Bridging the gap: Exploring authorial voice in medical ethics blogs and research papers

Abstract

This study examines the authorial voice in medical ethics blogs and their corresponding academic papers to uncover how scientific discourse is recontextualized for broader audiences. Drawing on 92 medical ethics blog posts paired with their paired medical research articles, the analysis focuses on stance, engagement, and recontextualization strategies. Using corpus-based and qualitative approaches, we identify how these two genres differ in tone, self-representation, and audience engagement, with blogs employing more personal and evaluative language to facilitate accessibility and reader involvement. Findings reveal that medical ethics blogs strategically balance credibility and relatability, emphasizing simplicity and interactivity, while the corresponding research articles adhere to formal conventions of accuracy and detail. This study highlights how academic blogging can complement traditional research dissemination by fostering inclusivity and enhancing the public's engagement with complex scientific issues.