lab work appears as " a l arge series of responses to i mposed demands, perceiv ed needs, given conditions, etc." (Zenzen & Restivo, 1982: 464) , framed with in "a constantly shifting set of relevancy systems" (Zen zen & Restivo, 1982: 467); and science documents and publications are the sites where "scientists need to use a rheto ric of persua sion in order to draw attention to and legitimate their findings" (Zenzen & Restivo, 1982: 459 ; original emphasis ). Zenzen and Restivo's (1982) study is thus in the line of socially constituted, contingent and discursive views on scientific facts. The idea of the relative freedom of choice of scientists among a set of conventions is also supported by other schol ars, like Ly nch (1988), Myers (1988) and Mo dy (2014), with referenc e to representational con ventions, and like Harvey (1981) and Pickering (1995) , in relation to a culture framing a scienti fic field and the speci fic topic that scientists address within it. Also fro m a constructi on ist take , Michael Lynch (1985) contends that the process of agreement pursuit among scientists can be regard ed as 'locally organised interactive discov ering work', since scientists' agreements may be recognised as 'discovered-accoun ts of objects'. Ly nch's study concludes that vernacular speakin g pr actices of scientists are not significantly different (in terms of vo cabulary, organisation of discourse and formal grammatical structures) from th e practices of o ther professionals. In fact, his exp loration of both, laboratory 'shop work' and 'shop talk', shows an image of the scientist that contrasts with the popular one – for which scientists are "coolly objective, detached, unemotive, scrupulous, and 'stiff' in comparison to 'ordinary folk'" (Ly nch, 19 85: 169) . The discou rse of the scientists in his stu dy is imbued with artifactuality 4 , superstitions, modifications and reform ul ations. What is more, the rhetorical peculiarity of written scien tific texts disappears as such in oral instances of communication among scientists in the lab. This author also int ends to show how the so -claimed-for 'scientific objectivity' takes the shape of agreement among colleagu es in par ticular instances of scientific 'shop talk': "th ere can be no independent standard of 'objectivity ' with which to decide the correspondence of any member's acco unt with its 'real-world' object. Th is matter is necessarily 4 'Research artifacts' are defined by Lynch (1985: 81) as "particular 'intrusions' or 'distortions', in the observability of the 'natural' features of the world which derive from the instrumental conditions of their perception" . Chapter 1: Literature Review 15 left to th e parties involved to the pr actical circumstances of any such deter mination" (Lynch, 1985: 202- 3) . Lynch's findings are consisten t with Harry M. Col lins' (1975) study , which invo lved sociological methods in th e analysis of in -depth in terviews of scientists . This author underscores and illustrates the relativity of scientific knowledge (see also Col lins, 1981) and dep icts it as a result of the negotiatio n among scientists of objects and concepts that conform their (scientific) culture. Scientific knowledge is hen ce a 'cultural artefact'. C ollins di gs into the original processes of knowled ge con struction, previous to the existence of 'solid' truths and conclud es that: In general terms, to mak e a claim fo r the existence and character of a phenomenon is to make a de mand for a particular organi sation of conceptual and perceptual cat egories so that events w hich take place at differ ent locations and times and under different circumstances, are seen as the 'same' – i.e. manifestations of the ph enomenon. (Collins, 1975: 216) In the same line, Bill Harvey (1981) , analysing the evaluation of knowledge claims by physicists, shows ho w the construction of scientific facts is bu ilt upon un equal negotiation s among scient ists – due to difference in resou rces a mong the parts – , where the socio-cultural context plays an important role. These negot iations mainly rely on the principle of 'plausibility ' within a shared cultural fra mework. The possession of 'truth' may thus often take the fo rm of monopolisation of plausibility . According to all these stud ies, scientific knowledge might be seen as a discourse rather th an as a 'reality', as a negotiation rather than an object, as a process of standardisation and thus of simplification. This latter process had been further analysed by the physician and biologist Ludvig Fleck ( 1935) – a precursor of key ideas in social constructioni sm and of critical scienc e and technology studies, and predecessor of Thomas S. Kuhn – , who illustrat ed the communicative path from specialist to popular science as "a funn el that re moves subtleties and shades of meaning from the knowledge that passes thro ugh it, reducing it to simple facts attributed with certainty and incontrovertibility " (Bucchi & Tre nch, 2008: 62) . As a result, popular knowledge "appears secure, more rounded and more firmly joined together" (Fleck, 1935: 113). However, this is not a process of simple 'translation' (in Callon' s terms) of a scientific notio n in each stage, but of deeper modification of the notion. Finally, the progressive solidification of knowledge has also an in fluence on scientists the mselves: " Cert ainty, simplicity, vividn ess originate in popular kno wledge. Th at is where the expert obtains hi s faith in this triad as the ideal of knowledge" (Fleck, 19 35: 115 ; original emphasis ); and the funnel may "expand again to wards the specialist levels" ( Bucchi & Trench, 2008: 65) . Chapter 1: Literature Review 16 This idea of the progressive si mplification of scientific knowledge across contexts and publics, resonates al so in Whitley's (1985) work. As the author pu ts it , "[t]he more re moved the cont ext of research is from the context of reception in terms of languag e, intellectual prestige and skill levels, the easier it is to pr esent their wor k as certain , decontextu alised from the conditions of its production, and authoritative " (Whitley, 1985: 13). In th is lin e of argument, Pinch's (1981) analysis of scientists' expression of certainty con cludes that such expression relies high ly on the audience that scientists address: "wh en scientists pe rceive a po ssible publ ic audience they tend to act defensively and stress th e certain ty of their own areas while, at the same ti me, doub ting the certainty of others’ " (Pinch, 1981: 155) . This underscores th e s ocial nature of the expression of certainty/uncertainty by scientists, wh ich might be a result of a process of 'social nego tiation'. One more co nsideration regarding this latter issue – the adapt ability of scientists' discou rse – is that of Law and Williams ( 1982) , who analy se the discussion of two collab orating research groups about the ways to improve a prosp ective joint publication. The authors argue that scientific knowledge may very plausibly be determined by market commands: "the structu re of bits and pieces in a scientific paper – a structu re n aturally influenced by market co nditions – itself helps to constitute the structure of knowledge, the status of the facts, and their relation ship with other findings" (Law & Williams, 1982: 537) . When scientists attempt to construct a scientific paper, "they are trying to array peo ple, events, findings in such a w ay that this array is interpretable by readers as true, useful, good work, and the re st " (Law & Will iams, 19 82: 537) . The auth ors align with Callon's idea of 'translation imposition' a nd conclude that the array of elements that writin g a paper consists in is at the same time the activity of positioning them in a network of value: For Callon, science is a struggle to impose translation: to allocate value to groups, individuals and facts as part of a larger organi sation. So it is for us. The construction of arrays is an attempt to suggest app ropriate networks. Persuasion is a tentative matter, a con stant attempt to propose a set of interrelation ships and values. (Law & Willia ms, 1982: 554) To explain the idea of th e network of value , th e authors prop ose the concept of 'currency ', which "depends precisely upon the imposition and stabilization of value across a number of particulars" (Law & Willi ams, 1982: 538). The authors reflect upon the no tion of 'power' in science as an intrinsic aspect of the network of value in science : "Power in science, as elsewhere, comes from the successful capacity to create and impose value. And it is for this capacity that scientists strugg le when they write a p aper " (Law & Willia ms, 1982: 539). Chapter 1: Literature Review 17 Concerning the constructio n of reality by science, other relevant ideas are Latou r's conception of 'artifacts' in science as "full -fledged social actors" (Lato ur, 1994: 64); and thus the importance of both humans and n on-hu mans in our world: ... lab coats have invented speech pro stheses th at allow nonh umans to participa te in the discussions of humans, when hu mans become perplex ed about the participation of new entities in collective life. (.. .) ... things become, in the laboratory, by means of instruments, relevant to what we say about the m . (Latour, 2004: 67 ; original emphasis ) Also, the conception of 'nature' a s a "historically situated social repr esentation" (Latour, 2004 : 232 ) in 'Western' culture reflects t he conception of the social construction of reality . Pickering (1995) brings th is idea further in claiming for a 'performative idiom' to reflect on science w hich positions human and material agencies at equal levels : "a performative image of s ci ence , in which science is regarded a field of powers, capacities, and perfo rmances, situated in machinic captures of material agency" (Pick ering, 1995 : 7 ); and in which "the machine (...) is the balance point, liminal between the human and nonhuman worlds (and liminal, to o, between the world s of science, technology and society )" (Pickering, 1995: 7). After con sidering the di fferent studies mentioned in this section , it seems clear th at the importance of communica tion and of disco urse in the scientific understanding, and to some extent also 'construction', of reality is unden iable. Although the current project does not focus on the speci fic description of how scie ntific knowledge is genera ted, it does explore how scientific knowledge is convey ed in the framework of the scientific tea m, with implications at wider levels . It has thus a different focal po int, as has been already suggested, but also multiple commonalities with the studies above presented. 1. 1. 2. Representation in scientific practice This section will tackle core aspects o f scientific representatio n as addressed in the related literature. After an overview on the evolution of this subject, related issues and concerns will be discussed, like how objectivity , transparency and trustworthiness are achieved in science, the dynamicity of scientific representation, the implications of the use of new technologies for representation in science, and the influence of context -specific conventions on scientific representation. One aspect of communication among scientists that has attracted much interest in the last 30 years, until it has become "an established topi c" and "a rich field of inquiry" (Coopmans et al. , 2014: 1) is 'representatio n in scientific pr actice'. Th is refers to scientists' "efforts to 'capture' , 'render', and otherwise make available aspects of the world" (Coopmans et al. , 2014 : 1); or, Chapter 1: Literature Review 18 defined differently, to the configuration of artifacts that correspo nd to an original entity in a relation of similitude (Lynch & Woolgar, 1988 ) . Examples of such 'presentations', named also 'inscriptions' (Latour & Woolgar, 1986 [ 1979 ]), are graphs, diagrams, eq uations, models, photographs, instrumental inscriptions, written repo rts, computer programs, laboratory conversations, and hybrid forms of these (Lynch & Woolgar, 1988). Such inscriptions have been found to be usually the origin and the 'core' of scientific publications (Knorr & Knorr, 1978) . These are also dee med "a rich repository of 'social' a ctions" and "more than simply representations of natural order" (Lynch & Woolgar, 1988 : 103 ). Representing is con ceived as endemic of scientific practice, and as involving not only representation but also the performance of what is represented and th e claim of author ity to represent it (Law, 2014 ) . The analysis of scientific 'inscriptions' th us consists in the disclosure of the process of their crafting : "to analyze representation is to expose the con jurer's tricks through which chains and networks of similitude are labo riously built -up and then 'forgotten ' in the presu mptive adequ acy of their reference to a n 'original ' " (Lynch & Woolgar, 1988: 105). However, 'resemblance' and 'similitude' ar e not the only guiding criteria in scientific representation ; it entails a deeper process: "It is not enough to represent the object; it must be pen etrated by theory and op ened-up to an active manipulation of its prin ciples of organ isation" (Lynch & Woolgar, 19 88: 105). Therefore, for th e analyst, scientific representation is an 'invisible' set of creative, craft practices, skills and expertise (Myers, 2014) that need to be unveiled for analytical purposes. Coopmans et al. (2014) present a brief overview on th e evolu tion of representation in science . Developments in this are a have been : ( 1 ) the increasin g e mphasis on circu mstantial factors in the process of knowledge prod uction, (2) the changes in representatio nal practice triggered by the technological innovations th at have been adopted in science (s o as to cause th e renaming of the field as 'science and technology studies', STS), lik e computers, colour di gital screens, si mulators, various software for representation and representatio n processing , mobile digital devices, etc., besides the traditional means fo r representation, such as whiteboards, markers, notebooks, pens, books, post- its and labels, (3) the increasingly blurry distinction between laboratory and field, and (4) the 'reframing' of representatio n from comprising linguistic representation only to encompassing image as well, and " from an expectation that visual traces and numerical measurements were references to in dependent objects and properties, to a series of open-end ed inquiries into how many different kinds of rel ations, reference a mong the m, are accomplished (...) in the work people do with images" (Coop mans et a l. , 2014 : 3 ). Although these works are more di stinct from th e current project regarding their methodology than the on es previo usly presented , th e study of scientific representation touches directly upon key issues of the multimodal communication policy of the scientific team at all levels of Chapter 1: Literature Review 25 the material objects), and these into "evidence" 8 in published scientific papers , that is, a montage that vi sually reproduces the scientist's view of "what was seen". In this process, "seeing becomes socially organized in talk" , since 'conversational dev ices' support scientists in "develop[ing] a sense of ‘ what was seen ’ on these data displays" (Amann & Kno rr-Cetina, 1988: 163) . A socio-cultural implication of the paper's arguments is that ways of seeing are predetermined "th rough shared paradigms, consis ting of rules and standards for correct scientific practice. Under thi s view, what scientists observ e shoul d be g rounded in their co mplex commitments to particul ar research traditions " (Amann & Knorr-Cetina, 1988 : 134). Still regarding the 'work' of seeing , Law and Lync h (1988) unveil the contextu al skills dep loyed in the activity of seeing and naming objects. They do this by pointing to the po tential "troubles" that inexperienced app rentices (birdwatch ers in this case) might find when relying upon three field guidebooks analysed. As the authors sugge s t, app rentices need to engage in and master what they call a 'literary language game' essential in 'naturalistic observation'. It entails learning to 'read' and 'write' within a specific social or ganisation. The authors reflect upon the pros and cons of photography and drawings as representatio ns, and conclude that "there are excellent grounds for question ing both the "realism", and the c orrespondence theory of perception, which underlie the assumption that ph otographs are 'more t rue to life ' than drawings" (Law & Ly nch, 1988: 294) . These scholars also contend that "the novice typically accepts the authority of the text while attributing th e trouble to her inexp erience, problems in perspective, or to an atypical appearance of the particular individual or local variant of the specie s" (Law & Lynch, 1988: 296). The authors prove that "seeing at a glance" may be "circumstantial" and "dependent upon local expertise" (Law & Lynch, 1988: 297). These findings are especially relevant for the present thesis, since they si multaneously highlig ht issues of multimodal communication , of the constructi on ist nature of scientific knowledge, and of authority and power in scientific representation. The idea of 'seeing' as so cially shaped is also present in Rachel Prentice 's (2014) study of surgical training in the operating th eatre. Seeing, which in th is case is intimately linked with touching/acting, is the result of learning the tradition of surgery and of th e surgeon's adaptation to the circumstances of the particular, present situation within a 'surgical culture'. This way of seeing is hence a skil l embodied by the surg eon's body in interaction with technology . In fact, developments in scientific representation claim for 'an ontological refra ming of scientific vision' 8 In this case, 'evidence', which in the natural sciences "appears to be embodied in visibility " (Amann & Knorr-Cetina, 1988: 13 4) is "the aesthetically enhanced, carefully composed rendering of flexible visual objects that, through the meandering inte rrogatory proc esses of im age analyzing talk, have been "embedded" and entrenched in procedural reconstructions, local experiences and in the landscape of the data display" (Am ann & Knorr-Cetina, 1988: 163- 4) . Chapter 1: Literature Review 26 that accounts for the i nteraction of vision, objects and technologies (Carusi & Hoel, 2014) . This resonates with Charles Goodwin's notion of 'professional vision', "which con sists of socially organized ways of seeing and understanding events that are answerable to the distinctive interests of a particular soc ial grou p" (Goodwin, 19 94: 606) . Accordingly, "[t]he abili ty to build and in terpret a material cognitive artifact , such as an archaeolo gical map, is embedded within a web of socially articulated discou rse" (Goo dwin, 1994: 626) . But seeing might also imply the opposite activity: representing or drawing something. Janet Vertesi (201 4) analy ses how digital imaging and image processing is used, by geo chemists in this case, to construct knowledge and affect furth er visions of one same ob ject. This process of theory-laden representation is na med by the author 'drawing as' and consists in representing the object in a way that hig hlights those aspects that are more salient f or the purposes of its analysis: "Re presentation in scientific practice, I claim, is always a question of drawing a natural object as an analytical object; of conflatin g epistemological and ontological work in t he world through purposeful visual construal" (Vertesi, 2014: 18; original emphasis ). It therefore should be seen as a way of manipulating image for analy tical pu rposes in or der to lead analy sts' attention towards specific aspects of the object, and not with dubious or deceitful en ds. Such theoretical co nstraints imposed onto the image-present ation, Morana Ala č (2 014) suggests, may be common within specific research areas and transferred fro m old -timers to newco mers through generations of scientists. This has been suggested to constitute a 'new genre' of representation that in tegrates 'design and vision' (Ruivenkamp & Rip, 2014). Understanding that the mai n task of lab work ers is to organise details of lab work and its vi sual elements for th e constitution and "framing" of a scientific ph enomenon "so that it can be measured and mathematically described" (Ly nch, 1988: 218), Lynch (1988) examines two series of vis ual displays used in scientific publications, with reference to two th emes: "selection" – "the way scientific methods of visualization simplify and schematize objects of study" (Lynch, 1988: 201) – and "mathematization " – the process by which "natural" objects are attributed mathematical order. Scientific pictu res are seen here as "evidence of methodic practices, accomplished by researchers work ing together in gr oups, which transfor m previously hidden phenomena into visual displays for con sensual 'seeing' and 'knowing'" (Ly nch, 1988: 203) . These 'visual di splays' ar e hence the result of a progressive transfor mation of the ob ject of study: As we trace through the sequence of renderings, we see t hat the object progressively assu mes a generalized, hypothe tically guided, didactically useful, and mathe matically analyzable form. It beco mes prog ressively less recalcitrant to Chapter 1: Literature Review 27 the textual devices of describing, displaying, comparin g, causally accounting, mapping, and measuring. ( Lynch, 1988: 216 ) This transformational process is exemplified by the analysis of a diagram paired to a photograph, in a scientific publication. Th e author contends that it is a partial process of selection and simplification, as well as of synthesis of form : "it strives to identify in th e particular specimen under study 'universal' properties which 'soli dify' the object in reference to the current state of the discipline" (Lynch, 1988: 205) . It is hence related to a relative universality of traits within the framework of a discipline. Lyn ch thus concludes that (1 ) representation in science follows conventions th riving in the particular scientific field; (2) th e authority of these conventions lies in previous experience and in a body of assumptions about the represented object; and (3) the process of representation "includes methods fo r adding visual features which clarify, complete, extend, and identify confo rmations latent in th e incomplete state of the original specimen" (Lynch, 1988: 229) . Such transformations follo w what Ly nch names 'generic pedagogy ' and 'abstract theorizing'. The con text-specificity of conven tions for representation is also sup ported by Anne Beaulieu (2002) and by Cyrus Mody (2 014). Beaulieu (2002) relates convention traditions in scientific representation with field traditions on what constitutes 'scientific evidence'; and points to technological, methodological, and institutional factors as determining elements of scientists ' divergent stances on scientific images (brain maps, in th is case). Mody (2014) points to 'institutional and disciplinary networks' as the t ransmitting agents of information about conventions, and cautions about the controversy around 'heavily aestheticized' scientific presentations, in-between science and ar t, technical work a nd marketing, that allow scientists to transcend disciplin ary and or ganisational boundaries (see an el aboration on this issue in Coopmans, 2011) . A po ssible clue for this problem is placing the focus on th e 'viewer', since as Beaulieu states: "The imag e speaks for itself, but not in quite the same way to everyone — the pictorial aspects of thes e representations predo minate in the public’ s u nderstanding " (Beaulieu, 2002 : 75 ) while "research ers separate the visual appearance fr om the content, seeing from reasoning, and imaging from experi menting yet rely on the synthetic power of representations to make their object and to in scribe new phenomena.. ." (Beaulieu, 2002: 7 8). Related to field conven tions in scientific representation, Myers (1988) examines the pictures o f E.O. Wilson's (1975) Sociob iology: The New Synthesis, a boo k about science add ressed also to non -scientists, ignorant of the con ventions of scientific pictures. In the article , the author distinguishes several categ ories of pictures (p hotograph, drawing, map, di agram, graph, model, and table) , reflects upon "how these pictures relate to the text, and how they are juxtaposed with each other" (My ers, 1988: 23 7), and finally applies this analy sis to other types of media fo r the Chapter 1: Literature Review 28 popularisation of sociobiological ideas. Relevant claims made by the author are that "the iconography of popular science is remarkably persistent" (My ers, 1988: 263); that "new technologies of repro duction of images change the sorts of images that can be used" (Myers, 1988: 263) ; and that interpretation requires repro duction and thus th e creativ e work of the interpreter: ... the partial unreality of the images in Sociobiology (or in any printed popularization), requires us to reconstruct the space within them, and allows us to link photos to maps or drawings to graphs and to produce stories out of pictures. (My ers, 1988: 266) Scientific representation is here related to the experience of the reader/interpreter: "part of our interpretation of each picture depend s on how it relates to those we have already seen" (Myers, 1988: 256). Very relevant fo r the study of internationalisation at the micro leve l is the auth or's assertion that "[t]he elimination of these squ iggles a nd splotches is part of the move from t he particularity of one observation to the g enerality of a scientific claim" (My ers, 1988 : 2 39). Besides suppo rting the con structionist view of scientific represent ation, this study implicitly underscores the impo rtance of the generic auth ority and of gen eric pedagogy – and thus of training in science. This resonates with works on the multimodali ty of science textb ooks (e.g. Dimopoulos, Koulaidis & Sklaveniti, 2003; Bezemer & Kress, 2008). Another recurrent topic in th e literature is t he develop ment and use of new t echnolo gies and techniques (e.g. modeling, simulation) . These brin g about both, new affordances and con straints for visual representation (Rijcke & Beaulieu, 2014) and perceptual configurations (Carusi & Hoel, 2014) , which has been clai med to requ ire a new 'approach' : "As visu al renderings in sciences are beco ming in creasingly entangled with computers and computational formats, their digital materiality calls fo r a distinct approach" (Ala č, 2014: 61 ). As has already been announced, t he digital era has also brought about greater concerns arou nd trustworthiness of scientific pr esentations, especially image. As F row (2014) explains, in the last years, many journals have dictated guidelines fo r good practices regarding image presentation and manipulation, required for pu blication. Th is author argues that, althoug h analog ue im ages could also be manipulated, these guidelines make reference to manipulation possibilities exclusive of digi tal imagin g and chiefly for aesthetic purposes, due to a genera l belief among journal editors that trustworth iness is higher for unprocessed i mages: ... what is at stake is the virtue of the scientist who performs th ese manipu lations. In the gu idelines and commentaries, the virtuous – and trustworthy – scientist is depicted as one who exhibits self-con trol and does not interfere with the Chapter 1: Literature Review 29 relationship between data and image after main experimental work has been done. (Frow, 20 14: 255) Challenging this vi ew, Frow (2014) highlights the possibilities of tracking modifications on digital images offered by new technologies. In fact, 'traceabil ity ' of modifications, along the 'chain' of inscriptions and of translations , has been argued to be key in scientific practice by Latour (1999) : An essential property of this chain is that it must remain reversible . Th e succession of stages must be traceable, allowin g fo r travel in both directions. If the chain is int errupted at any poin t, it ceases to transpo rt th e truth – cease s, that is, to produce, to construct, to trace and to conduct it. (Lato ur, 1999: 69; orig inal emphasis ) In contrast with journal editors’ scepticism, Fro w (2014 ) suggests th at digital imagin g and new technologies sho uld be approached as an opportunity for enhanced scientific representation an d higher trustworthiness. Trust in images should be secured by means of adequate formal trainin g on image-crafting techniques; and common nor ms of i mage cr eation, manipulation, desc ription and documentation should be n egotiated and established within each specialised area. Other recent concerns in the field of scienti fic representation are (a) the work and negot iations connected with representational conventions ; (b) new analy tical r epertoires to better suit representational practices; and (c) the embodied interactions that are part of representational work in scientific practice. As Coo pmans et al. (2014 ) point out, these interests are framed with in the current enth usiasm for the not ion of 'materiality ', which brings with it a focus on the embodied nature of scientific pr actice, on the ob jects and technologies used in it, and on the settings where it takes place. Other current issues of interest in the field of the sociolo gy of science more broadly tha t coincide with studies i n scientific representation are: (a) ho w expertise is prod uced and contested, (b) renewe d notions of ob jectivity, (c) the situated production and reception of texts, an d (d) the circulation of representations among diverse audiences across settings, fields, and spheres. Coopmans et al. (2014) reflects a tend ency in the literature towards poststructuralist views of sci entific repres entation, which involves the questioning of boundaries (e.g. visual-nonv isual, epistemic-ontological, science- non science). As has be en sho wn, the analysis of specific instances of scientific representation may provide key insights for the study of scientific communication, though these may no t be sufficient to approach broader socio-political issues of the to pic. These have been addressed by another strand of studies in the sociology of science, orig inally deriv ing from the philosophy of science and science history. Th ese studies will be presented in th e next section. Chapter 1: Literature Review 30 1.1.3. The global dime nsion of science Understanding that "the local – gl obal distinction is merely the spatial version of micro – macro" (Marston, Jones III & Woodward, 2005: 421) and, as these authors argue, also o f the binaries agency/structure and concrete/abstract, several topics addressed in the sociology of science literature that may help link these two levels of analy sis will be presented here . First, in section 1.1.3.1., eight sites of connectio n between local and glob al scales referred to in the literature will be explained: (a) reified objects, (b) standardisation processes , (c) artifact trajectories, (d) scientists' agency , (e) scientists' po sition in the field, (f) the no tion of success in science, (g) scientists' identity and (h) scientific f act production as a collectivization process. Second, in section 2. 