Traditional, dialogical and complex scholarly communication: towards a renewed trust in science

Abstract

Purpose

The credibility crisis of science is a growing topic of investigation. This study approaches the problem from the sustainability of the scholarly communication system by merging argumentation with information science.

Design/methodology/approach

Coding and content analysis drawing from a well-established textual argumentative tradition; a novel non-textual approach to complex communication and, an overlooked definition of sustainable information, were applied to 34 research works. The retrieval was carried out using Inciteful, a tool exploring literature networks. Additional information, such as keywords, mapping to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and citations were acquired through the OpenAlex API. Operationalisation of concepts from the theoretical framework underpinned the selection and analysis of documents.

Findings

Scholars virtually involve peers, funding agencies, research councils, policymakers, experts, practitioners and representatives of the public in their formal written production. The described coalitions are occasional, while the needed ones are deep. Three forms of scholarly communication were found: traditional, dialogical and complex depending on the involved audiences. The sample tells us about the sustainability of the scientific communication system and the impact it may have on the public construction of imaginaries of science.

Originality/value

This investigation frames scholars, their products and societies as intertwined dialogical entities constantly communicating and impacting each other. Direct and indirect forms of scholarly communications are addressed too, showing how poor sustainability in these processes may entail a failure to reach different layers of societies.

Citation

Foderaro, A. and Gunnarsson Lorentzen, D. (2024), "Traditional, dialogical and complex scholarly communication: towards a renewed trust in science", Journal of Documentation, Vol. 80 No. 6, pp. 1313-1332. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-12-2023-0252