` “Nah, musing is fine. You don't have to be 'doing science'” Emotional and Descriptive Meaning- Making in Online Non-Professional Discussions about Science Oliver Martin Marsh UCL Department of Science and Technology Studies Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy August 2017 1 ` Declaration I, Oliver Martin Marsh, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. 2 ` Abstract In this thesis I use online settings to explore how descriptive and emotional forms of meaning-making interact in non-professional discussions around ‘science’. Data was collected from four participatory online fora, from March 2015 to February 2016. Posts and comments from these fora were examined through discourse analysis, supplemented by interviews with participants and computer-aided text analysis, over the period August 2015 to August 2017. Theoretical background drew on Science and Technology Studies (STS) and Fan Studies (FS), to examine how science was presented in both descriptive and emotional terms. There were two main findings. Firstly, discussions were shaped by an expectation that members should respect mainstream scientific consensus. In a manner familiar from STS, participants treated claims which went against scientific consensus as incorrect or non- credible. Responses also showed emotional aspects which shaped participation. Respect for scientific consensus facilitated social bonding and expression of community values, while disrespect was met with anger and/or ridicule. Through normalisation of such behaviour, scientific authority was maintained by communal sanctions rather than accredited expertise. The second main finding was a distinction between two forms of discourse, which I refer to as musing and identifying. In musing, participants focussed on specific phenomena, technologies and science-related concepts. Emotional language in such discourse was generally positive, but explicit mentions of people were rare. In identifying, participants reflected on processes of discussing and making/assessing claims; in doing so they foregrounded references to people. Emotional references in identifying tended to involve frustration, concern, and scorn. These findings develop STS understanding of how engagement with science takes place outside of professional research, communication, and/or education; and, more broadly, how discourse around science can be shaped by emotional attachments and informal norms. This thesis also contributes a discourse analytic perspective to recent debates around the interaction of expertise and emotion online. 3 ` Acknowledgements This is a thesis about how emotional interactions shape the production of knowledge. The experience of producing the thesis provided strong corroboratory evidence for that process. I have been extremely fortunate in those I have around me, and their input both intellectually and socially, and this thesis would not be the same (or, indeed, here) without them. Firstly, I am deeply grateful for the support provided by my supervisors, Karen Bultitude and Simon Lock. This work has benefitted immeasurably from their detailed and careful input, and an exceptional willingness to engage with some severe verbal muddles on my part. I have felt well-guided while still free to take this work where I wanted, and supported enough to make useful mistakes (of which, any that remain are entirely my responsibility). This input into my work and character has influenced me considerably beyond what appears in this thesis. All this took place at times of extremely busy personal schedules of their own. This has been greatly appreciated, and often inspirational. I also thank Tiago Mata for his input in the proposal which became this project, and for his welcome re-appearance partway through. Thanks also to my examiners, Sarah Davies and Melissa Terras, for their thoughtful and helpful input. Many people have shaped the experience of this thesis. There are three communities that deserve particular mention. First, and most particularly, my colleagues and wonderful friends in the Science and Technology Studies Department of University College London. If I ever find another environment which combines intellectual stimulation, emotional support, and sheer fun as the STS community I shall consider myself extremely lucky. The times spent in the Alice Farrands room were hard, rewarding work – they were also something I always looked forward to. Second, the fellow inhabitants of and regular visitors to Harrow Road, Plato Road, and my current home; and, for putting up with me across all of these, Emily Jones. Thirdly, those who gave me a fulfilling life outside of the PhD across various drama societies. Having all of you around has helped this thesis much more than I can express. Thirdly, I am grateful to a great number of anonymous and semi-anonymous internet users. The people who I write about in this thesis have provided me with a lot more than data. I have learned a great deal (about science, and much more besides), frequently been entertained, and have greatly appreciated the kindness and generosity many of you have shown me. I hope this thesis does you justice, and maybe even interests and entertains. The digital methods used in this thesis were built on the hard work of many skilled 4 ` programmers, which they generously provided free of charge. In particular I acknowledge Pierre Ratinaud, the designer of Iramuteq. However there are many people whose work helped me learn Python, MySql, and web scraping; skills that continue to shape my working life considerably beyond this project. Last, and most thanks, are due to my proofreaders, Karoliina Pulkkinen and Dr. Trudi Martin; to Chris Marsh for sofa provision during a very productive conclusion-writing stay; and to Tom Marsh, for reminding me that however bad a situation may seem it can always be lightened with an animal-related joke. More than that, thank you to Karoliina for bringing so much unexpected happiness to the times spent writing this thesis – and, more importantly, to my life outside of it. And most of all, thank you to my family – Trudi, Chris, and Tom. This thesis is one part of an extremely fortunate, supported, and happy life, which is entirely down to you. I could not have asked for better than you have given me. It is to you that this thesis is dedicated, with thanks and love. 5 ` Table of Contents List of Tables, Figures, and Boxes_______________________________________12 Stylistic Notes _____________________________________________________ 17 Glossary _________________________________________________________ 17 1: Introduction ____________________________________________________ 21 Structure of the Thesis ___________________________________________________ 23 2: Literature Review ________________________________________________ 25 2.1 Emotional and Descriptive Meaning-Making __________________________ 25 2.1.1 Emotion, Science, and Online Participation ______________________________ 26 2.1.2 Meaning-Making in STS _____________________________________________ 28 2.1.3 Meaning-Making in Fan Studies _______________________________________ 30 2.1.4 Descriptive and Emotional Meaning-Making ______________________________ 31 2.1.5 Meanings in Public Engagement with Science ____________________________ 33 2.2. Instrumentalism ________________________________________________ 36 2.2.1. Instrumentalism in STS _____________________________________________ 37 2.2.2 The FS Critique of Instrumentalism _____________________________________ 38 2.3 Identity: Between ‘A Priori’ and ‘Constructed’ __________________________ 40 2.3.1 Identity and Participation _____________________________________________ 41 2.3.2 Roles ____________________________________________________________ 42 2.2.3 Instrumentalism and Online Engagement with Science _____________________ 44 2.4 Shaping of meaning: Between Organisation and Norms _________________ 47 2.4.1 Organisation and Norms _____________________________________________ 47 2.4.2 Excluded Meanings _________________________________________________ 49 2.5 Alternative STS Approaches ______________________________________ 50 2.5.1 Informal Science Education ___________________________________________ 51 2.5.2 Science and Social Identities _________________________________________ 52 Conclusion _______________________________________________________ 54 6 ` 3: Methods and Methodology _________________________________________ 56 3.1 Online Settings and Case Studies __________________________________ 56 3.1.1 Online Fora as Case Studies _________________________________________ 57 3.1.2 Selection of Cases _________________________________________________ 58 3.2 Ethical Considerations ___________________________________________ 61 3.2.1 Informed Consent __________________________________________________ 62 3.2.2 Protecting Identity of Participants ______________________________________ 63 3.3 Data Collection _________________________________________________ 66 3.3.1 Web Scraping _____________________________________________________ 66 3.3.2 Interviews ________________________________________________________ 68 3.4 Analysis of Themes and Discourse _________________________________ 71 3.4.1 The Constructivist Approach to Analysis _________________________________ 71 3.4.2 Computer Aided Text Analysis ________________________________________ 72 3.4.3 Thematic Analysis __________________________________________________