1.3.2., trends of pheno mena related to the macro-soci al dimension of science will be summarised. 1.1.3.1. Sites of connection between th e local and the glo bal The first of the sites exposed here in whi ch the local and th e global, the micro and the macro, have been found to interplay, that is, where abstract entit ies take the form of concrete matters, are ‘ reified objects ’ . As Latour and Woolgar (1986 [1979] : 238) describe it, in science, intellectual a nd material entities are closely intertwined : "o ne cannot take fo r gra nted the difference between 'material' equ ipment and 'intellectual' co mponents of laboratory activity: the same set of intellectual co mponents can be shown to become incorporated as a p iece of furnitur e a few years later". It is thus through the process of 'materialisation' or 'reification' that ideas, notions and statements stabilise and become mobile objects, which constitute part of the so - called 'dead capital ' of the laboratory: "Once a statement stabilis es in the agonistic field, it is reified and beco mes p art of the tacit skills or material equipment of another laboratory " (Latour & Woolgar, 19 86 [1979 ]: 238). Trevor Pinch (1985) asserts that also the 'context' is reified in the form of objects and practices: The evidential con text becomes solidified i n a particular piece of equ ipment (and the associated practices). Every time an instrument is used, the evidential context will be repro duced. The sociologi cal importance of this is that the evidential context is of concern to the wider community of scient ists. Th e wider networks of knowledge are thus integrally linked with black -box instruments. (Pinch, 1985: 30) This way , Pinch (1985: 30) offers "a picture of how instruments and embodied practices are linked to the wider corpus of knowledge". The author summarises this process as follows: Instruments, once black -boxed, can be mass produced and distributed. Laboratories all over the world (and in space) can thus be mobilized to reproduce and solidify evidential contexts. Bla ck -bo xed instruments can be used as Chapter 1: Literature Review 31 components in other in struments which further reproduce the evidential context tied to those instruments. The establishment of evidential context with black - boxed instruments is, at the same ti me, the establishment of a set of social relations and is perhaps th e key to understanding the success and stability of particular parts of science. (Pinch, 1985: 30 - 1) This has implications, the author contends, for the study of how scientific culture – understood as ' the “mad e th ings” of science ' enc ompassing "skills and social relations, machines and instruments, as well as scienti fic facts and theories " (Pickering, 19 95: 3) – is produced and reproduced. Another site of connectio n between the local and the glob al dimension s are 'standardisation' or 'normalisation' processes. Alač ( 2014) in fact argues that micro-level scientific presentation s may undergo 'normalisat ion' pr ocesses whereby they are conventionalised a nd acquire a symbolic tenor. The process of standardisation implies "averaging and filtering out local contingency or individual differences" (Alač 2014: 77). However, Alač argues, it is not a process of deletio n and reduction, bu t also of addition and emp hasis of relevant aspects, in a reconfigured manner: "An important point is that contingency and con text do not simply drop out; they are reconfigured as rend erings are called into play in different circumstances in texts, etc." (Alač 2 014: 77 -8). Sarah de Rijcke and Ann e Beaulieu's (2 014: 145) assertion, in relation to brain scans, that "h uge investments are made in the develop ment of standards and protocols to make scans agg regable and comparabl e" could be extrapolated to ot her areas of scientific experti se – e.g. to medical image formatting protocols (Coo pmans, 2011) and to forensic science (Jasanoff, 1998) . In fact, as Agazzi ( 2014 : 87 ) asserts, "every science is in principle characterised by its own criteria of protocollarity", understood as "those specific criteria which, within a certain science, permit the determinatio n of which propositions are immediately true". Rijcke and Beaulieu's (201 4) analysis of brain scans collectio ns, called 'brain atlases', sugge sts that these hav e legitimate a uthority based on the averaging of data, and the generation of images linked to underly ing data, based in turn on sophisticated algorithms. In this vein, Karin Knorr and Dietrich Knorr (1978: 38) put forward that a chief function of 'scientific products' is triggering "official standardization work", rather than their direct consumption. The process of standardisation in science, as oppo sed to local interpretations/performance s of standard methods and formulations, has been also addressed by Knorr-Cetina ( 1981 ), Latour and Woolgar (1986 [ 1979 ]), and Star and Griesemer (1989) . It is wort h noting that standardisation processes may also constitute a tool fo r domination. Referring to Callon's (1984) 'translation' theory , Law (1986: 8) explains how forcing ot hers "to move along particular channels and to bar access to other po ssibilities" is a key way of imposing oneself and ex erting power on o thers. This is what Chapter 1: Literature Review 32 Callon calls the 'obligatory point of passage'. In it resides the clue for do mination through the process of 'translation' for scientists : Their translations are successful in so far as they manage to impose their work as an obligatory poin t of passage up on those round about th em. An d their work is spectacularly successfu l - it becomes 'politics by other means' - in so far as th ey are able to collapse the distinction between the large and small scale by forcing macro-actors through their laboratories. (Law, 1 986: 32 - 3) Standardisation thus implies mobility of actors and resources . An example of this is posed by Kleinman (2003), who describes ho w un iversity laboratories dep end on suppl y industry selling them standardi sed materials for their experiments. As Law (1 986: 33 ) argu es, "[c]entral to long distance tran slation" are "[t]he processes of converting materials that are less mobile, durable and tractable [like words, objects and gestures] into materials th at have these attributes to a greater degree [like drille d bo dies and inscriptions]". With reference to mobile materials, Catherine Kell (2015) , following Latour (1987), explores whether and how the concepts of “networks of practices and in struments, documents and translations” may “allow us pass from the local to the global” (Kell, 2015: 72). In an intent to fill in a gap in the literature, regardin g "how exactly communicati on occurs across ti me and space – the actual mechanics of it and the methodologies availabl e to study it" (Kell, 2015: 72), Kell states that 'verticality ' in terms of scale and power coin cides with crossings across places and/or con texts. For this, the concept of 'mobility', understood as referring to both, individuals m oving and the m obilisation of th e semiotic resources or 'texts' that th ey produce and project is key. The idea o f mobility leads to that of 'trajectory', as stated by Thomas Hughes (1 985: 77) : The durability of artifacts and of knowledge in a system suggests the notio n of trajectory, a physical metaph or similar to momentum . (...) Durable phy sical artifacts pr oject into the future the socially con structed characteristics acquired in the past when they were designed . The trajectory of artifacts – as well as of individuals, 'texts' and semiotic reso urces – is hence another site of connection between th e micro and the macro. This topic has been approached diversely, in its multiple facets: (a) studies on the mobility of scientists between in dustry and university (Kleinman & V allas, 2006) ; (b) on boundary objects and their mobility across 'social worlds' in science (Star & Griesemer, 1 989) , as well as on (c) 'standardized packages' and the "translation" of interests between diverse social realms (Fujimura, 1992) ; (d) on (learning) trajectories of scientists and (developmental) trajectori es of lab artifacts and their common relational trajectories ( Nersessian et al. , 2003) ; (e) on trajectories of scientific debate s (Shwed & Bearman, 2010) ; and (f) on trajectorie s of scientif ic discourses between perfor mance in the Chapter 1: Literature Review 33 laboratory and the writing of a scientific paper fo r publi cation (Knorr-Cetina, 19 81; Latour, 1987) . A fourth way of approaching the global dimension of science is by focusing on s cientists ' agency. A recurrent to pic in the literature in this sens e is scientists ' motivation(s). This has been addressed by Lato ur and Woolgar ( 1986 [ 1979 ]), who argue that a 'quest for credit' only cannot account for scientists' behavio ur. In contrast w ith this traditional account, they prop ose th e idea of the 'cycle of credibility investment' to explain t he multiplicity of motivations that may interact. According to their model, there are two types of 'credit': 'credit as reward' – "the sharing of rewards and awards whic h symbolise peers' recogn ition of a past scientific achievement" (Latour & Woolgar, 1986 [1979]: 198) – and 'credit as credibility' – "scientists' abilities actually to do science" (Latour & Woolgar, 1986 [1979]: 198). Gains of credibility – understood as "th e vario us in vestments made by scientists and the conversions between different aspects of the laboratory" (Latour & Woolgar, 1986 [1979]: 23 9) – allow for reinvestment and further gains of credibility in a feedback-loop manner. Such conception of motivation enco mpasses economic no tions, like salary, bu dget and funding, and epistemological notions, like conviction, proof and certitud e, as well as "the ty pe of inscription devices to be employed, the career of scientists con cerned, the de cisions taken by funding agencies, (...) the nature of the data, the form of paper, the type of journal" (Latour & Woolgar, 1986 [1979] : 239) , among others. All these may have an impact of costs ( money, time and energy ) and may influence further gains o f credibility: The notion of credibility makes possib le the conversion between money, data, prestige, credentials, problem areas, argument, papers, and so on. Whereas man y studies of science focus on one or a s mall section of this cycle, ou r argument is that each facet is but one part of an endless cy cle of investment and conversion. (Latour & Woolgar, 1986 [1979]: 200) A key characteristic of the cycle of credibility in vestment is that scientists -investors will unavoidably have to go through the who le process , that is, through the diverse stages of investment, independ ently of their initial ai m or motivation. The generalised conversion processes give place to a kind of market of credibility. In it, scientists are investors of credibility, and information is a value since it allows for the production of further information by other investors-scientists and the return of invested capital. This implies that there is demand for information and a supply of information by and for other investors, which, combined with the number of in vestors and their equ ipment for productio n, determine the value of information. The authors explain th is phenomenon as foll ows: Chapter 1: Literature Review 34 Taking into account the fluctuation of this market, scientists invest their credibility where it is likely to b e m o st rewarding. Th eir assessment of these fluctuations both explains scientists' reference to "interesting problems", "rewarding subjects", "good methods", and "reliable colleagues" and explains why scientists constantly move between problem areas, enter ing into new collaborative projects, grasping and drop ping hypoth eses as the circu mstances demand, shifting between one method and ano ther and submitting every thing to the go al of extending the credibility cycle. (Lato ur & Wo olgar, 1986 [1979]: 206 - 7) Understanding thus scientific production in economic -lik e ter ms, th ese authors explain, scientific publications may be regarded as products that, after a sort of market analysis, scientists must make attractive and valued by other scientists, who should deem t he m reliable and relevant. And this resonates with Knorr and Knorr's (1978: 37) reference to a 'market ' where scientific papers address "a generalized demand from which the authors can draw symbolic capital if their product is frequently 'bought' by other scientists". This, the auth ors exp lain, brings about 'value' and 'success' to the paper and to the scientist, "wh ich we tend to attribute to the inherent quality of scientific results" ( Kno rr & Knorr , 19 78: 37 ). The power of persuasion of the paper depends largely upon its role as an 'object of value' in this 'market o f demands'. An asset of Latour and Woolgar's 'credibility model' is that it "can accommo date a variety of types of motivations" ( Latour & Woolgar, 1986 [ 1979] : 207). Moreover, it allows for t h e connection of th e micro and the macro dim ensions of the soci al, for instance through the identifications of instances of reification of credibility investme nt. One such in stance is the scientist's CV, which, as Latour and Woolgar point out , could be seen as 'a balance sheet of all his invest ments to date'. The CV has s everal valu e s: to "enable him to be admitted to the game" ; to prove that the scientist "h as the necessary credentials to invest"; to sho w the positions of the individual in th e field an d "th at he has actually played sufficiently well to have obtained a position"; and, th rough the list of grant s received, to prov ide "a statement of the extent of investment already pl aced in the individual" ( Latour & Woolgar , 19 86 [1979]: 208-9). Th e authors relate th ese ou tcomes of diverse invest ments (time, money, effort ) to Bourdieu's notion of 'cultural capital', which will be explained in chapter 3. Accordingly, taking into account this model, the 'prod uction of credible data' can be deemed "one way of activatin g the credibility cycle and of setting in motion th e 'business of science' or, as Foucault (1978 ) puts it, ‘ the political econo mics of truth ’ " (Latour & Woolgar 1986 [1979] : 229). The scientist, these scholars argue, is in this context negotiating the 'tension' resultin g from two 'syste ms of pr essures' or 'overlapping economical cycles': the management of their Chapter 1: Literature Review 41 With reference to the alloc ation of resources, iden tified phenomena that takes p lace in science in this respect is the ‘Matthew effect’ (Merton, 1968, 19 88), meaning that the tendency is for the accumulation of resources on those who had already received them: "Those in positions of visibility and prestige will have privileged access to f urther resources and positions of visibility, and so on" (Bucchi, 2015: 24 0). This "complex psychosocial process" ( Merton, 1973: 443) acts in cases of collabo ration among scientis ts of different ranks, as well as in th ose of si multaneous independent discoveries . I t is perceive d as a “ problem ” and "a basic inequ ity in the reward system" (Merton, 1973: 447), although it also affects the communication system of science : publications of higher-rank scientists may have greater visibi lity tha n publications of those with a lower rank. Th is process underscore s the hierarchical structu re of science and th e power asymmetries that prevail and that are contin uously perpetuated, in terms of resource allocatio n, visibility and prestige. Connected to th ese dynamics, there are, in terms of communication, two opposite tendencies: on the one han d, there has been in recent years an in crease in the number of scientific articles and journa ls but, on the other han d, on ly a small group of them attract most of the attentio n and interest: in life sciences "si x journals account for 68% – 94% of the 100 most-cited articles in the last decade" (Y oung, Ioannidi s & Al -Ubay dli, 2008: 1420) . This is the so -called 'communication function of the Matthew effect', wh ich appears to be "increasing in frequ ency and intensity with the exponential increase in the vo lume of scientific publications" (Merton, 1973: 449) . According to Young, Ioannidis and Al -Ubaydl i (2008), such hierarchical relations among journals are the result of the 'citation game' (Biagioli, 20 16) . This consists in con sidering citation among scientists as an 'objective' measure of scientific quality and success. This is the case of the 'impact fa ctor' of scientific journals ( see Chew, Villanueva & Va n Der Weyden, 2007; Stock, 2009) . Furthermore, th ere seems to be a motivation to restrict access to journals, and this triggers their behaviour as 'luxury items' ( see Ireland, 1994) : "The auth ority of journals in creasingly derives from their selectivity . The venue of publ ication provides a valuable status signal" (Young, Ioannidis & Al -Ubay dli, 2008 : 1420) . And this gives rise to an 'artificial scarcity': "any situation where, even though a commodity exists in abundance, restriction s of access, distribution, or availability make it seem rare, and thus overpriced" (You ng, Ioannidis & Al -Ubaydli, 2008: 1420) . As these auth ors s uggest, low acceptance rates trigger exclusivity based on merit and more hectic co mpetition. The 'need for branding' is the cause of the "strange" arrangement between scien tist, journals and public -scientists, by which journals- intermediaries "sell" to the scientists or to their institutions the articles those scientists had written with the institution's support. Chapter 1: Literature Review 42 T he existence of a ‘s cientific star sy stem’ has also been suggested, for which few scientists, the ‘visible’ ones, are recognised even by mass media, raising interest for their professional and personal achievements, an d are of ten asked about diverse topics with in and ou t of th eir area of expertise (Cl aessens, 2008; Bucchi, 20 15 ). This results in th e 'per sonalisation' of science : "Dynamics typical of the scientific community an d those of the contemporar y media thus overlap in accentuating the personalization of contemporary science" (Bucc hi, 2015: 245) . These visibility dynamics con stitute a new ‘power mechanism ’ "whereby the weigh t of positions and institutions depends on the visibi lity of the scientists with who m they are able to associate the mselves" (Bucchi, 2015 : 243 ). As a con sequence, in dividual reputation of scientists is so relevant for their professional performance that it may influence th e percept ion of validity and success of their scientific practice fr om the part of their peer scienti sts. This significance of the individuals' performance as a member of the scientific community has been named ‘ communitarian repu tation’ (Pizzorno, 2007; in Bucchi, 2015) . Moreover, there is an in creasing mediatisation of science (see Clay, 20 10; Schäfer, 2014) : "the press offices, P R strategies and other activities aimed at achiev ing media prominence and public visibility have now beco me a routine, when not a prominent, feature for most research ins titu tions" (Bucchi, 2015: 245) . Also remarkable is the existence of ‘gatekeepers’ and ‘invisible colleges’ (Crane, 1972) . ‘Gatekeepers’ are individuals acting as a "quality - and information-contro l filter" (Nosek & Bar- Anan, 2012: 226) who hold positions of power so that they can decide about the allocation of resources, the distribution of information, an organisation's struct ure, etc . ‘Invisible colleges’ 11 are "the informal communities of researchers that form around a part icular research topic, and which often pr ove to be more influential on the production of kn owledge than the formal communities (depart ments, research insti tutes or scientific co mmittees) " (Bucch i, 20 15: 246) . As Frow (2014) suggests, journal editors are key gatekeepers in science, who establish norms that constrain author's creativity with in a framework of accepted conv entions. Informal co mmunication has also been found very determinant in science: ". ..scientists tend to claim (on questionnaires) th at they use informal means (and even un planned sources) for the transmission of 'technical' information. (... ) Informal c ommunication has then been treated like a more flexibly packag ed version of formal communication ." (Collins, 1974 : 171). Garvey and Griffith (1971) explore 'informal communication' in a specific do main (p sychology) and 11 This term was first coined by Robert Boyle ( 1627-1691) to name the group of theorists in the 'new philosophy' he was part of. D erek. J. de Solla Price, in Little Science, Big Science...and Beyond (1963) , extend ed it to refer gen erally to communitie s of scientists based on 'interpersonal relationships' and linked by infor mal communication. The existence of such groups was confirm ed by several studies like Crane (1972), Mullins ( 1973), and Chubin (1983) . Chapter 1: Literature Review 43 elaborate a list of functional dist inction s between 'informal' and 'formal' scientific communications. These authors offer an interesting summary of the flow of scientific information from the scientist's first research question to the point that her fin dings are incorporated as accep ted s cientific kn owledge in the field, which may take 12-15 years . The following are some relevant poin ts the authors make: (a) the existence of an oligarchy or elite of few scientists that are most active paper producers, communicating with and meeting one another, etc.; (b ) the high reliance of scientists on informal networks; (c) the essential importance of info rmal information flows for critical feedback and encouragement; and (d) th e existence of a hierarchy of journals and con f erence-organising societies. The auth ors are clearly in favour of the 'long judicious procedu re' of scientific knowledge production and communication, which they deem core in quality assurance. For this, they argue, th e boundary between the informal and th e formal domain is essen tial. Collins (1974: 18 1- 2) lists some important factors fo r setting up communicational relati ons among scientists such a s (a) having a common history of information exchanges , (b) elements of formal organ isation, (c) an earlier period of colleagueship and co -authorship, (d) an element of direct or in direct acquaintanceship , (e) writing a letter to th e sou rce laboratory , (f) a perso nnel transfer – on visitin g fellowships, student placements, or just periods of work at the source laboratory – , and (g) friendship relations. However, t he author argues, th ere seem to be mor e complexities in communication among scientists than can be expressed by scientists the mselves inasmuch as there is an important portion of knowledge that re mains tacit and hence unconscious. Some of these complexities are: (1 ) the ov ert concealment of information (for competition reasons) , (2) th e relevance of personal and biographical factors , and ( 3) that specialist (formal) publication s may lack significant in formation. Also in the case of infor mal communication, there may be: (4 ) a pretended openness but certain secrecy – this fits with the idea of 'competitive coo peration' prevailing in science (Merto n, 1970) – ; (5) that the source interlocutor might not be knowledgeable of all the relevant information and therefore one or both interlocutors might be unaware of whether essential details are being con veyed ; (6 ) that skills are not trans mitted by written word only, but by personal visits and telephone calls or by transfer of personnel (Collins, 1974) . In add ition to this, current trends like the increasing competition in science and its growing commercialisation may also affect co mmunication among scientists, especially concerning the sharin g of core information (Walsh & Malo ney, 2007) . A more rece nt attempt to explain the historical development of contemporary science is made by Hess (20 06). Th is scholar identif ies four recent processes or tendencies experienced by modern science: expansion of scale, differentiatio n of institutions, un iversalisation o f values, Chapter 1: Literature Review 44 and denaturali sation of the material wor ld. 'Expansion of scale' means that the cost and scale of research in laboratory sciences ha s grown so m uch that it has overtaken their institution's funding possibilities. This has trig gered the irruption of private fu nding organisations in the field, and concurrently the emergence of debates around the autonomy and control of research. The 'differentiation of institutions' makes reference to the difficulties that scientists face to manage their diverse roles, to align the go als of the diverse stakeholders, and to mediate among them: "For example, scientists and universities develop increasingly complex goals as they negotiate their roles in education, research, fu ndraising, management, policymaking, citizenship, community development, and entrepreneurship" (Hess, 2006 : 125) . 'Universalisation of values' refers to the in creasing efforts of scientific actors to devel o p formalised methodo logies and standards. Th is contributes to th e establishment of more or les s homogeneous 'cultures' of scientific fi elds, but may however generate " conflicts over access to the means of knowledge production and clashes between expert and lay positions on knowledge-making priorities" (Hess, 2006: 125). Finally, the 'denaturalisation of the material world' is the process whereby "[b ]oth research te chnologies and th e technologies/pro ducts generated by research tend to become increasingly synthetic or distanced from living entities over time" (Hess, 2006 : 125) . This has spawned debate s over societal and environmental is sues and the commitment of research with t hem. This leads us to the discussion about the relevance o f institutional and socio -political factors in science. Latou r (1999: 295) in fact underscores the 'politicised' side of science: "Science has been so thoroughly politicized that neither the aims of politics nor those of the science s have remained visible". In a similar vein, Latour and Woolgar ( 1986 [ 1979 ]: 213) refer to scientists as 'politicians' and 'strategists': ...they are strategists, choosing t he most opportune moment, engaging in potentially fruitful collaboratio ns, evaluating and grasping opportunities, and rushing to credited information. (.. .) Their political ability is invested in the heart of doing science. The better politician s and strat egists they are, the better the science they produ ce. One main cau se of this p olitically -oriented facet of scientists may be the 'reward syste m' of academ ia , which places positive motivational dr ives on certain aspects of scientific practice an d thus forces scientists to perform in a certain way and to value some ele ments over ot hers. Examples of such incentives are peer recognition, publications, prizes, funding, job positions, credit, etc. Taki ng part in this 'reward game' is unavoid able; it is thus no t only a matter of bein g more highly or less rewarded, but also often a matter of survival in the world of science. Moreover, the reward sy stem of academia as it is set today, not "valu[ing ] pu blic and policy Chapter 1: Literature Review 45 participation" enough inasmuch as it is deemed "a distraction fro m ‘‘real’’ academic work" (Bickford et al. , 2012 : 76) , pu ts scientists in th e positio n of having to choose between the traditional scientific valu e of communism and their individual interests: Scholars th us so metimes (or often) face a trade-of f between bein g rewarded by academic peers and contributing to a better world. One way of meeting both types of audiences is to publish fo r on e's peers and then translate the ideas fo r a more general public or for activist audiences. (Woodhouse et al. , 2002: 310) As these authors suggest, the academic rew ard sy stem exerts pressure on sci entists to behave conservatively, in either of these two way s: by prioritising the publication of non -prescriptive, field-relevant scholarly work s, or by engaging mostly in attracting research grant s, and consequently dismissing or relegating activ ism to the background. Therefore, the rew ard syste m of academia "influences the “class stru cture” of science by providing a stratified distribution of chances, among scientists, for enl arging their role as investigators" (Merto n, 1968: 57 ). Furthermore, the increasing intervention of private stakeholders in the academia, the ever more complex structure of scientific organ isations, and the ever more intricate scientific network s (Owen-Smith, 2006) are evid encing and even multiplying th e deficiencies of the current reward system and increasingly fostering claims for its ov erhaul ( see Sturm, 2006; O’ Meara, 2010 ; Eatman, 2012; O’Meara, Eatman & Peterson , 2015). Also related to the politics of scie nce more generally are power issues and imposition/domination mechanisms. These have been already mentioned throughout this section, since power is a cross-sectional issue. As has been suggested, power is pre sent in standardisation pr ocesses, that is, where one's 'point of passage' ( Callon, 1984) is imposed on others. Dominatio n can be also found in communication, when on e is establish ed as the spokesperson of many: "how a few ob tain the right to express and to represent the many silent actors of the social and natural worlds they have mobilized" (Callon, 1984: 224), like 'elite scientists', or in the form of gatekeepers (i.e. journal editors). Credit is also a domination mechanism, since it triggers the full acceptance of a claim by an audience, when it is deemed compatible with one's cultural tenets (Kahan et al. , 2007). This way, the credited author hold s an extraordinary degree of in fluence on its aud ience. Related to credit, also prestige and recognition for one's identity, position in the field , or accomplishments and success, are site s of power. This in fact illustrates Serg io Sis mondo's (2014: 17) statement that "[p ]art of the work of successful technoscience, th en , is the construction not on ly of facts and artifacts but also of the societies that accept, use, a nd vali date them". Similarly, Law (198 6: 34) asserts that " [i]f science is powerful it is because it has creat ed a network of locations where there is some agreemen t Chapter 1: Literature Review 46 about warrantable connections" and that "if science, as an institutio n, is powerful then this is because it has succeeded, as Latour has argued, in scientising parts of social life". Accordingly, it m ight be argued that the success of con temporary science is due, on the one hand, to the standardisatio n and thus homogenisation of many aspects (i.e. mac hines, protocols, equipment, processes, materials) it has achieved, for which 'scientific con sensus' (Bolsen & Druckman, 2 015) is key, and, on the ot her hand, to its i mposition of certain points of passage on society at a global level. The generalis ation – meaning the widespread consumption/use – of these reified and standard ised products, constitutes a 'point of passage' that marks t he domination of their p roducers upon a great scientific "market". Consequently, it is not surprising that the internationalisation of scientific products may favour their producers or their 'traders' in the first instance (see Kleinman, 20 03) . The po wer of science as a culture is such that its no rms and values are imposed without the need of clarification and often without even being understood . This corresponds to Collins ’ 'enculturational model', which "involves the transmission of a culture which legitimises and limits the parameters requ iring control in the experimental situation , with out necessarily formula ting, enumerating or un derstanding them " (Collins, 1975: 207; original emphasis ). A great deal of the success of scien ce is thus its 'enculturation' force. This wou ld however not have been po ssible with out the i mportant ro le of communication in science. As Merton (1973: 450) puts it: ...for science to be advanced, it is not enough that fruitful ideas be originated or new experiment s developed or new problems for mulated or new methods instituted. The innovations must be effectively communicated to others. That, after all, is what we mean by a contribution to science – something given to the common fund of knowledge. In the end, then, science is a social ly shared and socially validated body of kn owledge. For th e development of science, only work that is effectively perceived and utilised by other scientists, then and there, matters. ( original emph asis ) The effective communication of sc ience over centurie s has brou ght abo ut the 'cultural author ity of science', a very powerful resource for communication , and even for political communication: "confidence in the cultu ral authority of science ha s even been shown to withstand th e powerful in fluence of political ideology" (Blank & Shaw, 201 5 ; in Akin & Scheufele, 2017: 31 ). Therefore, communicating scientists ne ed also to draw on persuasion strategies, understood as "a tentative matter, a constant attempt to pro pose a set of interrelationships and valu es" (Law & Williams, 19 82: 554), for achievin g po wer positio ns. As a soc ial to ol, it has to take t he recipient's valu es into account, inasmuch as "both persuasion and power depend , in the last Chapter 1: Literature Review 47 instance, on the capacity of whoever seeks to control, to align his array with that o f the hearer at valued points" (Law & Williams, 19 82: 55 4). Th ese 'valued points' by the recipient constitute what Kno rr and Knorr (1978) call 'field of de mands' or 'market of demands', and , as th ey claim, "it is in reconstructing this market that the persu asion of the paper is achieved" (Knorr & Knorr, 1978: 38) . As these authors suggest, scientific texts can thus be analysed considering the se fields of demands as a semiotic compound present in th em . And this is indeed a chief endeavour of the current thesis. In th e next section we will tackle several aspects of the c ommunication of science that in volve two different publics: the general public and scientists themselves. The communication of science for the general public has been approached by studies in the field of 'science communication'; and communication among sc ientists will be dealt with here from a multimodal social semiotic perspective [see chapter 2 ]. 1.2. Science communication and communication among scientists Science communication has been defined as "the use of appropriate skills, media, activities, and dialogue to produce on e or more of the following personal responses to science (th e AEIOU vowel analogy): Awareness, Enjoyment, Interest, Opin ion -forming, and Understanding" (Burns, Connor & Stocklmayer, 2003: 18 3), which "may involve science practitioners, mediators, and other members of the general pu blic, either peer - to -peer or betw een grou ps" (Burns, Connor & Stocklmayer, 20 03: 191) . Accordingly, science communicato rs may "serve as a crucial link between the activities of scientists and the public that supports su ch activities" (Treise & Weigold, 2002: 310). And th is is often a task assigne d to scientists themselves. Therefore, there are diverse aspects explo red within this field that may be relevant to so me extent for the current research project: science dissemination to a no n -scientific audience (Weber & Schell Word, 2001) , values reflected in scientific communication (Dietz, 2013 ), the technologies used for scientific co mmunication (Lamb & Davidson, 2005), the language/s used (e.g. Meneghini & Packer, 20 07), scientific communication th rough diverse means and/or genres (journal papers, oral presentat ions, posters, visual representations within these) (e.g. Benestad, 2015). In fact, this latter topic is very closely related to another impo rtan t line of research: academic lite racies , which will be intro duced in section 1.4 . There is however another strand of research that is most tightly con nected to the present study in the types of question s it po ses and in the theoretical approach and method o logy used. This encompasses those studies exploring communication among scientists , and especially those which approach it from a multimodal communicati ve perspective. Fo r this reason, I will start by Chapter 1: Literature Review 48 commenting on works of this type and go on afterwards sum marising relevant findings in science communication . There have been in recent years interesting pieces of research exploring one- to -one communication amo ng scientists , so me of which app roach it fro m a multimodal perspective, as is the case of this study . Lorenza Mondada's (200 5) work is one of the clearest examples. In this piece of research , Mo ndada explores multiple in teractions a mong scientists work ing in Europe, in dive rse circu mstances (in the same research grou p, as part of the same interuniv ersity networks, in interdisciplinary projects, or in international workshops), with diverse purp oses and from diverse fields (e.g . cartography, ecolo gy, culture studies, surgery , and history ). The researcher adop ts the perspective of interactional linguistics – originated from conversation analysis – to analyse, through specific instances of record ed conversations among scientists, several interactional phenomena: (1) how discussions are organised during scie ntists' work sessions, (2) the collective elaboration of 'knowledge ob jects' ( ob jets de savoir ) in scientific practice, (3) how multilingual interactions among scientists dev elop , and (4 ) the intertwin ing of verbal modes of communication (speech and writing) with object manipulation and gestu re in scientists' interactions. Mondada makes interesting points as regards the details of the situated , collective con struction of scientific knowled ge at the micro level, through 'indexical ' (local ) elements, which give place to 'collective in telligences' in science. The author underscores the influence of the organisation of interactions (how interaction among scientists is structured) on diverse aspec ts, such as the formats of participatio n (p articipants' roles, lik e moderator, orator confronting an audience, etc.), participants' identit y and identity markers (like expert or non - expert), and the trajectories of 'knowled ge objects' (constructed more or less collaboratively , more or less dyna mically, throughout the in teraction). Regarding multilingual exchan ges, and contrasting with the gen eral view in the literature on the internatio nalisation of higher education, Mondada asserts that English as a lingua fran ca is not th e only strategy adopte d by scientists in their interactions, not even the most widespread on e. Instead, multiple languages are diversely used by scientists even within one sam e communication session, responding to their local accommodation to the con tingencies of th e particular interaction. As th e auth or claims, "[d]espite the discourses, stereotypes and convictions of actors and institutions, international scientific practices remain multilingual" (Mondada, 2005: 87; my translation ). This use of diverse linguistic resources might hinder comm unic ation but m ight also, or instead, enrich scientific knowledge by triggering the discussion o f the diverse conno tations of concepts in ea ch language. Finally, Mondada addresses al so th e m ultimodal dimension of scientists' communication. Besides illustrating how gesture, object manipulatio n and verbal modes a re combined in scientists' exc hanges, the autho r emphasises also the 'praxeolo gy of vision', that is, Chapter 1: Literature Review 49 how perception in science is not clear -cut , but accomplished in pr actice through the combination of these modes, and h ow this directs attention and emphasises certain details over others. Mondada's study of scientists' 'microdecisions' as the or igin of generalisation, objectivisation , and reification is undoubtedly inspiring for the present study. First, it appro ach es the micro lev el of analysis of communication in science, which is one of the aims of the current project . And second, it makes reference to concepts potentially linking the micro and the macro levels of analysis, such as indexical elements, political aspects of communication and the identity of participants, which may be useful in our analysis. Although not directly addressing co mmunication among scientists, th ere is a line of research on communication in the science classroo m from a social semiotic s persp ective that con tributes interesting insights to our project. One of these is Jay L. Le mke's (1990) study of communication in the high school science classroo m. In it, Lemke con siders science as part o f a social sy stem composed of resources, a history and values shared by a community of individuals: Science does not stand outside the system of social values. Like all meaningful human activity, it depend s on socially shared habits, practices, and resources th at each individ ual can mobilize only because he or she is a member o f a community with a history and a sy stem of basic values. (Lemke, 1990: 45) The author cannot conceive of any analysis of communi cation in a science classroo m "if i t pretends that teachers and student s talk science 12 in way s isolated from wider social valu es and conflicts" (Lemke, 19 90: 48). This critical view on communication is thus indi spensable. Besides contend ing that science is communicated multimodally – involving "reasoning, talki ng and writing with other forms of actio n such as using scientific apparatus or computer, and making observatio ns and measurements" (Lemke, 1 990: 15 4) – , Le mke underscores the power asymmetries that can be foun d in the classroom context and in science more generally : Science, no more and no less than any other human activity, has had the history it has because peo ple made choices to explore some areas rather t han others, to invest in some ki nds of research, to encourage some sorts of qu estions to be asked, some fields t o be considered more i mportant than others. Science, through 12 For Lemke (1990: 1), 'talking sc ience' means communicating "in the language of science" and acting "as a m ember of the community of peopl e who do so", which includes not only using specializ ed language, but also mastering mental processes, rhetorical strategies, genres typical of scientific practice, as well as practical action, such as "observing, describing, comparing, classifying, analyzing, discussing, hypothesizing, theorizing, questioning, challenging, arguing, designing experiments, fo llowing procedures, judging, e valuating, deciding, concludi ng, generalizing, reporting, writing, lecturin g, and teaching in and thro ugh the language of science". Chapter 1: Literature Review 50 its history, embodies value -choices and value systems. And it r eflects the interests and power of those groups that hav e been in a position to influence, ho wever indirectly, its history and cours e of development. (Le mke, 1990: 46) Especially inspiring fo r our project is Lemke's micro anal ysis of semantic, thematic, (inter)actional, organisational and orientation pattern s in specific instances of communication in the science class. The scholar asse rts that the mastery of thematic patterns 13 of each topi c is "[t]he most e ssential element in learning to talk science", for these are "highly standardized in each field of science" (L emke, 1990 : 27). Among his finding s, the author sug gests that: (a) there are evident power inequalities between t eacher and students besides differences of interests and values, which might cause conflicts ; (b) the science of th e 20th century is apparently ruled by a (selected) 'technocratic elite'; and (c) discourses of object ivity and value-neutrality of scientifi c facts – which contribut e to the 'mystification ' of scien ce – rely on interests of techn ocrats and serve to legitimise them. Finally, with reference to the international dimension of science, Lemke (1990: 13 8) claims that "[s]cience is not limited to one culture, on e dialect of English, or one style of communication "; alerting of the primacy of Western culture in science. In Lemke (2000) , the author analyses scientific literacies acquisition of a high school student (grade 12 ; age 17 -18 approximately), and remarks the importance for the science curriculu m of encompassing the integration skil ls of multiple lite racies th at sc ience requires : "the m axi mal literacy demands of the scientific curricu lum arise from the need to integrate specialized verbal, visual, and mathematical literacies quickly and fluently in real time" ( Lemke, 2000 : 247 ). This is what Le mke names 'complex multi -literacy practices'. In this se nse, scientific literacies ent ail not on ly understanding scientific pheno mena and using scientific concept s, bu t also using representational resources in a specific way: What it means to be able to use a scientific co ncept, and therefore to understand it in the way that a scientist does, is to be able to fluently juggle with its verbal, mathematical, and vi su al -graphical aspect s, apply ing whichever is most app ropriate in the moment and freely translating back and forth among them. (Le mke, 2000: 248) The implication of th is for science education is that it should emphasise and make explicit such generic, multi-dimensional and multi-modal requ irements and thus train and assess students in a more targeted way. Also related to the science curriculum and multimodal communication, Arlene Arche r (2010) analy ses 'scientific discourse', in higher education in this case, from a multimodal social semiotic approach. The author advocates for a 'reciprocal curriculum' in 13 ‘Thematic patterns’ refer to "the patterns of connections am ong the meanings of words i n a particular field" of hum an activity (Lemke, 1990: 12). Chapter 1: Literature Review 57 seated con fidence in the ‘ cultural authority ’ of science (Gauchat, 201 2; Scheufele, 2013) " (Akin & Scheufele, 2017: 30). Other potential influences are people's previous mental m odels, schemes and beli efs (Bruine de Bruin & Bostro m, 2013) , motivations for accuracy in their conclusions (reaching 'correct' conclusions), and prior-belief affirmation (Nir, 2011). Other intermediary-level influencing factors, as pr oved by research on people's decision -making, attitudes and behaviour, are: ty pe of social norms appealed to (Goldstein, Cialdini & Griskevicius, 2008), (group or individual) identity (Kahan et al. , 2007), social linkages in communities (Scherer & Cho , 2003) , and the social s ystem and on e's ro le within it (Tansey & Rayner, 2009). Regarding the ways in which audience attitudes can be in fluenced by 'leveraging social and cultural mechanisms', resea rch in th is line has fo und that (1) justifying opinions on controversial social issues to interlocutors with unknown ideology triggers complex thinking – considering diverse perspectives and making new connections among arguments – an d mitigated extremity of own opinions; and (2) interlocutor's ideology expectation elicits the co mmunicator's accommodation to the expected po sition (Tetlock, 1983). Xenos et al. (2011) show that anticipation to having to explain one's view does no t pr ompt in formation seeking from individuals but it do es elicit a focus on persuasive arguments rather than on factual knowledge. And Bolsen and Druckman (2015) conclude that motivating individu als to 'make even-handed judgments' counteracts 'politici sed' scientific discourse; and that motivation is enhanced "when individuals anticipate having to explain their opin ions to others" (Bolsen & Druck man, 2015: 760) . With reference to id entity , the str and of though t approaching science communication from the sociology of science situ ates 'identity ' as the umbrella construct which encompasses the other aspects – like credibility and trust – influencing people's attitudes towards science: "the best explanatory concepts fo r understanding public responses to scientific kn owledge and advice are not tru st and credibility per se , bu t the social relationship s, networks and id entities from whi ch these are der ived" (Wynne, 19 92: 28 2). From this perspective, people's 'understanding' of scientific issues takes place in a social enviro nment to which it is liable: "'Understandi ng' o r knowledge, its precision and resilience, is a function of social so lidarity, mediated by the relational elements of trust, depend ency and social id entity; constructin g that 'intellectual' understanding should be seen as a process of social i dentity -con struction" (Wynne, 1992: 283) . For this reason, this author exposes, given that identity is unstable and dynamic, 'coherence ' in attitudes such as trust is not the no rm, and these are thus non -measurable. Hence, models of science communication shou ld account fo r such instability and variability. Chapter 1: Literature Review 58 Exploring such phenomena help s the understanding of gen eral mechanisms of scien ce communication, that is, of the processes of opinion formation about science and scientific f acts, of opinion counteraction, of persua sion and sup port elicitation, of po liticisation discourses around science – those emphasi sing uncertainty on science – , of scientific cons ensus, and more generally of influencing people's attitudes towards scientific issues through co mmunication. However, treating 'messages' as units of analy sis in an experimental or quasi -experimen tal approach erases the nuances of discourses and their dynamicity. This is something missing in the literature abo ve referred to. In fact, the most general conclusi on on e can d raw fro m these works is that people's attitudes towards science are variable and , above all, are influenced by many aspects, internal and external. Digging into this complexity is precisely a core mission of this project. At a more co ncrete level, such pro cesses may take the form of discourse design, production, consumption and interpretation by specific social actors in the scientific field, which is a central aspect of this thesis. In particular, th e ways in which scientific discou rses are generat ed, conveyed and interpreted within the scientific team may have commonalities with the ways in which they are generated, conveyed and interpreted in communications between scientists and other publics. This may be especially true when one con siders s cientists but one link in the chain of scientific discourse construction and of sc ience co mmunication; they are but one among the many intervening actors. Scientists here will no t be seen as a homogeneous and stable mass o f people, but as subjects w ith individual and d ynamic approaches to science and to scientific discourse, and thus as actors who influence and are influenced at the same time by them. Consequently, the communication model from which t his thesis will depart is not that o f sender- prototype scientists sending ou t messages to diverse prototyp e publics, who respond to them always influenced by the (socio -cultural) con text. The model prop osed here is on e where scientists perfo rm unstable identities, which evolve over time, throughout th eir individual (learning) trajectories. They are senders and receivers of scientific messages, producers and consumers of scientific discou rse, which is however not exclusive of scientists but pertains to and is shaped by society, that is, by multiple actors acting in diverse fi elds and organisations, with diverse interests and ai ms, all of th em with their own political stances [addressing the politics of science see Ep stein ( 1996 ), Latour (20 04) and Pielke ( 2007) ]. Within the research group, science communication may take the shape of the negotiation of abstraction and concretion, of expectations and ant icipations on the part of its members. Chapter 1: Literature Review 59 This perspective has been named the 'sociology of scientific knowledge' or the 'constructivist approach', according to which " these account s [on the natural world] are not directly given nature bu t may be approached as the products of social processes and negot iations that mediate scientists' accou nts of the natural world" (Martin & Richards, 1995: 512). As opposed to the 'positivist approach', for which there is one true or 'accurate sci entific view', the constructivist approach acknowledges the existence of di verse strea ms of argumentation and positio ns, which deserve equal consideratio n as altern ative accounts. This will be also combined here with a 'social structural app roach' to the study of scientific discou rse and communication (see Martin & Richards, 1995). As will be explained in chapter 2 ( the theoretical framework ), concepts of social structure will be used to make sense , at a macro di mension, of t he ph enomena and processes observed at more micro dimensions. My proposal is hence devoid of the 'science -centred basis' traditional in the research programme of science communication, which is based on the assumption that "science is unitary and coherent, and that it should be central to every day beliefs and practices" (Wy nne, 19 91: 112) . As in the case of ot her studies in the sociology of science, it dep art s from th e conviction that "there is no clear consensus even among scientists themselves as to what is ‘ science ’ or ‘ scientific kno wledge ’ in any specific context" (Wy nne, 1991 : 112) . Science fro m this standpoint is bu t an object of interpretation and representation, neg otiated among scientists, institutions, publics, po licymakers an d other stake holders, and thus variable in its meaning, scope, characteristics, etc. Acknowledging that research on science communication has traditionally evolved in parallel to the sociological study of science, that is, the sociology of science (Bucchi, 20 08), this thesis may supply tools to fill in this gap by reconciling these two disciplines. This will be attained by the analysis of communication within the research group, which is presumed to be also related to communicative exchan ges with external act ors, fro m a sociolo gical (and communicat ive) perspective [see chapter 2]. In fact, such view may help shed light on the 'imaginary' "sort of trajectory for scientific ideas that leads from the intraspecialist exp ository context to the popular one, passing through the intermediate levels" (Bu cchi, 2008: 61 ), as is assu med by the 'continuity' model ( see Cloitre & Shinn, 1986) , and Fleck’s and Latour’s theorisations on the sociology of science. This is indeed a communicational strategy that scientists sometimes need to adopt, especially taking into account that "[f]ew decisions are made by policymakers a nd stakeholders with out the media in mind" (Bubela et al. , 2009: 51 5- 6) . Con sequently, it is logical to believe that communication within the research group may be unavo idably interconnected with communication b etween the group and other audiences, such as policy makers, stakeholders Chapter 1: Literature Review 60 and the general public, who hold an "ever- more-complex relationship" (Bubela et al. , 2009: 517) . In the next section another perspective on scientists' communication will be in troduced: workplace communication, and especially communication with in the university context. 1.3. Workplace communication and learning, and the doctoral experience Also related to the present one, there are studies of “natu rally or ganized ordi nary activities” (Garfinkel, 2002: 257) – with Harvey Sacks (1972) as pr ecursor – , which ap proach workplace le arning and/or communication . The se studies comprise research within and beyond ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, usually adopting ethnographic methods and close to the participants' po int of view. Yet, t hey are not concerned with talk only, bu t also with embodied practices. As has been already suggested, these stud ies are connected with science and technology studies in th eir search for the "missing what" , as well as in their aim of examining the 'competenc y system' in a particular setting or environment (Lynch, 2015). Special focus here is placed on stud ies add ressing specifically communication in the workplace, on the one hand, and on th ose ado pting approaches si milar to the ones in this project, like multimodality, and the community of practice, or exploring similar settin gs to ours, like laboratories or the univ ersity context, on the other. Dealing with communication and interaction among professionals fro m a multimodal social semiotic pers pective there are some remarkable works like Mondada (2011, 2014) , Zemel, Koschmann and LeBaron (2011) and Bezemer et al . (2013) , which analyse pedagogic interactions between traine r and a trainee surgeons in the operating t heatre. Also remarkable is Charles Goodwin 's (200 0a) study , which – analysing archaeologists ' actions, among others' – underscores how human action, cog nition and talk- in -interaction are coordinated "through the ongoing, changin g deployment of multiple semiotic fields which mutually elabo rate each other" (Goodwin, 2000b: 166) . Here 'se miotic fields' design ate 'signs - in -their- media', that is, signs and the material fo rm they take – to constitu te situated activity systems , or follo wing Ervin Goffman's (1972) understanding of the concept, pattern s of participation in daily face - to -face interactions with others where a joint activity is performed through interdependent actions. What these works have in common is their exploration of communication among individuals who "engage in concerted, embodied, meaningful action, which allows them to achieve professional, collaborative work " (Bezemer et a l. , 2013: 60). Another insightful work dealing with situated n egotiation of meaning is Bezemer et al. (2011) , which analy ses language use in the operating theatre within eph emeral worki ng teams, and Chapter 1: Literature Review 61 concludes that the shared understanding of the situation among participants is more important than a shared standard of names (for surg ery instruments in this case). This may be so in similar situations of instable and diverse working teams, which are increasingly common, as the author argues, in con temporary societies. In situ negotiation of meaning and op en and participatory power structures are sug gested to be key strategies to deal with this new status quo . Especially interesting for the current project are stud ies that investigate aspects of university doctoral trai ning, like learning, socialisation and rese arch identity. In this line o f research, Delamont an d Atkinson (2001) explore ho w do ctoral students in laboratory and field sciences are socialised into their profession and di scipline, and more specifically how they deal with unsuccessful experiments, those with unexpected and/or unintended outcomes. The authors argue that, contrary to undergraduate experiences, whereby experiments are contro lled and monitored so as to produce expected and preferred results, doctoral researchers suffer from a 'reality-shock' when they face these set backs for the first time and struggle to ov ercome th is situation. Success in this context is conceived as th e do ctoral students' capacity to acquire the necessary "tacit, indeterminate skills and knowledge" and at the same time to learn how to "omit the uncertainties, contingencies and perso nal c raft skills" (Delamont & Atkinson, 2001: 88) in public repo rts of th eir experiments. A similar process of 'reality -shock' is described by Crebert (1991) with reference to new gradu ates ent ering the labour market, and thus experiencing the transition from university to the workplace, for the first time. Some relevant discontinuities between these two contexts that these new employees need to manage and adjust to are described, like those between individualism and teamwork, written and oral communication, context independence and contextu alised action, generalising and specialised knowledge, symbolic and practical thin king. A sense of in security and uncertainty among juni or researchers regardin g their professional future has also been identified by Hakala (2009) , who car ried out a qualitative study around researcher identities in two Finish university research centres. Specifically, the interviewees reflected upon the duties, skills and qualities require d to researchers in diverse positio ns. The study shows how research is con ducted by doctoral students mainly, who assume a great deal of responsibilities and e mbrace a "researcher" rather than a "student" identity. PhD students' training is unstructured, and consists in the execution of tasks for which th ey must be autonomous and proactive. In this pr ocess, doctoral students must rely on senior researchers (post docs), who act as de facto sup ervisors for professors and group leaders often prioritise other duties. With reference to the labour market in science, its characteri stics seem to generate insecurity and uncertainty to yo ung researchers, who however become tolerant to this state as a result of their socialisation th roughout the PhD. Chapter 1: Literature Review 62 Still dealing with the impact of doctoral education on students' identity, Holley (2009) studies how engaging in animal research in fluences students' socialisation and their development of an identity matching their perceived scientific community. Students' socialisation in science at this stage, the aut hor argu es, is based on tacit inferences of what skills and actions are most relevant in their field. Studen ts perform their developed 'scientific ident ity' by complying with what they interpret as being the norms, the beliefs and the practices of their discipline. Inner reflections (on emotions and ethics) are al most exclusive of informal pe er groups. The importance of relational interactions, as well as th at of reified textu al artefacts fo r the learning of PhD students is highlighted by Hopwood (2010b ). This scholar explores how learning occurs for doctoral students who engage in other academic activities besides research (teaching, student mentoring and student journal editing). This study shows how learning in this context may take diverse forms: from formal and structured to spontan eous and serendipitous; from intend ed to accidental; from sy mbolic to practical . This implies, as argued by the auth or, that plann ing and design of training program me s aimed at specific outcomes may be problematic. Extending Hopwood's work, Hum (2015) addresses lab doctoral stud ents' experiences from a workplace learning perspective. R elevant findings support the idea that learning is embedded in daily work in an informal manner, and at the same time qu estion the fact that 'soft skills' can be taught formally, since th ey app ear as situated and con t ext dependent ( on specific groups, concerns and practices). As argued by the auth or, success in the PhD dep ends hi ghly on social and phy sical workplace suppo rt, the research pr oject's characteristi cs and con tingencies, quality of supervision (it being timely and informative), and alignm ent of i ndividual interests and contextual affordances. Also remarkable is the finding that although lab work includes team collaboration and communication skills, it may most often occur beyond the research gr oup, since in-group collaboration is limited to logist ic tasks and undergraduate supervision. Throughout the paper, Hum makes interesting sug gestions fo r the i mprovement of the doctoral experience, like setting explicit gu idelines for sup ervision, expectations and problem solvi ng, and guiding the pr ocess, especially the relation ship student -supervisor; fostering lab -mate and extra-lab coll aborations and minimising po tential con flicts; as well as att ending to individual students' career goals and facilitatin g informed choices by means of rotating lab internships . In a similar vein , Cumming (2009) investigates a doctoral student's exp erience, from a case narrative perspective, and compares it with the 'orthodox model' of do ctoral studentsh ip in science, which characterises do ctoral students as individuals who: (1 ) participate in a research group, under the supervisio n of the group leader; (2 ) contrib ute with their work to problems of the research team; (3) gain access to the shared knowledge, resources and expertise of the group; (4 ) conduct laboratory work or fieldwork ; and (5) profit from pre-established group- Chapter 1: Literature Review 63 industry links. Th is study concludes that the doctoral stud ent experience is more complex than it has been usually reported. The participant's experience converged with the orthodox model in some points, lik e (a) her membership an d participation in a research group, (b) her engage ment in both fieldwork and laboratory work, (c) the links of her work with in dustry, and (d) her contribution to and use of shared knowledge. However, it also differed from it in aspects like (a) the negotiation with the group leader of a skills -training curriculum besides her research topic , (b) the possibilities of development of an interdisciplinary approach , (c) the engagement in fieldwork on two scales (in small and in large tea ms, like in international collaborations) , (d) the mainly solitary work the doctorate entailed , (e) the active participation of industry partners in projects, and (f) the multiplicity of potential audiences and interlo cutors that the do ctoral student may have. The author proposes the con cept of 'doctoral enterprise' to refer to this experience since it is broad enough so as to encompass the complexity of this phenomenon. These result s are consistent with the ethnog raphies in laboratories of the 19 70s, which characterised scientific work as “messy” and “contingent” (Lynch , 2015). Underpinning much of the literature on the doctoral experience there is the conception of workplaces as learning environments. In th is line of th ought, Billett (2004) reformulates th is idea and claims for a ne w view on workplaces as learnin g sites that overcomes their tradi tional characterisation as 'informal' learn ing environments – as oppo sed to the 'formal learning' taking place in education al institution s. On the contrary, workplaces are deemed "h ighly structured and intentional" (Billett, 2004: 313); the result of th e intersection of a set of affordances, norms of participation, indi viduals' agency and engagement following their interests, and an env ironment consisting of socially and also intentionally pre -defined (cultural) elements and ot hers negotiated ad hoc . To capture this complex idea, Billett pr op oses the concept of 'workpl ace participatory practices'. This concept summarises the view that "workplaces afford opportunities for learning" and "individ uals elect to engage in work activities and with the guidance provided by the workplace" (Bille tt, 2001b: 209) , which Billett dee ms two 'dual bases' for 'co- participation' at work . It is not however the workplace's affordances per se th at shape individua ls ' parti cipation and learning, but the way indiv iduals "construe what is afforded by the workplace" (Billett, 2002: 457) . Still in the line of though t conceiving workplaces as the site for situated learning (Lave, 1990), Tynjälä (2 008) has e mphasised the need to in tegrate for mal and informal learning in both settings, education al institutions and workplaces. Similarly enough, though in a rather theoretical plane , Fuller et al. (2005) test the validity of Lave and Wenger's (1991) concepts of 'legitimate pe ripheral participation' and 'community of practice' in th e stud y of work place lear ning in a real case. The authors argue that the concepts are valid but need further dev elopment for encompassing the influence of con temporary Chapter 1: Literature Review 64 workplaces' particularities on learning opportunities and constraints. They refuse the idea t hat peripheral participation is the on ly learning method in th e workpl ace and claim f or greater fo cus on 'teaching' events in this context, be these either formal train ing events or unstructured teaching pr actices in the cou rse of the workin g activity . In Fuller et al. (2007), the auth ors o ffer some clues for the th eorising of learning in the workplace. They point towards th e diversity of forms of knowledge creation and use in the workplace and elaborate on an earlier distinction between 'expansive' – deliberately fostering learning opportun ities – and 'restrictive' – limiting participation and learning opportunities – learning environments' features (Fuller & Unwin , 2004) in their study of workplaces as prod uctive systems. According to the authors, the types of learning in which employees engage in the work place depends on diverse variables, such as their personal backg rounds, prior education al experiences and aspiratio ns, their position in the political economy of the workplace, and th e organisation's strategies. Importance is also pl aced on the tools and artefacts mediating learning and knowledge acquisit io n in the work setting. Also dealing with workpl ace learning, Eraut (2 007) proposes an 'episte mology of practice' based on the operationalisation of some e lements of practice, cogni tion and the context to understanding th e learning progress of novice professionals. Th is draws on ear lier work, where 'confidence' was foun d a key aspect of learning in th e work place, a cting in a trian gular relationship with 'challenge' and 'support' (Eraut, 200 0). Other relevant factors were valu e of work, social inclusion, personal agency, sense of choice over work activities, and sense of progress. And related to the context, allocation and structuring of work, Eraut (200 7: 419) contends th at "the majority of work ers' l earning occurs in the workplace itself", bu t formal learning is still an important source as long as it is relevant and well-ti med, and combined with workplace le arning. Other findings of this work are that opportunities to work in teams may enhance wor kplace learning; that work sho uld be moderately challeng ing; and that managers should encourage mutual support among workers and value their learnin g. In fact, Carmeli, Brueller and Dutt on (2009) also high light the importance of relation ships in the workplace for developing a sense of psy chological safety and for learning. Having summarised key finding s in the exploration of professional multimodal communication, of doctoral and research exp eriences, and of workplace learning, the next section will present studies dealin g with aca demic literac ies and academ ic genres, another important facet of scientists' communication. Chapter 1: Literature Review 65 1.4. Academic literacies 15 and academic genres A very significant aspect of researchers' communicative practices and also of their researc h career, which could not be ignored in this literature review, is their production of texts for publication, in journ als, books and conferences (Casanave & Vandrick, 2003 ). This phenomenon has been addressed by scholars in the 'academic literacies ' field – "a specific epistemological and ideological approach to wards academic writing and communication" (Lillis & Scot t, 2007: 13 ) – , which addresses aspects like university students' and scholars' writing practices, academic genres, publishing processes, and gatekeeping in the academ ia, among others. Academic lit eracies theory develop ed in the late 1980s in parallel to the ‘deficit model’ of student writing, challenging the idea th at developing student writin g ability consists in acquiring certain cognitive skills that could be potentially used in any context (Lillis & Scot t, 2007). The academic literacies 'model' thus regards academic lit eracy practices, th at is , re ading and writing, as "constitut[i ng] central processes through which students learn new sub jects and develop their knowledge about new are as of study " (Lea & Street, 1998: 157). Yet, this app roach "shifts the focus from the individual to broader social pr actices" (Badenhorst et al. , 2015: 1) , understanding th at literacy is a cultu ral and social activity . This framework thus focuses on aspects like identity construction, meanin g making, socialisation into co mmunities and acculturation into disciplinary disc ourses, learning, ideologies, power relation s and authority in or throug h texts. It does not only address the ways in which texts reproduce knowledge, but also how th ey construct and reproduce "valid" knowledge. This is acco mplished through the analy sis of diverse academic genres, such as the letter (Bhatia, 1993; Swales, 19 96), the lecture (Thompson, 1994; Lee, 20 09) , the acade mic essay (Creme, 19 96), the research repo r t (Nwogu, 1991) , the dissertation (Paltrid ge & Woodrow, 2012), and the feedback (Lea & Street, 1998). The academic literacies model hence "views the processes invo lved in acquiring appr opriate and effective use s of literacy as more complex, dynamic, n uanced, situated, and involving bo th epistemological issues and social processes..." (Lea & Street, 2006: 369) . For the use of concepts like ap prenticeship , socialisation , scaffolding , novice and expert , this model draws on sociocultural th eory, activity theory and th e community of practice theory, among other sociological frameworks. Being ou r project framed with in university and fo cused on communication and th us on texts, there may be diverse aspe cts of the literature in academic litera cies th at relate to it in one way or another. In particular, our approach here is close to that of 'New Literacy Stu dies' (Stre et, 1984; 15 See Lillis and Scott (2007) for a discussion on the use of the plural form of the word. Chapter 1: Literature Review 66 Gee, 1991; Barton, 1994; Baynham, 1995 ; Lea & Street, 1998) , a paradigm in the study of language and literacy that views literacy p ractices – "particular forms of reading and writing and their meanings to different grou ps of people" (Street, 19 97: 50) – as tied to their social, cultural and economic contexts. Accordingly, these are best exp lored through the observation of naturally-occurring events, and considering the variability of meanings depending on the social- cultural group implicated. Especially insightful for the purposes of this project is Lea and Street's (199 8) critical ethnograph ic perspective of 'academic literacies', which allows us, on the one hand, to transcend the traditional focus on students' written outcomes, and on the other hand, to link researchers' daily commun icative practices to their larger socio-cultural context. An antecedent of the current study is thus Lea and Street's (199 8: 160) "eclectic app roach, merging th e i mportance of understanding both texts and pr actices in the light of staff and student interpretations of univ ersity writin g". In what follows different strands of research in the field of academic literacies that are relevant for the current study are summarised. One such strand in th e field of academic literacies is the one focus ed on the disciplinary and institutional practices that underpin and support students' writing, rather than on writing practices themselves (Lillis, 1999; Lillis & Scott, 2007). Here, institutions are taken as defining boundaries thro ugh procedures and regulations . Another current strand in this field is the study of th e impact on literacies of new information and communication technologies. This is widening the meaning of the term 'literac ies' itself, whi ch in the digital age may not on ly refer to reading and writing but to the presentation and perception of information in many other forms (Lanham, 1995 ). Th ere is con cern among scholars in this area ab out the mismatch between the use of these technol ogies by young people and th e flawed formal training received on the m (Tusting, 2008). Other aspects of interest are the crossing of boundaries, in terms of genres, on the one hand, giving place to hybrid genres, and in terms of disciplines, on the other; as well as the com bination of m ultiple languages, of different rhetoric resource s and of other communicative resources. These may also be aspects to consider in the current study. As has already been mentioned, I will adopt the multimodal perspective (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2001) to broaden my focus from lo gocentric 'academic litera cies ' to the wide range of resources and practices co mprised in the no tion of 'multimodal communication ' and used on a daily basis in scientific research (Archer, 2006; Prince & Ar cher, 2014) . This is not unfamiliar to the field of academic literacies, which has adopted multimodality in the analy sis of 'genre modes' (Lea & Street, 2006), in the exploration of the use of online technologies for teaching and learnin g in a globalised world (Snyder & Beavis, 2004 ), in the reflection on new developments in communication and literacy practices that give place to 'multiliteracies' (Cope & Kalantzi s, 20 00), and in Catherine Kell's (201 1: 61 3) understanding of 'literacy' as 'o ne Chapter 1: Literature Review 73 The statement that there is an increasing and unavoidable tendency toward globali sation of economies and culture worldwid e is also a con tested one. While some auth ors announce the forthcoming “post - national era” (Resina, 2013 ) – when the nation will no longer be the basic unit for economic, political and social activity – , and some of the m claim that the world is und ergoing a re-territorialis ation where some regions are resurging over ot hers (Brenner, 19 99b; MacLeod, 20 01), other specialis ts den y it, arguing that "[t]he resources contro lled by governments have nev er been high er" (Cooper, 2001: 195) and that "fo r most people in their daily life the ‘national’ is still of more significance than the gl obal" (Urry , 1998 : 14). Furthermore, differences across natio ns in con nection with the internationalisation trend have been hi ghlighted: "there is a marked difference between developing and indu strialised regions of th e world in the rationales for pu rsuing internationalization strategies" (Egron -Polak, 2011 : 2) . In light of the above- refer enced literature, it could be argued that the term ‘globali s ation’ is naming a shift of paradigm, a de facto pheno menon which implies changes in the dynamics of the national era. The e mergence and pr olife ration of discourses of the “po st - ”: post - structuralism, po st-modernism, po st-social, post- national, post -traditional, evidence this fact. In line with th e first of these po st-con cepts, “po st - structuralism”, the tendency is the questioning of traditionally established e ntities and catego ries, and their fragmentation so that they can be analysed internally. The focus is less and less on the dynamics of homogeneous entities – e.g. society, nations, etc. – and more on the heterogeneous behaviours of their compon ents – e.g. communities, institutions, authorities, etc. As Brenner (1999a: 69) puts forward: Under th ese circu mstances, the image of global social space as a co mplex mosaic of superimposed and interpenetrating nodes, levels, scales, and morpholog ies has become more appropriate than the tradi tional Cartesian model of homogen eous, interlinked blocks of territory associated with th e modern interstate system . In th is sense, glob alisation cannot be considered to be as glob al as the term itself sug gests, but multi-layered and diverse in its scope and depth. It may be affecting differen tly diverse do mains of (a) society, including culture (through the increasing flow of people and info rmation), knowledge (through far-reaching, more popular communication media), politics (through the rising influence of the econo mic powers) and economy (by the overarching power of econo mic institutions over fiscal go vernmental authorities) , as well as (b) social agents, includ ing people, institutions, corporations, org ani sations and governments. Diverse approaches and perspectives on this phenomenon lead to different discourses and conclusio ns: culturally, abo ut the tendency toward cultu ral homogeni sation or diversity ; economically, about th e difference between core and peripheral regions; socially, about new ty pes of relations and grou p forms; geograph ically, Chapter 1: Literature Review 74 about the restructuring of urban and rural regions, abo ut territorial fix ity or erosion; among ot her issues. Voices arou nd these issues navigate between polari sation and com bination of a priori contrasting positions . And in fact, though not completely global, globali sation is indeed affecting many aspects and dynamics of ou r understanding of the world we live in and of our historical moment. Brenner’s (1999a) words abo ve seem t o be contrasting the no tion of internationalisation as th e interaction among sup posedly homogeneous entities, the nations, with glob ali sation, un derstood as an u mbrella framework fo r diverse kinds of links among different types of entit ies. Be th is opposition homogeneity -heterogeneity accurate o r not, when defining and contrasting internationalisation and globalisation the debate seems to lie mainly around the significance of the national con text for these relation s. Far from bein g a clear -cut fact, the most agreed -up on conclusion on this issue is the existing diversity of interpretations and opinions, maybe due to the many aspects that th ese two concepts encompass. Both, detractor s and adv ocates, preferri ng either of these terms, need to be aware of such complexity a nd consider the multifaceted potential effects of these phenomena. For those taking part in debates on internationalisation and/or globalisation, it should be considere d that any opinion s for or against these process es - outcomes regarded as absolute forces might stand on ideological stances rather than on proven facts. Given the uncertainty around these phenomena, what will be my concern here is to contribute to th e claim about the need for new representation s, conceptualisations, analytical tools and descriptions for the exploration of i nternationalisation and glob alisation, focusing concretely on those aspects related to European higher education , science and communicati on. 1.5.2 The Internationalisation of Higher Education Similar to the case of ‘internationalisation’ in social, economic and cultural terms , the multiplicity of fundamentally different definitions and uses attributed to the concept ‘internationalisation of higher education ’ con tribute to th e creation of a vague and potentially misleading i dea of its meaning. In th is regard, effort s have been made to denounce the traditional “misconceptions” (De Wit, 2011b) and the “myths” (Knight, 2011) surrounding this notion, which has incon sistently been defined an d characterised to the point that it has beco me "a catchall phrase " th at is " losing its meaning and direction" (Knight, 2011: 14) . This confusion might be linked to the origin of the term ‘internatio nalisation’ in th is context , which has been borrowed by different stakeholders from the field of bu siness management, and only recently imported into the field of high er education (Delgado-Márquez et al. , 2011) . Consequently, ‘internationalisation’ can be seen as a proc ess that private companies undergo to adapt to competition in the global market, and similarly , as a script for universities, which, in their Chapter 1: Literature Review 75 process of privatisation, fostered by the economic crisis (OECD, 2014), are increasin gly behaving like transnational private co rporations in their struggl e to survive in the ‘g lobal knowledge econo my’ (Readin gs, 1996; Tilak, 2011) . This process is taking root so deeply that it has been deemed the next university mission – after those of teaching, research, nationalisation, democratisation and publ ic service (Scott, 2006). The multiplicity of involved agents – international relations officers, programme managers, international credential evaluators, research and industrial liaison officers, study abro ad a nd foreign student advisers, language experts (Callan, 1998: 54) – may also account for the different approaches and conno tations attached to this term. Jane Knight (1994, 1997 ) made a remarkable c ontribution to this issue by identify ing four types of approaches to the Io HE, which have been and are still chosen and/or combined by the different stakeholders. The ‘activity approach’ has been th e most common, especially in the 1970s and early 1980s, and refers to internationalisation as a set of s pecific activi ties or prog rammes implemented in an organ isation or institution, such as academic mobility and curriculum development. A ty pical criticism to this approach is that it offers a fragmented picture of internationalisation as a set of un connecte d, purposeless initiativ es. The ‘co mpetency approach’ focuses on the ou tcomes in ter ms of hu man development, for which internationalisation should aim at the development of certain competencies, skills, knowledge and values by students and staff. This is t he favourite approach for the economic sector, since it is based on the idea that these competencies s hould fulfil the demands of the labour market. The ‘ethos approach’ (or ‘organisational app roach’) is based on the creation of a belief sy stem and a cultu re around the concept of i nternationalisation to suppor t a set of principles and go als. Finally , the ‘process approach’ views internationalisation as the integration of an intercultural or an international di mension into academic progra mmes, guiding policies and procedures of the institution. Fo llowing th is appro ach, th e internatio nal dimension includes the following requirements: ( 1) it must be part of the institutio n’s mission statemen t, policies, planning and quality review sy stems; (2 ) it must be integr ated into the primary functions of teaching, learning and research; and (3 ) internationalisation activities must be wel l coordinated (Knight, 199 7). In vi ew of the diversity of app roaches to the IoHE, the multiplicity of definitions available in the literature beco mes understandable . In order to illustrate this diversity, I present a selection of definitions from the related literature. In accordance with the activity a pp roach, Van Damme (2001) defines the ‘internationalisation of high er education’ as "the activities of higher education institutions, often sup ported or framed by multilateral agree ments or programs, to expand their reach over national borders" (Van D amme, 2001: 417) . Altbach et al. (2 009) offer a definition which combines the activity and th e process approach: "Internationalization is Chapter 1: Literature Review 76 defined as the variety of policies and programs that universities and governments i mplement to respond to globalisation . These typi cally include sending students to study abroad, setting up a branch campus overseas, or engaging in some type of inter -institutional partnership" (Altbach et al. , 2009: iv). A mainly process-oriented definition is the one preferred by De Wit (2011b ): "Internationalization is a process to in troduce intercultural, international, and global dimensions in hi gher education; to improve the goals, functions, and deliv ery of higher education; and thus to upgrade the quality of education and research" (De Wit, 2011b: 7). Similarly , Knig ht herself defines it as follows: "In ternationalization at the national/sector/ institutional levels is the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global d imension into the pu rpose, functions o r delivery of higher education at the institutional and national levels" (Kni ght, 2008: 21) . Therefore, according to this small s ample of definitio ns , ‘internatio nalisation’ could be either “a process”, “activities” or a set of “polici es and programs”; and, follo wing other auth ors, it could refer to an educational valu e, a social change, or a combination of them (Callan, 1 998). Despite the difficulties in achieving a uni fied definition for the concept, Knight emphasises the importance of reaching “a co mmon un derstanding of the term” so that it is useful as well as th e need for increased interest on its study: "What is surprising is th e small number of academics and policy makers who are studying the nuances and evolu tion of th e term, gi ven the current changes and challenges" (Knight, 2005: 11). In order to make an asset out of this richness, researchers and any other stakeholders in HE should make explicit what their perspective and interests are, and avoid the invisibilisation of responsible agent s and their aims, often blurred behind the the abstraction of semantically collective categories such as ‘governments’ and ‘(higher education) institu tions’. In deed, Brandenburg and De Wit ( 2011) observe that the IoH E is nowaday s being used as self-legiti mising and as a goal in itself, with out an apparent need for its justification. In this respect, Knight and De Wit (1995) and Knight (1 997) identified diverse rationales for internationalisation, which still pr evail in curren t discou rses on the IoHE. The importan ce o f digging into these sometimes tacit or even hidden motivations lies, as Knight and De Wit point out, in the fact that " they form the basis of the incentives for internationalisation that are perceived by stakeholders, and the justifications that are m ade internally and externally " (Knight & De Wit, 1995: 10 ). Accordi ng to these scholars, there are po litical ratio nales like (a) the vi ew of educational cooperation as a diplomatic instrument for improving a nation’s foreign po licy, as an alternative means of commun ication between c ountries. Similarly, the IoHE can be seen as (b) an opportunity for promoting the national identity abroad or enhancing the nation’s pr estige internationally. Closer to an economic rationale, the IoHE can be regarded as (c) an investment in future political and economic relations, by means of international students, who are seen as Chapter 1: Literature Review 77 potential decision -makers of the future. More pu rely economic-oriented rationales defend that (d) internationalisation rai ses a country’s competitiveness thro ugh the dev elopment of technology and scientific research; (e ) it solves the (suppo sedly) increasing demand in the labour market of gr aduates with “internation al profiles” who can manage in th e global market; (f) it is a source of revenue for institutions and national economi es, e specially through the higher tuition fees of overseas students; and (g) the stimulation of study abroad is a resource for governments who cannot face the flaws and deficiencies of their own HE facilities. Academic - type rationales are those which view internatio nalisation as (h ) a means for academic excellence, t hrough the achievement o f in ternational quality standards; and/or (i) a strategy to strengthen the institu tion’s structures, activities and human, technical or management infrastructures (namely “institutio n - building”), by acquiring resources that could not be found locally through international cooperation. Finally, cultural -education al-social rationales can focus either (j) on the nation, by seeking th e preservation, the respect for and the pro motion of national cultural and moral values and their export; (k) on the individual, for which internationalisation is regard ed as an important value for the in dividual’s develop ment itself, or a means for improving the indi vidual’s intercultural and comm unicational skills; or (l) on the institution, for which th e international di mension is integrated into research and teaching to provide resources for critical thinking and inquiry, and raise awareness and understanding of th e claimed in terdependence among nations and ot her concomitant phenomena. Knight (2008) suggests that the current tendency is the co mbination of such rationales in ways that make it difficult to establish a clear-cut distinction among categories (economic, political, etc.) and levels (national, institutional, individual) [f or more details about the rationales driving the IoHE, see Knight & De Wit (1 995); and Knight (1997, 2004, 2005, 2008 )]. As Kn ight and De Wit (1995) po int ou t, such rationales might be overlapping, multi -levelled, combined and evolving across time, depending on the context and th e stakehold ers’ aims. But the current tendency involves mainly econo mic and cultural ratio nales, such as attract ing foreign ( fu ll -fee pay ing ) students and the creation of a co mmon culture – e.g. in Europe. Far from bein g neutral, the rationale follo wed and the arguments used to pu rsue and support the IoHE may depend on the interests of th e implicated agents. For this reason, Knight (1997) supplies a list of possible involved stakeholders, classified in three sectors: the government (e.g. ministries or departments of education, culture, economic, development, trade, science and technolgy, and foreign affairs agencies), the educatio n (e.g. institutio ns, such as colle ges, universities and institutes, research and discipline groups, professional associations, and students and staff), and the private sector (e.g. diverse ki nds of companies dependi ng on the nature of their products or serv ices, their size, and their geograph ical involvement). Also at the Chapter 1: Literature Review 78 supranational level there are organi sations and treaties supporting the IoHE, like the EU's European Research Area [see chapter 4]. In the new era of the university -business (Nerad & Evans, 2014), the rhetorics of internationalisation are used as a marketing tool to generate vi sibility and prestige. The 'international' label is of ten perceived as a hall mark of 'quality ' and thus acts as a spu r that attracts reven ues: "in this competition for th e educationa l dollar, international reputation and university rankings are keys to success" (Nerad & Ev ans, 2014 : 209) . For this reason, a common claim in the literature is the demand for quality assurance; the env isaging of quality as the main goal of the Io HE (Van Dam me, 20 01; Brand enburg & De Wit, 20 10), which, as these latter auth ors remark, is t hreaten ed : "[i]nternationalization has become a synony m of “doing good,” and people are less into questioning its effectiveness and essential nature: an instrument to improve th e quality of education or research" (Brandenburg & De Wit, 201 0 : 16 ). There is thus the need for monitoring it at all levels for "t he sustainability, credibility, and valu e of internationalization’s contribution to higher edu cation" (Kni ght, 2001: 242). In th is sense, for instance, institutional autonomy, diversification and transparency hav e been pointed at as signs of quality of HE institutions (Van Vught, 2009 ). Resuming the discussion of the differences and commonalities of the terms ‘internationalisation’ and ‘globali s ation’, as regards higher education in this case, while some scholars state th at the ter m ‘globali s ation ’ is displacing ‘internationalisat ion’ due to its connotations of “modernity” and “volatility” (Scott, 20 00: 4) , others observe that th e opposition (inter)national/global has often been overlooked and the term ‘internationalisation’ has been preferred ov er the latter in the “public deb ate” on higher education (Teichler, 2004: 23 ) . According to this view, th e ‘in ternationalisation of higher education’ is a "g rowing interdependence and interconnectedness of modern institutions" which "obliges HE institutions to face many new challenges, includ ing the internationalisation of knowledge and means" (Kerklaan et al. , 2008: 241) . In this sense, th e concept of the IoHE does not necessarily stress the existence of borders: Rather, th e ter m tends to be used for any supra -regional phenomenon related to higher education (anything which seems to take world -wide) and/or anything on a global scale related to hi gher education characterised by market and competition (notably international competition for status and reputation as well as commercial knowledge transfer across borders). (Teichler, 2004: 23) Other authors associate th e notion of ‘globali s ation’ in the context of HE to “competitiveness ”, while ‘internatio nalisation’ and ‘Europeanisation’ have been found to be more related to discourses of “collabor ation” (Huisman & Van der Wende, 2 004). As Brandenbur g and De Wit Chapter 1: Literature Review 79 (2011: 16) reflect, in some sectors " [i]nternation alization is claimed to be the last stand for humanistic ideas again st the world of pure economic benefits allegedly represented by th e term globalization". Finally, some specialists, like Altbach and Knight (2007), distinguish between "the economic, political, and societal forces pushing 21st century higher education toward greater intern ational involvement" (Altbach & Knight, 2007: 290) , namely ‘glo balisation’, and "the policies and practices undertak en by academic systems and institutions — and even individuals — to cope with the global academic environment " (Altbach & Knight , 2007: 290) , i.e. ‘internatio nalisation’. In this context, it is imperious to consider the “external forces” that, as Altbach and Knig ht ( 2007) noted, are pushing HE institution s towards internationalisation. According to this distinction, "[g]lobalization may be unalterable, but internationalization involves many choices " (Altbach & Knight, 200 7: 291) . Despite this polyphony in the literature, it is stil l to be proven whether the preference between the terms ‘internatio nal’/’glob al’ in the context of HE is simply arbitrary or might respond to issues of alignment and strategy. Research in this sense is needed. Alth ough I acknowledge the increasing use of both terms interchan geably in the literatu re – as pointed out by Scott (2000), among others – , fo r the purposes of this project , the distinction between ‘globali s ation ’ -external forces and ‘internationalisatio n’ -integration process (by HE institutions) seems the most suitable one. For the sake of sim plifying things and avoiding confusion, I will choose the process approach. Therefore, I will use the term ‘ internationalisation ’ as a “pro cess” of integration of the international dimension into diverse levels of HE in stitutions , and other terms, such as “internationalisation activities” and “internationalisatio n strategies” , in other senses, as will be explained in the next subsection. The IoHE will be deemed here a process trig gered by agents and their interests, and imposed by means of ‘internationalis ation policies’ . 1.5.3 Form, characteristics, trends and intervening factors in the IoHE As part of an institu tion’s strategic plan, ‘internationalisation’ has adopted many forms, whi ch have also evo lved from its first in troduction into higher edu cation t o ou r day s: from changes in the curriculum or mobility of students and staff – the “best kn own form” (Van Damme, 200 1 : 418 ) – , to the cross-border delivery of education, which has been gaining relevance in the last decade (De Wit, 2011a) . Some auth ors have identified new trend s in the IoHE con sidering th e strategies and instruments used by institutions. In this line, Van Da mme (2 001) has distinguished between ‘traditional’ internationalisat ion, mainly based on staff and student mobility, and ‘current’ internationalisation, more focused on exporting education, bu ilding up transnational networks, the delivery of virtual training, and the harmonisation of HE systems (e.g. credits and degree recognition). Similarly, Huisman and Van der Wend e (2004; 2 005) have Chapter 1: Literature Review 80 recognised the beginning of a ‘new ph ase’ in the Io HE, clai ming that "[n]o longer is it mainly about stud ent and staff mobility, th ough these re main important. Rat her as a key activity in the knowledge society HE is becoming a key player in a wide range of international relations policies" (Huis man & Van der Wende, 2004: 273) . According to them, and as has been already suggested, this new scenario would be characterised by "the trend towards more economically oriented rationales for internatio nalisation " (Huisman & Van der Wend e, 2004: 273), led in Europe by the UK, with the aim of either improving the international competitiveness of the national economy or that of the HE sect or as a whole. Indeed, the activities implemented by higher education institutions in face of internationalisation (e.g m obility programmes, English -medium courses, distance education, etc.) appear as the “peak of the iceberg”, bei ng th ese the most visible part of in ternationalisation policies. Nonetheless, underly ing th em there are many elements – drivers, shapers and constraints – that are usually overlooked. Huisman and Van der Wende (2005) indicate that in their processes of profile -building and positioning in the education market, HE institu tions seek one or a combination of four main goals , which I would simplify into two goals and three reference frameworks. The two go als would be (a ) to enhance their reputation , and /or (b ) to survive in the education market . And the three reference frameworks: (1 ) the glob al education market, (2 ) the EU or a cross-border regio n, and/or (3 ) the national or the local context. Furthermore, these auth ors identify three ty pes of factors in fluencing the strategies adopted to reach these goals: (a) ‘regu latory factors’ – legal, financial, ad ministrative contexts and attempts to harmonise qualification fra meworks; (b) ‘normative factors’ – in stitutional auto nomy, a nd depending on whether HE is seen as a publ ic service or a priv ate good; (c) ‘cultural -cognitive factors’ – characteristics of the disciplines and subject areas, the language, the culture, the region and historical links. Besides th ese factors, the strategies are defined according to the institution’s tradition, history and mission, but ultimately rely upon th e decisions of the academics who will put into practice the internatio nalisation activities. According to Knight and De Wit (1995) and Knight (1997), in the process approach to the IoHE – the on e I will also adopt in the current study – there are two types of strategies traditionally implemented by HE institutions managers to “internationalise” th e institu tion 19 : (a) prog ramme strategies and (b) organisatio nal strategies. Programme strategies refer to those activities and actions "related to th e teaching, lea rning, training, research, advisi ng or supporting activities of 19 ‘ Internationali sation strategies ’ will be understood her e as those planned courses of action with specific aims, which consist of internationalisati on activities and other measures that need to be implem ent ed within a given t imeframe. Chapter 1: Literature Review 81 the in stitution both at home and offshore " (Knight, 1997: 14) . The author identifies the following four main categories of pr ogramme strategies: ( 1 ) “acade mic programmes” consist ing of a wide rang e of activities th at according to Knight (1997) have the main aim of integrating an international and/or intercultural dimension into the curriculum; (2 ) “research and scholarly collaboration” , which includes initiatives related to the integration of the international/intercultural dimension into the nature, the methodology, th e actors and/or the distribution of research; (3 ) “extra -curricular activitie s”, those th at bring locals and foreign students together providing a context for interaction besides the academic environment; and finally, (4 ) “external relations and services” rang ing fro m "internal development activities and bilateral cooperation agreements between institutions " to "commercial activ ities like contrac t training and the export of educational products and services to in ternational markets " (Knigh t, 1997: 16). Knight lists also several “ formal ” organisation al strategies – "policies, procedures, systems and supporting infrastructures which facilitate and sustain the international dimension of the university or college" (Knight, 1997: 14) – , which contribute to the institutionalisation of the internationalisation d imension throug h its integration in to "the institution’s mission statement, planning and review systems, policies and procedures, and hi ring and promotion systems" (Knight, 1997: 16). The author classifies organisational strategies into th e following four main categories: (a) governance, (b ) operations, (c) suppo rt services and (d) hu man resource development. See Knig ht (1997: 16 -17) for examples of all formal strategies. As noted by this specialist, though , the strategies cited here are of a “for mal” ki nd, and th ere are some other “i nformal” aspects of i nternationalisation strategies wor th taking into consideration when studying the IoHE. These are "the patterns of power and influence, personal views of organisational and individual co mpetencies, patterns a nd groupings of interpersonal relation s and co mmunication sy stems" (Kni ght, 19 97: 17) . Co mmunication is th erefore an in formal aspect of the IoHE, mostly under-researched in relation to this phenomenon. This study hence attempts to contribute to this gap in the literature . Although communication is an under -explored element within the field of the Io HE, it is an implicit aspect of many internationalisation activities. It is somehow pr esent in activities lik e student and staff mobility, export of academic systems and cultures, cross -bo rder programme delivery, international netwo rking, in ternational credi t recogni tion and transfer, an d curriculum internationalisation, amon g others. And specifically, scientists ' communication may be present in internationalisation activities like research cooperation , cross-border researcher internship , international export of lab cultu re, international joint projects, in ternational work placements, Chapter 1: Literature Review 82 etc. Fu rthermore, the effects of globalisation and HE institu tions’ ‘ in ternationalisation policies ’ on science ha ve lo ng been documented: the consolidation of an international labour market for scientists, th e predominance of En glish as the “lang uage of science”, the formation of multinational research teams and of joint cross-natio nal projects, and the cross -border communication through international conferences and internatio nal publications, among others. These have as a result new scenarios with inevitable implications for scientif ic communication. In fact, international communication is a basic premise attached nowadays to successful researchers: "Th ey must be active actors within the webs, no des, and spe cialized networks and centers of strategic scientific and technological knowledge and info rmation th at extend globally across intern ational communication chann els" (Maheu et al. , 2014: 16 8) . However, besides the recognised attraction force of English-speaking countries, in part due to th e presence of this worldwide lingua franca, the effects of communicatio n on the IoHE and vice versa remains unclear. And this is in fact the ultimate aim o f the current research pr oject: to unveil in what ways the IoHE is influencing scientists' communication in two multinational research grou ps , in Catalonia in this case. In th is chapter , literature coming from diverse areas of study but with the common gro und of addressing scienti sts' communication and/or the IoHE has been presented. From the sociolo gy of science, to professional communication, through academic literacies and research on the internationalisation of high er education and the globalisation of science, it has been an exhaustive trip throughout insigh tful works that frame the current project in different ways and which offer interesting points to support the present study . Here, w e have shown how communication is present in scientists' daily endeavour i n many different ways. Scientists' communication plays an important role in their daily informal and for mal interpersonal interactions in the workplace, in their collective construction of scientific facts, in the rhetoric of scientific discourse (t hat fosters its mystification, authority and imposition), in scientists' design of (multimodal) scientific pr esentations, in their si mplification of their activity and observations, in th e standardi sed procedures th ey fo llow, as well as in the artifacts th ey use, in their struggle to position themselves in the scientific world, in their publishing practices, and in their use of linguae francae (n ot only English), among many o ther practices and sites. We hav e also made an effort to identify loci of interaction between scientists' communication and the Io HE, which remains a rather unexplored issue. Examples of these are the generali sation of protocols and objects, the imposition of standards and of evaluation systems, the international circulation of scientific objects, lab artifacts, scientific discourses and debates, the imposition of discourse sty les from centr al scientists t o perip heral scientists , the raise of 'literacy brokers' i n Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework 89 influenced applied linguistics: the social and political engagement; th e critical stance towards social, political and cultural issues; an ethical concern in justice; the questioning of absolute 'truths' and of other 'stabilities' and systems; and the r ejection of the no tion of 'progress'. In this sense, I believe that all po licies and politics should be (and actually are) based on social processes, which enco mpass moral discussions. This idea is very well des cribed by Amitai Etzioni in the following excerpt: One main re ason a line should be drawn between the social and the political is that there are no political deliberations, decisio ns, or actions that do not contain a moral dimens ion. (...) After all is said and done, there can be little doubt that (a) aside from ratio nal deliberations, said to take place with in legislati ve bodies and courts and town meetings, in political bodies, there are sign ificant distinct social processes - moral dialogues - that le ad to new or reformulated shared moral understandings; (b ) these processes are often best advanced in the social realm, although they can also occur within the political one, and their conclusio ns often have profound political implications. (...) Although formation and reformation of power relations are at the core of the political, most of its decisions have a moral dimension. (Etzioni , 2004: 151 - 159) Furthermore, my scepticis m on objectivity in social and human science s, as well as this very same act of unveiling my own value positions with the aim of making science more honest and democratic, may also be s uggestive of poststru cturalist ideas (see Agger, 1991). This ideological positioning may be more or less explicitly present in my interpretation of the data, as well as in diverse aspects of the research pr oject's design. Having summarised here not only 'where I come from' as a researcher, bu t also 'where I a m going' as such, in the following sections I will describe the theoretical approaches that configure the theoretical framework of this project. This responds to th e second main objective of this thesis: designing and prov ing a suitable theoretical framewo rk to study the impact of the IoHE on scientists’ communication, holistically. What I prop ose is an articulated theoretica l framework composed of three theoretical layers, coinciding with Fairclough's (1992) three- dimensional model, and a cross-sectional approach wh ich may affect all layers [see figu re 1]. in a position to subvert the order of things, thwarting it from within, is recognised, it is but a short step to reject the existence of all pre-ordained, foundationalist, essentialist and totalising conceptual schemes" (Chapman & Routledge, 2009: 170 -172). Although some of them hav e never shown explicit adscription to poststructuralism, authors that have been attributed such are Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, Judith B utler, Jacques Lacan, Jean Baudrill ard, and Julia Kristeva. Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework 90 Figure 1: The articulated theoretical framework T e xture (te xt f orm) MMSS Communication practices E oC CoP Social/cultural practices Habitus, capital, field (Bourdieu) (social) s tructure & ag ency (Giddens) CDA ideol ogy & power The first layer, th at of th e micro di mension of discourse and thus of analysis – what Fairclough (1992) defines as 'texture' or text form – , will rely mainly on mult imodal social semiotics (MMSS) (Kress, 2010 ). The second lay er, which I name 'meso' level/dimension and coincides with Fairclough's second dimension, concerning the produ ction, distribution and consumption of texts, is in itself chiefly articulated by two approaches: the ethn ography of communication (EoC) and the community of practice (CoP ). The for mer may support those a spects of inquiry more strictly related with communi cation per se and the latter may aid the study of related socio-cultural issues at this middle level. This layer may also act as a link between th e other two layers and is the main focus of the present project, which centres on th e communication of a middle-level social aggregate, as is the research grou p. The third layer concerns what Fairclough (1992) calls macro dimension , which addresses the 'grand' disc ourses or broader socio-cultural issues bey ond the research group, in this case (e.g. the institution , the national scientific system, in ternational research, glob al science). Sin ce this level is beyon d the scope of this study but inextricable from the other two, it will be approached, though less prominently, to make reference to such macro issues by usi ng concepts from Bourdieu's (1977) theory of practice and Giddens' (1984) structuration theory . Finally, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework 91 is the lens through which all layers will be approached, focusing on ideological stances and power relations across issues and topics. These diverse theories may prov ide the concepts and terminology necessary to describe an d interpret the observed phenomena, which has been claimed to be indispensable in social research: An adequate vocabulary is important because the concepts w e use to make sense of the world direct both our perception and our actions. We pay attention to what we expect to see, we hear what we c an place in our understand ing, and we act according to our world views. (Wenger, 1998: 8 ) And this is in fact the purpose of the current chapter: to present and describe the conceptual tools necessary for the analy sis of communication in the scientific research tea m. To this end, the theoretical app roaches chosen appear to be not only effective, but also highly compatible, as will be argued in the last section of this chapter. The nex t section will describe the theoretical and ideological underpinnings of the cross -sectional approach adopted here, that is Critical Discourse Analysis . 2.2. Cross-sectional Critical Discourse Analysis and the macro dimension Following the critical approach to social issues I referred to above, and con ceiving 'discourse' a s a main means for the ana lysis of such issues, I will ado pt in the present stu dy the Critical Discourse Analysis approach, which wil l affect, as I said, not only the analysis of the data, but also the whole methodology o f the present study. Unlike what might be deduced fro m it s no menclature, Critical Discourse Analysis , or otherwise named Critical Discourse Studies (CDS), is not a mere method of (qualitative) data analysis no r a theory (Wodak & Meyer, 2009), but rather a 'perspective' or a research 'approach' that re lates language and /or communication with discourse and with social and political struc tures (Fairclough, 1995) ; or in Ruth Wodak's words: "CDA aims to investigate critically social inequality as it is expressed, signalled, constitu ted, legitimized and so on by language use (or in discourse)" (Wodak, 2001: 2) . It differs from Discourse Stu dies in CDA's "constitutive problem-oriented, interdisciplinary approach" (Wodak & Meyer, 2009: 1) . In adopting this approach, th e researcher gi ves exp ress relevance to notio ns such as power, resistance, strug gle, hierarchy and ideology , and interprets the data according to these. In this sense, CDA is "more akin to a reperto ire of political, episte mic stances" (Luke, 2002: 97). Embracing CDA, thus, implies the fact of believ ing in some as sumptions about discourse and power: "that discourse is structured by dominance; that every discourse is hi storically pr oduced and interpreted, that is, it is situated in time and space; and that do minance structures are legitimised by ideologies of Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework 92 powerful gr oups" (Wodak, 2001: 3) . Therefore, in the study of social processes and structures, the context and thus the historical di mension − how agents and texts relate t o contemporary such structures and processes − are in dispensable (M eyer, 2001 ). As a result, elements such as culture, society and ideology need to be considered; and this necessarily entails an interdisciplinary approach (Wodak & Mey er, 2009). Although some of the pri nciples of CDA ar e drawn on Critical Th eory of the Frankfur t School, CDA is rooted in Critical Linguistics (CL), an approach to texts and discourse developed in the 1970s and 1980s at the University of East Anglia by Roger Fo wler, Rob ert Hodge, Tony Tr ew and Gunther Kress (see Fowler et al. , 1979; Hodge & Kress, 1979), f or which Halliday's systemic functio nal lin guistics (e.g. Halliday , 1973) was the main theoretical framework for text analysis (Faircloug h, 1992; Van Dijk, 200 1). CL viewed texts as the realisation of social processes, thus having an ideological and po litical role in their con text (Fairclough, 1995) . However, Nor man Fairclough (1 992) criticises, on the on e hand, CL's excessive focus on text as a pr oduct over the pr ocesses of production and interpretation of texts; and, on the ot her hand, its disregard of discourse as a domain of social struggle, and of change in discourse as a 'dimension' of social and cultural chang e. Yet, both CL and CDA coin cide in regardin g discourses as ideologi cal, and signs as non -arbitrary (Wodak, 2001) . Due to the wide diversity of definitio ns in the literature of the main con cepts of CDA, as w ell as the pletho ra of methodologies used in CDA studies, Ruth W odak and Michael Meyer suggest "using the no tion of a ‘school’ fo r CDA, or of a programme, wh ich many researchers fi nd useful and to which they can relate" (Wodak & Mey er, 2009: 5). Indeed, the label 'CDA' comprises studies of very diverse natu re, which share common characteris tic s: "interests in de -mystifying ideologies and po wer thro ugh the systematic and retroductable investigation of semiotic data (written, spoken or visual). CDA researchers also attempt to make their ow n positions and interests explicit while ret aining thei r respective sci entific methodolo gies and while remaining self-reflective of their own research process." (Wodak & Meyer, 2009: 3) . In this sense, CDA implies actively seeking a state of op enness and sincerity ; in the same way as the researcher tries to unveil the underlying st ructures and processes of her research object, she intend s to keep the research process as open as possib le. The relationship between CDA and linguistics is given by the relationship between lang uage (or semiotic compositions) and social p henomena. In Alla n Luke's words: CDA involves a principled and transparent shunting back and forth between the microanalysis of texts using varied tools of linguistic, Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework 93 semiotic, and literary analysis and th e macroanaly sis of social for mations, institutions, and power rela tions that these texts index and con struct. If there is a generalizable approach to CDA, then, it is this orchestrated and recursiv e analy tic movement between text and context. (Luke, 2002: 100) Regarding language and /or communicative resources as a materialisation of ideologies and social interact ion, many CDA studies often investigate linguistic uses and, thus, use lingu istic categories in their analyses, many of which come fro m systemic functional linguistics (Halliday, 1961) . The use of pronouns, deix is, verbal tense, mode and time, and transitivity, to name on ly a few, are very often taken into con sideration for data analysis. Indeed, Fairclough, in his work Discourse and Social Change (1992) , develops an analytical framewo rk for the interconnections between lang uage, discourse practices and social and political issues such as power and ideology. In particular, this author develops a three -dimensional framework for CDA which I find very inspiring an d thus useful for th e present study. It consists in the distinction and superposition of three levels of analysis: (1) textual analysis (text ) , (2 ) analysis of discursive practices and 'orders of discourse' (d iscourse practice), and (3) analysis of socio -cultural practices (cu lture). The first level of analy sis consists in focusing on 'texts' as ob jects of analysis, being these "ex traordinarily sensitive indicators of socio -cultural pr ocesses, relation s and change" (Fairclough, 1995: 4), and basing their analysis on the study of 'texture' − whi ch includes not only the content, bu t also the form and organisation of texts. The second level of analysis would entail analysing th e processes of text production, distribut ion and con sumption. And the third level would involve regardin g discursive event s as instance s of socio -cultural practice. While CDA’s tradition is heavily theory laden, CDA studies, as has be en pointed out, use very diverse theories. Among the di verse theoretical levels traditionally reached in CDA -orient ed research: epi stemology, general social theory, middle -rang e theories, micro-sociological theories, socio -psychological theories, discourse theories and li nguistic theories (Wodak & Meyer, 2009), the present research study seeks to embrace a wide range of such levels, from communication theorisation – in order to understand and explain specific rules of interaction – , to the meso-sociolo gical – to elucidate the soci al order of a particular social group or community – , and to macro-level theorisation – tackling issues related to a wider socio -political context, such as education and internationalisation, to finally trace some links with other social issues, such as global science and power structures in the production of knowled ge, or o therwise link the micro and the macro. Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework 94 Before moving on to summarising the three theories mentioned , in the following sub sections I will define some main concepts related to CDA research, as will be understood and used in the present study: discou rse and discourse analysis (subsection 2.2.1) ; t ext , genre , intertextua lity and interdiscursivity (subs ection 2. 2.2); power (asymmetries) and ideology (subsection 2.2.3); and structure and ag ency (subsection 2.2.4). 2.2.1. Discourse and disco urse analysis 'Discourse' h as been diffe rently defined depending on the theoretical per spective taken (e.g. sociocognitive approach, historical approach, etc.) and to the intellectual tradition followed. These divers e defin itions can be summarised in the following three categories: "(1) anything beyond the sentence, (2) language use, and (3) a broader range of social practice that includes nonlinguistic and no nspecific instances of language" (Schiffrin, Tannen, & Ha milton, 2003 : 1) . The defin ition that best suits my own understand ing of discourse and that is the most functional definition for the pu rposes of the present research study is the fo llowing: discou rses are "relatively stable uses of lang uage serving the or gani sation and structu ring of social life" (Wodak & Meyer, 2009: 6). However, I look at this notion from a rather "multimodal" 34 perspective than the one reflected in Wodak and Meyer's defi nition. I share Jan Blo mmaert's (2005: 3) belief that discourse is "langu age- in -action" and "comprises all forms of meaningful semiotic human activity seen in connection with social, cultural, and historical patterns and developments of use"; an d that "[w]hat is tradi tionally understood by lan guage is but one manifestation of it" . I could no t agree more with Bl ommaert's claim that "all kinds of semiotic ‘flagging’ performed by means of objects, attrib utes, or activities can and should also be included for they usually constitute the ‘action’ part of language - in -actio n" (Blommaert, 2005: 3) . I then consider any type of semiotic composition (being it a designed text or a composition formed by daily objects and environments) as constituent of and contai ning discourse. In adopting such a multimodal critical perspective on discourse, my study goes in line with the "little critical work done on the way that discourses are co mmunicated, naturalised, and legitimised beyond the linguistic level" (Machin, 2014: 347), and is thus situated within the field of Multimodal Critical Discourse Studies (MCDS). Fo llowing this, I would rather adapt Wodak and Mey er's (2009) defin ition, provided above, to include this multim od al di mension; and defin e 'discourses' as 'relatively stable uses of lang uage and/or commun icative semiotic resources serving the or ganisation and structuring of social life'. Nonetheless, such a definition may still seem r ather vague and ambiguou s. Indeed , discourse is not a concrete entity , but an analytical con struct, with fluid boundaries, which is open to reinterpretations (Reisigl & Wodak, 34 Meaning that it reco gnises the use of multiple 'm odes' or resources for comm unication. Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework 95 2009) . The concretion of discourse takes the for m of texts. And th us, discourse can be also conceived, to my view, as the co mmon element underly ing a specific range of genres and tex ts. Related to this latter idea is a definition of 'discourse analy sis' (DA) which I fin d clarifyin g enough and at the sa me time broad enough so as to reflect the multiple perspect ives to discourse encompassed within DA. It is the definition offered by Christoph er Candlin in his preface to Fairclough's work ' Critical Discourse Anal ysis: The Critical Study of Language' : "d iscourse analysis is not a 'level ' of analy sis as, say, phonol ogy or lexico-grammar, but an explo ration of how 'texts' at all levels wo rk within socio cultural practices" (Faircloug h, 1995: viii -ix; original emphasis). In this defin ition, there is express reference to the social (and cultural) dimensi on of texts – and thus of discourse – , which is, to m y view, inseparable from sociolinguistic inquiry. Besides adopting th is "so cial" perspective, as has already been explained, in the present stud y, a critical perspective on DA is also followed. This mean s that texts and discourses will be considered as pertaining to structu res of power and thus contributing to or, on the con trary, resisting th e perpetuatio n of power asymmetries, and consequently being th emselves rich and revealing sites for the exp loratio n of such po wer relatio ns (Blommaert, 2005) . Their analysis – the 'A' of (C)DA – will consist in the identification of such stru ctures and their con stitutive elements, as well as the explanation of the pr ocesses of power impositi on and /or resistance in the specific context of research. 2.2.2. Text, genre, intertextua lity and interdiscursivity 'Text' is a very relevant con cept for CDA, since it is conceived to be the "basic unit of communication" (Wodak, 20 01: 2) by scholars working in this field. It is indeed very closely related to the term 'discourse'. As po inted ou t by Fairclough (1995) and Wodak and Meyer (2009), these two are variably differentiated depending on the tradition fo llowed. On the one hand, some traditions distinguish between th ese two concepts depending on the mediu m used: 'discourse' wou ld be the oral communicative instances, and 'text ' the written co mmunicative outcomes. However, th e bo rder between th e two has blurred and 't ext' has increasingly been used to refer to both, written and oral compositions (as in the field of discourse analy sis). Finally, maybe as a result of the influence of cultural studies, where 'text' may refer to any cultural artefact (a picture, a son g, et c.), and due to the increase of multi -semiotic co mpositions (combining speech, text and even image), 'text' is currently also used by some experts to name any instance of semiotic communication, whatever the communicative resources used (Fairclough, 1995) . On the other hand, ot her traditions assign a diff erent l evel of abstractness to these two concepts: in this sense, 'text' wou ld name concret e instances of 'discourse', na mely of "what we mean by Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework 96 saying and doing" (Le mke, 1995: 19) or otherwise of "structured forms of knowledge and the memory of social practices" (Wodak & Mey er, 2009: 6) . My own understanding of the term 'text' is a combination of these two approaches: I embrace the view of 'text' as any multi - semiotic composition, comprising not only written or oral lingu istic documents, but also obj ects, spaces, and any "piece" or "section " of the world that can be perceivable by the sense(s); and at the same time, I see this concept as an instantiation or otherwise a perceivab le concreti on of 'discourses', which to my un derstanding have a more abstract meaning, which has to do with knowledge, memory and beliefs. Very closely related to the no tion of text are the concepts of 'genre' and 'int ertextuality'. The term 'genre' makes reference to a conven tionalised "way of acting and interacting linguistically" (Fairclough, 20 03: 17 ) – and I would add 'semiotically ' – , such as a letter, a scientific paper and a conference presentation, which determines th e structure and fo rm of texts. 'Int ertextuality' is a relevant analytical concept for the discourse-historical approach of CDA, and makes referenc e to the diverse ty pes of relations between texts, or "how texts draw upon , incorporate, recontextualize and dialogue with other texts" (Fairclo ugh, 2003: 17) . 'Intertextuality' is different from 'interdiscursivi ty' in that the latter defines the di stinctiveness of texts "in ho w they draw on and combine together relativel y stable and durable discourses" (Fairclough , 2005: 920) . The analy sis of di scourse in such terms entails an analy sis of linguistic and semiotic elements, as well as the analy sis of social events and practices (Fairclough, 200 3, 2005) . 2.2.3. Power (asymmetries) and ideology Following Van Dijk's defin ition (2001: 354- 8) , I understand 'power' as the 'control' of individuals over the acts and /or thoughts of another individual or more than one individuals. In fact, And rew Hey wood (2013: 9) identifies three types or 'faces' of po wer: (a) power as decision-making; (b ) power as agenda setting; (c) power a s thought contro l, by which decisions made and prevented as well as though ts are influ enced by means of intimidation, persuasion or indoctrination. Considering po wer in its social di mension as 'social power' would enta il extrapolating patterns of such control to grou ps of people which share co mmon characteristics in terms of social behaviour: a group of people has control over ano ther group of people (e.g. politicians over the citizenship, general managers of companies o ver employees, etc.). A basic characteristic of po wer is th at it is usually exerted on the basis of access to resources ( 'power base' for V an Dijk), such as in formation, knowledg e, money , force, status, authority, dissemination media, etc. As I suggest ed in the first section of this chapter, po wer asymmetries will be regarded as existing in any interaction, and not as always favouring particular social groups (and thus Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework 97 damaging dominated on es), but as pene trating diverse aspects of every exchange. In this sense, an in dividual or a group of people are un derstood to be powerful in certain facets (e.g. gender, status, etc.) a nd, y et, also powerless in other facets (e.g. access to money , information, etc.), at the same ti me and depending on the specific situati on. Furthermore, power asymmetries are seen in this study as dynamic, changing and evolving in tim e, even thro ughout a specific interaction. When analysing power asymmetries, it is no t only relevant to ob serve the behaviour of the po werful ones, but also t hat of the powerless. Powerless actors might eng age in either offering 'resistance', accepting the asymmetric situation , or legitim ising the power of the powerful actors, even by regarding it as "natural" and not as an asymmetry . There are divers e ways and means by which po wer can be legit imised: laws, norms, protocols, "common sense", habits and consensus, which have much to do with discourse practices. Regarding the con nection between po wer and discourse, Fairclough (1995: 2) defines the "power to control discourse" as "the power to sustain particular discursiv e practices with particular ideological investments in dominance over other alternative (including oppositional) practices". T wo relevant aspects that sh ould be con sidered in the study of power and discourse are (a) a symmetries betw een participa nts in discourse events and (b) asymmetric control capacity of text production, distribut ion and consumption in particular contexts (Fairclough, 1995) . Such con trol might be 'active', and so imply control ov er the production of discou rse (e.g. in a face- to -face con versation), or 'passive', entailing control ov er its consumption only (e.g. when readin g a newspaper) (Van Dijk, 2001 ). This auth or identifies also two main constituents of discourse that might potentially be controlled in power relati ons: (a) conte xt, consisting of "such categories as the overall definition of the situation, setting (time and place), ongoing actions (includ ing discourses and discourse genres), parti cipants in various communicative, social, or institutional roles, as well as their ment al representations: goals, knowledge, opinions, attitudes, and ideologies" ( Van Dijk, 2001: 356) , and (b) structures of text and talk (e.g. genres, speech acts, to pics, meaning, form and sty le). Related with ‘p ower’ is the conce pt of ‘ideolo gy’. This is a key concept in CDA, and thus in the present study, since it reflects the social dimension of discourse and, for this reason, provides justification for the acts of di scourse, namely those action s concerning discourse, such a s di scourse prod uction, reproduction, consumption, interpretation, imposition, etc. Th is term, which co mes from political science and philosophy, has been defined by Teun Van Dijk as "th e underlying frameworks of th e socially shared beliefs of group members" (Van Dijk, 1998: 55) , which consist of "those general and abstract social beliefs, shared by a group, that control or organize the more specific knowledge and opinions (attitudes) of a group", and continues: "they do not only embody the specific values but also the truth criteria of a group" (Van Dijk, 1998: Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework 98 49) . Such mental framewor ks may take fo rm of "the lang uages, th e concepts, categories, imagery of though t, and the systems of representation" (Hall, 1986: 29 ; in Makus, 1990: 499) . From his socio -cognitive perspective on CDA, Van Dijk (199 8) describes the pr ocess of ideology formation as correspond ing to a process of generalisation of evaluation criteria (or beliefs), which, when they transcend the group and are adopt ed by society as a whole, acquire the status of 'common ground ' - what has been named as the 'ideo logical moment' (Makus, 1990: 498) . These can also be considered 'dominant ideologies', whic h "appear as ‘neutral’, holding on to assumptions that stay largely unchallenged" (Wodak & Meyer, 20 09: 9). In the process of generalisation of specific ideol ogies, the social dimension of discourse is key. As Van Dijk pu ts forward: "In a social sense, this [ideology formation] requ ires so cial interactio n, sharing, social situations, organi sation and often also institutio nalization" ( Van Dijk, 19 98: 51) . At this stage, ideologies acquire legitimacy and universal validity, to the point that they are detached from the histori cal circumstances where they were first coined and are presented as neutral, natural, obvious and true. It is in this status of common ground or common sense w hen ideologies appear to have the stron gest impact, sinc e they adopt the aspect of absolute truth: "Ideologies have often been declared re ally influential if nobody notices the m, and if they define common sense" ( Van Dijk , 1998: 50) . The individual is thus caugh t in this ideological environment, wh ich cannot be escaped. Su ch 'dominant discourses', which have their origin in th e beliefs of the dominant social grou ps – those with the power to upgrade their beliefs to truth statements – , "constitute the field o f meanings within which they [the people] may choose" (Hall, 19 77: 34 3; in Makus, 1990: 502) . Ideologies are "resistant to chang e and thus to the introduction of alternative perspectives (...) t o the deg ree that they may be seen as vi olating the common sense of a culture" (Makus, 1990: 500) . The domination strategy exerted by powerful groups con si sts in "fra ming all competi ng definitions of reality within their range" (Hall, 1977: 333; in Makus, 1990: 502). Anne Makus describes this state of constant dealing with inescapable ideology with a rather illustrat ive metaphor: "Therefore, ideology is no t like a bu ilding which one can exit; we are necessaril y in the building, and all we ca n do is choose how to d ecorate or remodel it" (1990: 500) . This view of ideology as a site of power relations or as a 'modality of po wer' (Faircloug h, 2003: 9) is what makes this concept especially relevant for CDA. Fro m t his perspective, as Alastair Pennycook, following Faircloug h (1995), signals: "The goal of critical discourse analysis is to denaturalize i deologies that have beco me natu ralized", and follows: "The goal of CDA is to make these ideologi cal systems and representations transparent and to show how they are related to the broader social order" (Pennycook, 2001: 81) . Representations of id eology are Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework 105 However, de spite the re miniscences of this ty pe of research i mmanent in the current study , adopting linguistic ethnography as a theoretical framework presented two main problems. On the one han d, besides these general parallelisms, LE appears to be a rather broad and thus vague concept − indeed, Ben Rampton refers to it as a “general label” and an “umbr ella t itle” (Rampton, 2007b: 599) − , which does not solve − beyond the coin cident poststructuralist and the constructionist perspectives − my need for specific theoretical orientations and m odels. As pointed out by Alison Sealey, the existing deb ates arou nd the ontology and the epistemology of LE demonstrate that "th e difficult questions of on tology and epistemology are not resolved by adopting an ethnographic – or indeed any other – methodol ogical approach" (Sealey , 2007 : 643). On the other hand, after the first few weeks of fieldwork , the linguistic focus I had adopted appeared as too narrow for the "reality " I was observing. I soon realised that my participan ts' communication was far richer than the mere use of language: images, graphs and actual objects were usu ally used as communicative resou rces in their interactions; and my own field notebook was filli ng up with descriptions of ele ments which did no t have much to do with lang uage, such as participants' gestures, positio n, movements and clothing, among many ot hers. And thus, focusing on language on ly would entail obtaining a too parti al view of the communic ation that was taking place there and missing too many elements. Thus, still maintaining the anthropologically -oriented approach to communication, as linguistic ethn ography claims, and similar to Hymes’ clai m that "it is not linguistics, but ethnogr aphy, n ot languag e, but communication, which must provide the frame of reference within which the place of language in culture and society is to be assessed " (Hy mes, 19 74: 4), I broadened my focus of inquiry, from language only to communication as a whole, and thus to the broad variety of communicative resources used by my participants in their in teractions, though still giving to language a prominent importance. In this sense, ethnog raphy should not only benefit from linguistics but also fro m semiotics. At that point, although linguistic ethn ography did provide methodological richness to my study and suited its "history " (of m e being interested in language practices and in ethnograph ic research), it seemed an extremely narro w construct. In m y need to focus on 'communication' rather than on 'language' only, Dell Hymes' 'ethnography of comm unication ', which linguistic ethnography draws on (Rampton, 2007b; Tusting & May bin, 2007), appeared as a more suit able approach, given that it would allow me to embrace the wide ran ge of elements activated by my participants for the making of meaning. Indeed, it could be argu ed that the linguistic dimension of linguistic ethnog raphy encompasses also the semiotic dimension of communication. Yet, to my view, this is not straightforward and, similar to Hymes' realisat ion of the need to move fro m talking about 'ethnography of speaking' to 'ethnography of communication', I foun d that Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework 106 linguistic ethnography somehow restri cted my methodology. LE is indeed in line with Hymes' aspirations for (socio)linguistic inquiry: Most of what can now be sketched is but an outline of a future in which, on e can hope, ethn ographic studies of communication will be commo nplace, and an ethnographic perspective on the engagement of language in hu man life will b e the standard from which more specialized stu dies depart. (Hymes, 1964: 28) For th ese reasons, the ethnograph y of communication was the cho sen framework in this study to support the systematised description and in terpret ation of communicative pr actices at th e meso level of analysis, and its main con cepts and tenets will be summarised in th e following. Also categorised as an appr oach, a framework, a new form of lingu istic enquiry , a research paradigm and a theoretical pers pective, the ethnography of communication (EoC) has its origins in the work of Dell Hy mes, The Ethnograph y of Speaking (1962), and has been defined as a [then] "new syn thesizing discipline which focuses on the pattern ing of communicative behavior as it constitutes one of the systems of culture, as it functions within the holistic context of culture, and as it relat es to patterns in other component systems" (Saville-Tro ike, 2003: 1). Its object of study are, thus, "appropriate" patterns of language use or communication in specific contexts, namely in 'speech communities', and the acqui sition process of such 'linguistic/communicative competence' by individuals participatin g in these contexts; or in Elizabeth Ke ating's words : "What is of interest to ethnographers of speakin g is how speake rs use various linguistic resources and how others ma ke sense of or interpret these choices" (Keating, 2001: 289). As put forward by Deborah Schiffrin, from the EoC approach to discourse, communicative patterns are r egarded as "part of cultu ral kn owled ge and behavior", which "entails a recognition of both the diversity of communicative possibili ties and practices (i.e. cultural relativity) and the fact that such practices are an integrated part of what we know and do as members of a particular cult ure (i.e. a holistic view of hu man beliefs and actions)" (Schiffrin, 1994: 137). These diverse communi cative possibilities and pr actices a re concretis ed in what Hy mes designates the 'communicative economy ' 37 of the community (Hymes, 1964) . Other ob jects of study alongside the communicative economy of the group are its cultural values and beliefs, its social institu tions and forms, th e roles and p ersonalities of its mem bers, and its history and ecology (Hymes, 1964) . 37 "Hymes’ economic analogy is useful: mu ch as individuals use their means of production to produce goods and services, and then exchange these products in an economy, so too do speakers use their means of speech to produce discourse that is exchanged within a speech econom y." (Johnstone & Marcellino, 2010: 60) Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework 107 The ob jective of the EoC was synthesised by Hy mes as follo ws: “My own purpose with the ethnography of speakin g was (...) to show that th ere was patterned regularity where it had be en taken to be absent, in the activity of speaking itself ” (Hymes, 2000: 314) . The documentation and description of such patterns was ultimately conceived as "a means to the understanding of human purposes and needs, and their satisfaction" (Hy mes, 1972a: 70). Therefore, the relation between communicative means and social meaning w as brought to the fore. The EoC thus consists in the following : Descriptive and taxonomical ethnograph ic work that allows for comparison between speech communities allows for systemic classification of ways of speaking in four traditio nal areas: ‘genet ic classifi cation’ of language descent; ‘areal classification’ of features spread through an area; ‘typo logical classification’ of structu ral features indep endent of genetic or areal nature; and usage/role classification (i.e. as a pidgin, trade lang uage, etc). (Johnsto ne & Marcellino, 2010: 6) Nonetheless, Hy mes did not conceive the EoC as a mere descript ive method, but as a rather holistic programme. It was sup posed to serve the elaboration of "models (structural and generative) of sociolingu istic description, formulation of universal sets of features and relatio ns, and explanato ry theories" (Hy mes, 1972a: 43) . Although its taxonomic enterp rise as well a s its generalisation aims have been questioned (Keating, 2001), and researchers using the EoC have often avoided making general state ments and preferred to produce "systematic and comprehensive ‘bottom - up ’ models of specific social interactions" (Kalou & Sadler-Smith, 2015: 651), the EoC has been found especially inspiring for (a) "turning from an investigation of languag e as a referential cod e, to an investigation into social meaning, diversity of practices, and actual language use in context" (Keating, 2001) − th is was achieved, among other innovations, by the use of non -lingu istic un its of analysis, such as the 'speech even t'; (b ) having transcended the description of patterns of language use in interaction by con siderin g them as "embedded in complex cultural processes" (Heller, 2003: 254); and (c) proposing an emic approach to communication, for which etic categories are expectedly modified, complemented or challeng ed by "culturally defin ed categories or nativ e taxonomies" (emic categories and descriptions) 38 . For these reasons, the EoC has been dee med an effecti ve tool to achieve a detailed and faithfu l descriptio n − close to the perspective of the implicated individu als − of the 38 As reported by Elisabeth Keating, "Hymes utilizes Pike's paradigm of etic and emic analysis (Pike, 1954). (...) An emic account is the ultimate go al, that is, the identi fication of categories which are meaningful to members of the community. The etic perspective, categories meaningful to the analyst, is considered useful for i nitial data gathering as well as for cross-cultural comparison" (Keating, 2 001: 288). Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework 108 complexity of elements implicated in hu man communication, and their relations, seen as cultural artefacts (Kalou & Sadl er-Smith , 2015). In fact, the Eo C derived fro m linguistic anthropology and particularly from th e work of Franz Boas and Bron isław M alinowsky, from which it took its interest in the context of co mmunicative practices, an indispensable di mension in the study of language. Some of the main characte ristics of the EoC are (a) that it aims at investigating communicative patterns as a whole; (b) that it is focused on communication, including all communicativ e resources, rather than on language only; (c) that the focus of research is actual communication and that the con text of use holds parti cular importance (Keating, 2001); (d) "a conception of meaning dependent on shared beliefs and values of a community and dependent on social and cultural context" (Keating, 2001 : 285) ; (e) that language (or communication ) is seen as a social process and "as a privileged site for the study of society and culture" (Heller, 20 03: 254) ; and (f) that the approach is cross-d isciplinary (Keating, 2001). The pr esent study is likely to benefit from the EoC in some of th e way s pointed out by Zoi Kalou and Eugene Sadler-Smith (2015): in that it "offers a lens for bringing into focus micro - level (...) phenomena and macro-level ( ...) issues within and across social groups"; and that it "affords researchers a sy stematic rather than ad hoc approach for describing, analyzing, interpreting, and critiquin g communicative events, the communicative competence of organis at ional actors, and its consequ ences for behaviors and outcome" (Kalou & Sadler -Smith, 2015: 630). It thus seems an appropriate theoretical perspective for the study of a co mmunity, such as the r esearch group, in its internal aspects but also as compared to other grou ps, and specifically for th e exploration of the co mmunicative practices of scientists in their daily professional activity, as is the aim of thi s research. However, as has already been pointed out, the approach adopted in the current study will be that of the explo ration of 'communication' in its broadest sense. For this reason , any reference to 'speech' or 'speaking' in Hymes' and other authors' work mentioned in this chapter will be understood as replaceable by the no tion of 'communication', which comprises not on ly language as a code, but also non-linguistic communicative resources, such as gesture and images. In the following subsections, some working concepts used in the EoC will be defin ed: Sp eech co mmunity and mea ns of speech (subsection 2.3.1); communicative competence, language and linguistic reperto ire (sub section 2.3.2); communicative / speech event, communicative / speech sit uation and communicative / Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework 109 speech act (sub section 2.3.3) ; and the SPEAKING grid 39 and its co mponents: setting, participants, ends, act sequ ence, key, instrumentalities, n orms and genres (subsection 2.3.4). 2.3.1. Speech community an d means of speech Speech commun ity is a "socially derived concept" (J ackson, 1989 : 55), considered "an important beginning unit of analysis" (Keating, 2001: 288) for the EoC. John Gumperz, reformulating Leonard Bloomfield's construct 40 to "enco mpass systematic variation and social complexity" (Gal, 2014: 120), defin es it as "any hu man aggregate characte rized by regular and frequent interaction by means of a shared body of verbal sign s and set off from si milar agg regates by significant differences in language usage" (Gumper z, 2009: 66). According to Hymes, the participants in a speech commun ity share "rules for the condu ct and interpretation of speech, and rules for the interpretation of at least one linguistic v ariety" (Hymes, 1972b: 54) . Nonetheless, such defin itions are not devoid of problem s. On the on e hand, although it seems to be a common opin ion that a speech community cannot be defin ed only by a shared language variety but according to various criteria − such as the co mmunicative behavio ur of its members, relations among them, and th eir shared knowledge (especially with reference to 'what to say ') (Keating, 20 01) − , such a con tention remains obscur e. It seems more plausible to me, as implied by Muriel Saville -Troik e (200 3), that the definition of a specific speech co mmunity as such has usually been mainly b ased on history, politics, and group identification. Another important issue r elated to the characteristics of th e speech community that to my view has been usually neg lected in the related literature is that of th e processes of "participation" and of "membership". It has been frequently stated that an individual might participate in more than one speech community concurrently , which does not imply membership in all of them (Hymes, 1974) . Nevertheless, the difference between these two ty pes of bo nd to the speech community (participation and membership) remains un specified. Furthermore, th e intervention of ICT, increasingly widespread w orldwide, not only in terms of users but also of freq uency of use, add s new complexities to this issue. In th is context, the notion of 'virtual community', un derstood as 39 The SPEAKING grid or model [which will be further described later on in this section] is an etic scheme proposed by Hymes fo r emic description, analysis and interpretation of local communication of a community. Its main objective is "to force attention to structure and reveal similarities and differences between events and between ways of organizi ng speaking [or communication]" (Keating, 2001: 290). 40 Leonard Bl oomfield (1887-1949) proposed one of the earliest defi nitions of ' speech comm unity', viewing it as rather monolingual and homogeneous, a s was the paradigm in his time (Morgan, 2014) . Following Bloomfiel, a speech comm unity is "a group of people who us e the same s ystem of speech- signals" (Bloomfield, 1933: 29) or "a group of people who interact by means of speech" (Bloomfield, 1933: 42). Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework 110 "a form of community mediated by a highly personalized technology" (Delanty, 2003: 170) , has arisen as an adaptation of th e 'speech community' to the characteristics of communication through such new technologies. Th is implies that the speech community , in its facet as a virtual community, might be − nowaday s more than ever before − delocalised and devoid of any co - presence of its participants. This h as been described by Saville -Troike as follows: ...there is no necessary reason for a speech co mmunity to be geo graphically contiguous (...) and (especially with widespread access to telephon es and e - mail) individuals and groups who are dispersed may maintain intensive networks of interaction. Largely because of the inter net, “virtual” co mmunities of interest ha ve been established world -wide. Even with no face- to -fa ce contact, pa tterned rules for communication have emerged and b ecome codified (Sav ille-Troike, 2003: 16 -17). For th e present study, I will align with Jef Verschu eren's p reference for the construct 'community of practice' (Lave & Wenger, 1991 ) rather than for 'speech community' , though for different reaso ns, un derstandin g that "[t]he concept community of practice is appropr iate for talking about much that has been discussed under the label of 'speech community' in the ethnography of speaking" (Verschueren, 2014: 158), and considering that the former off ers more adequate tools to the ai ms of this study. As will be argu ed in the next sec tion, the orientation of the construct 'commun ity of practice' towards participation , towards the sense of 'community' over time, towards situated learnin g and to wards pat terns of shar ed practice seems more suitable for the exploration of research gr oups. In fact, Saville -Troik e (2003: 17) indicates that the construct 'community of practice' "seems especially appropriate for the study of processes in the develop ment of no rms of in teraction within dynamic groups, involving either enculturation or acculturation and sometimes lengthy periods of apprenticeship", as is the case of the groups observed in this research. According t o Hymes, th e 'means of speech', or ot herwise 'co mmunicative means ', and their meanings ar e the adequate sph ere for the description of speech communities (Hymes, 1980 ) . These make referenc e to components of languages and/or o f communication: "W e need to be able to think of languages and personal competencies as specific s ets of communicative means, shaped by p articular histories and adaptive niches" (Hymes, 1980 : iv) , as well as to “the feat ures that enter into styles, as well as the sty les themselves” (Hy mes, 1989: 446 ; in Johnstone & Marcellino, 2010: 5) . The m eans of communication can be "ling uistic", "graphic", "verbal", "phonological" and "other"; they "may include different languag es, different regional and social varieties of one or more of the languages, different registers (genera lly varying on a formal - informal dimensio n which cross-cuts region al and social dimensions), and different channels of communication (e.g. oral, written, manual)" (Saville-Troike, 2003: 41 ), depending on th e Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework 111 characteristics of th e group members, their interaction goals, the con text of the interactions, etc. The aim of th e EoC is thus id entifying the means of communication of a specific co mmunity and their mode of organ isation, their uses (who , when, where and why) and the appro priateness of such uses, their accessibility , and the skills they entail (Hymes, 198 0). 2.3.2. Communicative competen ce, language and linguistic rep ertoire Communicative competen ce co mprises what speakers need to know to communicate "appropriately" in a particular speech community (in terms of what to say to whom, and how to say it), the skills need ed for "adequate" co mmunication, and the wa ys in which such competence is acqui red (Keating, 2001; Saville-Troike, 2003; Kalou & S adler-Smith, 2015) . Therefore, communicative co mpetence encompasses not only rules of language (or communicative means') st ructure, and of their use and interpretation, but also the necessary cultural knowledge to facilitate interpretation (Keating, 2001). This has been described by Hymes as follows: We have then to account for the fact that a no rmal child acquires kn owledge of sentences, not only as grammatical, but also as appropriate. He or she acquires competence as to when to speak, when not, and as to what to talk about with whom, when , where, in w hat manner. In short, a child becomes able to accomplish a repertoire of speech ac ts, to take p art in speech event s, and to evaluate their accomplishment by others. Th is competence, moreover, is integral with attitudes, values, and motivations concerning l anguage, its features and uses, and integral with competence for, and attitudes toward, the in terrelation of language, with the other codes of communicative condu ct (Hy mes, 1972b: 277- 8) . From this excerpt, it may be in ferred th at the idea of "appropriateness" is directly lin ked to that of legitimacy and illegitimacy . Th is implies a hierarchisatio n of co mmunicative practices and thus the existence of power relations with reference to communication: the practices of some participants in the speech community may be legitimate while those of others may no t; access to the skills and communicative resources that make such practices po ssible may or may no t be equal for all participants; all participan ts may or may not hav e the po wer of cha nging the rules, etc. Power asymmetries are th us p resent in the 'differential knowledge' or 'differential competence' of participan ts in a community, for "members of a culture may have availabl e to them differe nt forms, and be differentially competent in, the way t hey draw up on a communicative repertoire (or parts of the repertoire from which they choose)" (Schiffrin, 1994: 139) . The uncov ering of such pr ocesses of legitimation and delegitimation is one of the aims of the ethn ographer, who seems to have, also in the EoC, a critical interest (Kalou & Sadler-Smith, 2015) . Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework 112 From a linguistic-anth ropological perspective, language can be defined as "a system of us e whose ru les and norms are an integral part of culture" (Schiffrin , 19 94: 13 9), and language use as an activity that "helps realize the cultural norms t ha t underlie the way we act toward one another" (Schiffrin , 1994: 139) . Human co mmunication is thus constrained by, but at the same time sus tains, culture. In the Eo C literature, language is sometimes used as a synonym of 'code' (e.g. Hymes, 1964 ), and so metimes defined broad ly to include all for ms of communication: speech, writi ng, song, whistling, dr umming, gesturing, etc. (Keatin g, 2001 ). In the present paper I will differentiate between these two, naming the former 'language’ or ‘code' and the l atter '(modes of) communication '. Consequently , for the pu rposes of this study, I will often consider the characterisation of language in the related literature as translatable to that of (multimodal) communication. For instance, the assumption of the EoC about the "correlation between th e form and content of a language and the beliefs, values, and needs pr esent in the cultu re of its speakers" (Savi lle-Troike, 2003 : 28) will also be attributed to the form and content of any type of communication; and likewise, considerations in terms of the vocabulary of a given cod e, for which "speak ers categorize experience, and often a record of past contacts and cultu ral borrowings" (Saville-Troike, 2003: 28) will be associated to any type of communicative code. Related to the concept of ‘languag e’ th ere is th e con cept of linguistic/communicative repertoire . It has been defined as "all [linguistic] v arieties, dialects, or styles used in a particular socially - defined population, and the constraints which govern the choice among th em" (Gu mperz, 19 77: 192) , the communicative repertoire of a speech community corresponds to the range of patterned way s of communicating availabl e to i ts pa rticipants. Again from a ra ther multimodal point of view, it "may also includ e different occupation al codes, specialized religious language, secret codes of various kinds, imitative speech, whistle or drum la nguage, and varieties used for talking to f oreigners, yo ung children, and pets", as well as "the variety of possible interaction strategies" available to the co mmunity (Saville-Troike, 2003 : 41). One of the main ob jectives of the EoC researcher is to u nderstand and document it. 2.3.3. Communicative/speech event, communi cative/speech situation a nd communicative/speech act Hymes (1972b) proposed two different units of analysis for the EoC: the 'speech event' and the 'speech situation'; the first referring to those human activities wh ere "speech is crucial and the event would not be said to be taking place without it" (Duranti, 1985: 201) , like a teleph one conversation or an acade mic co mmunication, and the second to those 'social occasion s' (Schiffrin, 1994: 142) where "speech has a minor role, subordinate to other codes or forms o f interaction" (Duranti, 19 85: 201), such as a dinn er or a trip. While speech events are "d irectly governed by rules or norms for the use of speech" (Hy mes, 2005: 8), speech situations "are not Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework 113 in themselves governed by such rules, or one set of such rules throughout", but "enter as contexts (...) as aspects o f setting (o r of genre)" (Hy mes, 2005 : 7). Con sequently, a speech situation may often encompass divers e speech events , as for instance divers e conversations ( speech events ) may take place in the same trip ( speech situation ), but, on the contrary, might sometimes coincide with a sing le event, as in th e case of a single -utterance rite. Besides, spe ech events might be discontinuous (e.g. a conversation that is interrupted by a telephone call and resumed afterwards) and/or embedded within other speech events (e.g. a video conference taking place at some point of a professional meeting). These two concepts have evolv ed over time and have acquired new chara cteristics, especially when adapted to the perspective of communication instead of speech only . For instance, Saville - Troike describes the communicative situation as "the context within which communication occurs", with "a consistent general configuration of activities, [and] th e same overall ecolo gy" (Saville-Troike, 2003: 23 ); and the communicative event as defin ed by a specific and in variable set of components, such as purpose, topic, to ne or key, rules of interactio n and setting. According to this author, the end of a certain event is marked by "a change in the major participants, their role -relationships, or the focus of attention" (Saville-Troike, 2003: 23) . In thi s sense, commun icative events will be regarded as "th e type of sequences members of societies recognise as routines, [which] are usually named, and are shap ed by special rules of lang uage and no n-verbal behaviors" (Keating, 2001 : 289) . Discovering the "local taxo nomies" or otherwise the labels used by the members of a community to name communicative events is a good first step in order to unv eil the whole range of communicative events usual in that community. However, it is i mportant to note that not all types of communicative events may have a specific label (Keati ng, 2001) . Although the difference b etween these two units of analy sis m ay not always be clear -cut, t hey might be usefu l to designate two distinct levels of analy sis or two perspectives, one (that of the communicative event) more related to communication , and th e ot her one (th at of th e communicative situation) rather belo nging to th e domain of social processes. For this reason, despite Alessandro Duranti's proposal of "eliminating the term ' speech situation' and using 'speech event' as a theoretical notion, referring to a perspective of analysis rather th an to an inherent property of events" (Duranti, 1985 : 20 1), both concepts may be used, when consider ed appropriate, in the current study as basic socio -linguistic units of analysis. Moreover, altho ugh I understand and acknowledge to some extent Versch ueren's (2014) proposal to replace the ter m 'event' for 'pr actice', in order to highlight the agentivity involved in it, I pr efer to employ the term chosen by Hymes, gi ven that I believe that its agentivity may be indicated otherwise. Yet, I do embrace t he practice approach to communication, which Hanks (2005: 191) describes – Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework 114 regarding ‘language’ – as “focus[ing] pr ecisely on the relations between verbal action, linguistic and other semiotic systems, and the common -sense ideas that speakers have about language and the social world of which it is a part”. I will thus use 'communicative practices' only as an umbrella term to refer to co mmunicative activities in general. Besides communicative ‘ situations ’ and ‘ events ’ t here are ‘communicative acts’ . These are components of 'communicative events ', and correspond to "a single interactional fu nction" (Saville-Troike, 2003: 24). This notion proceeds from J. L. Austin's speech - act theory (Austin, 1962) , but has been exp anded to "account for a broader range of pheno mena within the ethnography of communication" (Saville-Troik e, 2003: 24) and to enco mpass "a br oader notion of context" and "a broader rang e of acts than speech" (Keating, 20 01: 290) . Th e communicative act is community -dependent, conven tional and intentional (Saville-Troike, 2003) , and thus "implicates both linguistic [or communicative ] form and social no rms" (Hymes, 20 05: 8). Examples of 'communicative acts' are requ ests, commands, warnings, and invitations. 2.3.4. The SPEAKIN G grid and its components The SPEAKING grid is a mnemonic model developed by H ymes on the basis of Roman Jakobson's (1960) model of six constitutive elements of the speech event . This was conceived as a un iversal, etic gr id that would serve any ethnographer as a point of departure for the documentation and description of all t he elements pr esent in the observed community's communication practices and to facilitate com pari son across communities. This initial grid should be modified based on ethnographic work , so that it acquires an e mic quality, when adapted to the characteristics of the specific community's communication. Each letter of the acronym SPEAKING is the in itial letter of a basic component [see them explained below], and each component may be in turn the representativ e entry of several components (Duranti, 1985) : Situation (comprising 'setting' and 'scene'), Participants (including 'Speaker/sender', 'Addressor ', 'Hearer/receiver/audience' and 'Addressee '), En ds (meaning 'Purposes – outcomes' and 'Purposes – goals'), Act sequence ('Message form' and 'Message co ntent'), Key, Instrumentalities (encompassing 'Channel' and 'Forms of speech'), Norms (of interaction and of interpretation), and Genres. Th is model has been widely used among scholars adoptin g the EoC, to help in the comparison of communities and the uncovering of the relations between linguistic and social behaviour. In the following I will f urther describe each component o f the SPEAKING grid. 2.3.4.1. Situation It comprises 'setting' and 'scene'. 'Setting' refers to "the ti me and p lace of a sp eech act and, in general, to the phy sical circumstances" (Hy mes, 2005: 11), encompassing ti me of day, season, Chapter 3: Methodology 217 [RD, 18/12/2013]' 56 My first ideas were to 'b egin by open questions' to participants and th en 'to observe all interactions of on e individual throughout a whole working day'; maybe 'to concentrate in two or three individuals per group and observe their interactions, activities and daily language uses more th oroughly' 57 . I was guided by the contrasting phenomena that attracted my attention, what was different to what I was used to see ing or hearing: 'I think I deem relevant, I ob serve and note down whatever stands out according to my own filter by contra st to other lived situ ations, observed things, etc.'. Even the fact of observing two 'compara ble' research groups – following my own criterion – 'allow[ed] me to describe them by contrast between them' [RD, 18/12/2013] 58 . Little by little, fieldwork allowed me to figure out what was wo rth recording , considerin g my research questions : '...I discov er on the progress interesting aspects, significant themes, spaces, discourses, etc. And I feel I will soon be able to narrow my look down. To do so, it will be important to get to know the groups' dy namics, as well as the stories of their everyday work (discou rse plots), the action s and activities that they repeat, the words and terminology, the objects, the spaces, the languages and accents, etc.' [RD, 28/01/2014] 59 But concern about whether I was colle cting the most appro priate data was con stant throughout the whole data collection process. 56 'Em sembla un c amp complex, amb moltes accio ns simultànies, complexitats semiòtiques, molt s individus; La meva preocupació és què observar, què anotar, si gravar, què gravar (àudio? Vídeo?), com analitzar el que observo, fer entrevistes? Quan? Sobre què? Com? ' [Research Diary, 18/12/2013 ; original in Catalan ] 57 '...penso que potser seria interessant començar per pr eguntes molt obertes' ; ' com a segon pas, podria observar totes les interaccions d'un sol individu en un dia de feina'; ' centrar-me en dos o tres subjectes per grup i realitzar una observació més profunda de les seves interaccions, activitats i usos lingüístics quotidians.' [Research Diary, 18/12/2013 ; original in C atalan ] 58 'Penso que considero rellevant, observo i anoto allò que ressalta sota el meu fi ltre per contrast amb altres situacions viscu des, c oses observades, etc. Pe r tant, el fet d'investigar dos 'grups de recerca científica' com els meus, que jo he etiquetat/categoritzat prèviament com a tals, i per tant com a comparables, per ser semblants i contrastables en ta nt que pertanyents a la mateixa categoria, em permet descriure'ls per contrast entre ells.' [Research Diary, 18/1 2/2013 ; original in Catalan ] 59 ' ...vaig descobrint sobre la marxa focus d'interès, temes significatius, espais, discursos, etc. i sento qu e en poc temps seré capaç d'acotar prou la meva mirada. Serà important per fer-ho conèixer les dinàmiques dels grups, alhora que les històries del seu dia a dia (trames discursives), les accions i activitats que van repetint, les paraules i termes, els objectes, els espais, les llengües i accents, etc.' [Research Diary, 28/0 1/2014; original in Catalan ] Chapter 3: Methodology 218 3.3.2.2. Access to data Although I received con sent from all grou p leaders and con sent forms were sig ned by all group members, a ccess to data dep ended on a variety of factors. As i n Lato ur and Woolgar ( 1986 [1979]: 20 ), also in this case so me par ticipants showed bewild erment towards the researcher's activity and her m otives and objectives. So me of them op ened up earlier an d shared th eir thoughts more easily, while others remained less accessible. This may have influenced also my data collectio n in the sense th at I might have co me closer and thus observed more 'those who were more open , closer, who came approached me more' . 60 Also, ro le or identity sim ilitud e seemed to be a significant element facilitating or hindering data access : I had difficulties in designing and do ing interviews with group leaders due to my limited knowledge of their roles and tasks, whil e it was easier fo r me to connect with PhD researchers, due to our mutual empathy. This latter difficulty was dealt with by conducting all interviews with group leaders with the assistance of my su pervisor, who was also a grou p leader at that time. 3.3.2.3. How to articula te or describe phenomena Another issue wa s al so to "u nderstand" what I was observin g , especially du e to the specialised (professional and communicational) p ractices of participants: '...I do n't un derstand the vocabulary, but I understand the relations between a str ing of discourse and the following one; a string of discou rse and a simultaneous and parallel on e (...) Therefore, I see that I understand life stories of the people I observe, at a personal level, trajectories, expectatio ns, deceptions, ... (...). And the n, concerning what they deal with, what they do, their object of work and of study, I also see evolutions, contrasts between what some and others do, between what someone does on e day and on the following day... It is these contrasts that allow me also to draw my own stories. (.. .) the contrast between what I know, what I have lived, and what I am seeing, what I don't kn ow, what they know and I don't.' [RD, 04/04/2014] 61 60 'Preguntant-me a quins membres prestar més atenció, ho he fet als més oberts, propers, que se m'han acostat més.' [Research Diary, 08/05/2014; original in Catalan ] 61 '...no entenc el vocabulari, però entenc relacions entre un discurs i el posterior; un discurs i un altre simultani i paral·lel (...) Així doncs, veig que vaig entenent històries de vida de les persones que observo, a nivell personal, trajectòries, expectatives, decepcions, ... (...). I després a nivell del que tracten, del que fan, del seu objecte de treball i d’estudi, també hi veig evolucions, contrastos entre el que fan uns, el que fan altres, el que fa algú un dia i al dia següent... I són aquests contrastos els que em permeten dibuixar jo també les meves històries. (...) el contrast entre el que jo conec, el que jo he viscut, i lo que estic veient, el que desconec, el que ell s coneixen i jo no. ' [Research Diary, 04/04/ 2014; or iginal in Catalan ] Chapter 3: Methodology 219 These contrasting aspects m ay encompass the context, the phy sical site, ideol ogies, bel ieves, lived experiences, habits, and environment more broadly. What was stra nge and almost unintelligible to me became progressively somewhat more transparent. '...I a m startin g to be able to formulate my first schemata of what I have ob served so far, that is to say, to identify and schematise pattern s, to extract symbolic representations of what I have observed. Little by little I capture the dynamics of participants' professional practice and comprehending their actions, th e different moments that take p lace, the requirements of each moment (spare time whil e waitin g for a result, moment of peak activity to prepare an experiment, period of presentations because the gr oup leader is present, etc.). Also as r egards language, I increasingly understand the usua l dynamics of the grou ps, as well as their practices and individual habits.' [ RD, 30/01/2014] 62 Nonetheless, there are many details of the experiments and the actions of participants that remained alien to my comprehensio n. In order to count eract this issue , besides the multiple questions I posed to participants du ring observation sessions, I also had to carry out the two stimulated recall sessions above referred to . 3.3.2.4. My role in the field The researcher's role in t he field is a co mplicated issue, as pose d by Jansson and Nikolaidou (2013: 152): ... we found ourselves in constant di alogue with th e research partici pants, and our field roles were continuously shaped and reshaped according to the individual s and the situations in which we became in volved. Even aspects of our own identities taken into the field, such as our background and personal qu al ities, proved to be important in establishin g good relations with the care staff. Also in my case, I was invo lved in constant identity (re)neg otiation in th e field, con sisting in aligning mine to the participants', creating a member rol e for myself, moving along the insider - outsider continuum (see Hellawell, 2006; Nakata, 2015) , and exploiting whatever might bring me closer to the participants, like "shared features in our personalities and backg roun ds..." (Jansson & Nikolaido u, 2013 : 162) . In my case, my lingu istic profile seemed also an element that might have brought me closer to those participan ts which w hom I shared a lang uage (e.g . 62 '... ja començo a ser capaç de formular els primers esquemes del que he observat, és a dir, a identificar i esquematitzar patrons, a extreure representacions simbòliques del que he observat. Poc a poc vaig captant les dinàmiques de la pràctica professional dels informants i comprenent les seves accions, els diferents moments que es donen, els req uisits de cada moment (temps lliure per estar esperant un resultat, moment de molt a activitat per preparar un expe riment, època de presentaci on s pq està present el líder, etc.). També en qüestió de llengua vaig comprenent les dinàmiques habituals dels grups, així com les pràctiques i cost ums individuals.' [Research Diary, 30/01/2 014 ; original in Catalan ] Chapter 3: Methodology 220 the fact that I could speak Greek may have facilitated interactions with Mara, a speaker of Greek, while interactions with those participants who had difficulties with English were difficul t and thus scarcer). Other features that might have brou ght me closer to the participants were: interest for languages, for socialisin g, for being ob served, shared background, livin g context, habits, hobbies, researcher identity and activities, etc . These might be motives for more or less proximity and interaction frequency of participants not only with me but also among them. I also had a constant dilemma throughout the data collection: I need ed to b e accepted as a member in order to have access and to co mprehend what was t aking place, but I need ed also to stay "objective" and emotionally neu tral. As explained by Latour and Woolgar ( 1986 [1979]: 44) , "In practice, observers steer a middle path between the two extreme roles of tot al newcomer (an ut tainable ideal) and that of complete participant (who in going native is unable usefully to communicate to his community of fellow ob servers)". I soon hesitated whether to come clos e to participants or leave some distance, wheth er to attach to my 'researcher' identity or to my 'group member' identity. Constant question s came to my mind so as to whom I should talk to , in what terms, in what places, to what extent, etc. Gaining their con fidence app eared as something that may help the research – in terms of obtaining more data – , but on the other side, it could be misinterpreted – it could be confused with friend ship. This di lemma is summa rised by Christine Casanave (2 015: 12 6): "Researchers themselves dev elop complex and sometimes personal relationships with case stu dy participants and sites and thus need to reflect constantly (e.g. in research memos) on the roles they are playing in their own study". Finally, I decided to mark my research i dentity and try not to come too close to parti cipants : this was managed by alternating interviews and observatio ns among participants, not seeking encounters or interactions ou t of the wor kplace. This type of encounters took place only on eight occasions an d with different participants; in three of the m, with the purpose of intervi ewing the participants; in two occasions, for informal conversations; and in other three occasions, fo r informal grou p event s that took place out of the workplace, and to which I was kind ly invited by group members – one bi rthday party and two farewell parties. 3.3.2.5. Power relations between the researcher and t he research participants This is also a common issue in the literature . Kvale and Brikmann (2015) address power asymmetries in research interviews; N unkoos ing (2005) tackles po wer and resistance between interviewer and interviewee; Weis and Fine (2000) show concern for the difficulties in the relationship between the research er and the participants, among many other scholars. In the case of this study, power was granted to th e researcher by the legitimacy of the group leaders' permission to enter the lab, observe, ask, etc. Legiti macy was ho wever not constant; there w ere Chapter 3: Methodology 221 different perceptions of my task as a researcher and thus diverse attitudes towards me: group leaders might see me as a language expert, especially in English, who could help group members in their writing of papers; other participants saw me as a language referee ( overseein g their 'correct' language use) [see excerpt 2], as a "spy " of the group leader or as uninteresting. Excerpt 2 : Interview with P ere [Group B’s leader] – ‘If Helena coul d hear us_’ Pere: ...we e nded up talking abo ut you precisely in the meeting_ because yesterday we started mixing [languages]_ and we said_ If Helena could hear us_ if Helena c ould hear us_ Pere: ...vam sortir a parla r de tu justament per la reunió_ perquè ahir vam co mençar a barrejar [llengües ]\ Dèiem_ si l'Helena ens sentís_ si l'Helena ens sentí s_ [original in Catalan] The participants had the power not to relate with me, to give the depth they desired to their answers, to modify their behaviour in front of me, etc. Nonetheless, being an outsider and having a researcher identity may have aided me gain the participants' con fidence for different reasons: because they could identify themselves with me; because I did not have clashing interests with theirs; because I did no t depend on their "boss" (their grou p leader); and because I was not asses sing their performance at work. Finally, con cern about their answers or behaviours being unveiled to the gr oup leader or to other group memb ers may hav e also been an inhibiting element. 3.3.2.6. The researcher's impact on the data My ro le in the field was mostly that of a 'nonparticipant' or 'observer as partic ipan t', as defined by (Creswell, 2013: 167) : "Th e researcher is an outsider of the group under study (...) from a distance (...) without di rect involvement with activity or peo ple". I ob served thei r professional practices whi le recordin g noticeable events, and only interacted directly with them to ask questions or answer theirs. However, not to influ ence parti cipants ’ behaviour is deemed a utopia in the literature. An example of this is t he ‘ observer's paradox ’ (Labov, 1972) or the ‘o bserver's effect’, as Blommaert and Jie (2010: 27) po se it: "you are never observing an event as if you were not there". My impact onto the data wa s evident in participants' occ asional comments in my presence showing their concern about th eir use of swear words or about their accuracy when using English, which may indicate that my presence raised the participants' a wareness of their communication pra ctices. 3.3.2.7. Ethical issues Other issues that emerged were those related to confidentiality of some aspects of the data like experiment results, and to the participants' anonymity. As has already been noted, the seco nd Chapter 3: Methodology 222 aspect has been solved by replacing r eal names by aliase s, not unveiling t he name of the universities or research centres and no t specifying the area of study of each gr oup. Concerning confidentiality, specific aspects of the data ref erring to experiment results have been either erased , repla ced by a generic (not specialised) t erm or not included in this report, and interpretations have been generalised instead of offering an individual portrait of a particular, identifiable case (Cre swell, 2013). This is no t however devoid of di lemmas, a s posed by Creese (2010: 145), who summarises this issue as follows: "The tension here lies in protecting those being researched while simultaneously meeting th e need for detail and description required in ethnography". Su ch tension is also manifest in cas e s tudies: "Th e case stud y is by defin ition an in -depth study of a particular person, group or program. As the study becomes more and more particularized, it becomes difficult to protect participants' identities and to separate private issues fro m t hose th at can be written about without risk" (Casanave, 2015 : 126). Besides the appointed measures taken, I made the co mmitment to show all the analyses that might co me out from the dat a to group leaders previous to their pu blication (s ee Murphy & Ding wall, 2001, on more 'ethical issues ' in ethnograph ic research). The lack of ethical surveillance in the Catalan - Spanish research system places all responsib ility in this respect on the indivi dual researcher. Not putting participants at risk nor herself was also a concern that the researcher had to deal with alone. Other difficulties with the data collection were technical issues, su ch as where to place the video camera or the audio recorder, proble ms with disturbing ambient sound s, the quality of recording devices (one of the audio files was flawed and the recorded event was lost), getting storing devices that could host all data, concerns abo ut backups and safe storing of data, and lo st or misplaced data in the database. All these issues and di fficulties may not be avoidable; in this case, I have op ted to be transparent i n th ese regard s as a wa y not to counteract th em bu t to be honest about the imperfections that any research stud y – not only qualitative ones – has. Having exp lained the method s for data collection, in the next section I will detail the methodology for data analysis , which is closely connected to them. In line with th e principles of linguistic ethnography, "linguistic evidence is ethn ographically info rmed and ethnographic evidence can only be understood as constructed in discourse" (Copland & Crees e, 2015: 174) . The analy sis of the data collected in this study cannot be other than an analysis of discou rse. Following the theoretical a pproaches chosen fo r this stud y, the co mbination of the study of "groups of individuals participating in an event or activity or an organi sation", as in c ase studies, with the exploration of "entire cultural system s or some subcultures of th e systems" [Document text truncated for crawler view.]