Science Communication

Science communication Generally Refers to public communication presenting science-related topics to non-experts. This often involves professional scientists (called ” outreach ” or ” popularization “), but also evolved into a professional field in its own right. It includes science exhibitions , journalism , policy or media production. Science communication includes communication aussi entre scientists (for instance through scientific journals ), as well as entre scientists and non-scientists (Especially during public controversies over science and in citizen science initiatives.

Science Communication May generate carrier for scientific research or study , or to inform decision making , Including political and ethical thinking. There is still emphasis on explaining methods rather than simply findings of science. This May be critical Especially in Addressing scientific misinformation , qui Spreads Easily Because It is not subject to the constraints of scientific method . [1] [2] [3] [4] Science communicators can use entertainment and persuasion including humor , Storytelling and metaphors . [3] [4] Scientists can be trained in some of the techniques used by actors to improve their communication. [5]

Motivations

In addition to the academic discipline, it is important to be aware of the importance of the academic discipline. Journals include Public Understanding of Science and Science Communication . Researchers in the field of science and technology studies , but may also come from history of science , mainstream media studies , psychology or sociology . As a reflection of growth in this field, academic departments, such as the Department of Life Sciences Communication at the University of Wisconsin-Madison , have been established to focus on applied and theoretical communication issues. Agricultural communication is considered a subset of agricultural science and technology. Health communication is a related discipline. Writing in 1987 Geoffery Thomas and John Durant advocated various Reasons to Increase public understanding of science, or scientific literacy . If the public enjoyed more science, it would be presumably more funding, progressive regulation, and trained scientists. More trained engineers and scientists could allow a nation to be more competitive economically. [1] Science can also benefit individuals. Science can simply have aesthetic appeal (eg Popular science or science fiction ). Living in an increasingly technological society. The science of happiness is an example of a field of research which can have direct implications for individuals. [1] Governments and societies might also benefit from more scientific literacy, since it promotes a more democratic society . [1] Moreover, science can inform moral decision making (eg, answering a question about whether animals can feel pain , how human activity influences climate , or Even a science of morality ). Bernard Cohen points out potential pitfalls in improving scientific literacy. He explains first that we must avoid ‘scientific idolatry’. In other words, science education must allow the public to respect science without worshiping it, or expecting infallibility. Ultimately scientists are humans, and neither perfectly altruistic, nor perfectly competent. Science communicators must also appreciate the distinction between understanding science and possessing a transferable skill of scientific thinking. Indeed, even trained scientists do not always manage to transfer the skill to other areas of their life. Science education, science, science, science and technology Ultimately scientists are humans, and neither perfectly altruistic, nor perfectly competent. Science communicators must also appreciate the distinction between understanding science and possessing a transferable skill of scientific thinking. Indeed, even trained scientists do not always manage to transfer the skill to other areas of their life. Science education, science, science, science and technology Ultimately scientists are humans, and neither perfectly altruistic, nor perfectly competent. Science communicators must also appreciate the distinction between understanding science and possessing a transferable skill of scientific thinking. Indeed, even trained scientists do not always manage to transfer the skill to other areas of their life.

Scientist : The Scientist’s Scientist : The Scientist’s Guide to Scientism He also criticizes the teaching of ‘miscellaneous information’ and doubts that much of it will ever be of use, (eg the distance in light years from the Earth to various stars, or the names of minerals). Much of scientific knowledge, especially if it is not the subject of public debate and policy revision, may never really translate to practical changes for the lives of the learners. [1]

Many criticisms of academic research in public understanding of science come from scholars in Science and Technology Studies . For example, Steven Hilgartner (1990) [2] argues that what he calls ‘the dominant view’ of science popularization tends to imply a tight boundary around those who can articulate true, reliable knowledge. By defining a deficient public as recipients of knowledge, the scientists obtain their own identity as experts. The process of popularization is a form of boundary work. Understood in this way, science communication may explicitly exist to connect scientists with the rest of society, but its very existence only acts to emphasize it: (As Massimiano Bucchi or Brian Wynne ). It is also known as the ” [6] [7]

Biologist Randy Olson is an expert in the field of biochemistry and molecular biology. He cites examples of denialism (for instance of global warming ) to support this worry. [3] Journalist Robert Krulwich likewise argues that the stories scientists are invariably competing with the efforts of people like Adnan Oktar . Krulwich explains that attractive, easy to read, and cheap creationist textbooks were sold by the thousands to schools in Turkey (despite their strong secular tradition) due to the efforts of Oktar. [4]

Methods

Walter Lewin demonstrates conservation of potential energy. It can be difficult to captivatingly share scientifically accurate scientific information. Krulwich and Olson believe scientists must rise to the challenge using metaphor and story telling. [3] [4]

Marine biologist and filmmaker Randy Olson published Do not Be Such a Scientist: Talking Substance in an Age of Style . In the book he describes how he has been neglected to teach scientists to communicate. Do not be a scientist, but they need to “lighten up”. He adds that scientists are ultimately the most responsible for promoting and explaining science to the public and media. This, Olson says, should be done according to a good grasp of social science ; Scientists must use persuasive and effective means like story telling . Olson is a leading provider of information technology solutions for the healthcare industry. He points to figures like Carl Sagan as effective people, partly because such figures actively cultivate a likeable image. [3]

As his beginning address to Caltech students, journalist Robert Krulwich delivered a speech entitled “Tell me a story”. Krulwich says that scientists are actually given many opportunities to explain something interesting about science or their work, and that they must seize such opportunities. He says scientists must resist shunning the public, as Sir Isaac Newton did in his writing, and instead embraced the way Galileo did; Krulwich suggests that metaphors only become more important as the science gets more difficult to understand. He adds that telling stories of science in practice, of scientists’ success stories and struggles, helps convey that scientists are real people. finally, Krulwich advocates for the importance of scientific values ​​in general, and help the public to understand that [4]

Actor Alan Alda helps scientists and PhD students get more comfortable with communication with the help of drama coaches (they use the acting techniques of Viola Spolin ). [5]

Imagining science’s publics

In the preface of The Selfish Gene , Richard Dawkins wrote: “Three imaginary readers looked over my shoulder while I was writing, and I now dedicate the book to them. ] Second the expert [and] third the student “.

Students explain science projects to visitors. Susanna Hornig promotes the message that anyone can meaningfully engage with science, even without going as deeply into it as the researchers themselves do. [8]

Many of the criticisms of the public understanding of science have been unanimous. Approaches to the public changed with the move away from the public understanding of science. The social and political environment of modern social identities. [9] At the very least, people will use plurals: public or audiences. As the editor of Public Understanding of Science put it in a public issue:

We have a clear view of the public deficit in public opinion as publicly active, knowledgeable, playing multiple roles, receiving as well as shaping science. (Einsiedel, 2007: 5) [10]

However, Einsiedel goes on to suggest both views of the public are “monolithic” in their own way; They both choose to declare what something called the public is. Public understanding of science might have ridiculed public for their ignorance, but an alternative “public engagement with science and technology”. As Susanna Hornig Priest (2009) [8] concludes in her recent introduction. That they can join in if they want, rather than that there is a necessity to spend their lives engaging.

The process of quantifiably monitoring public opinion is now largely associated with the public understanding of science movement (some would say unfairly [11] ). In the US, Jon Miller is the name most associated with such work and well known for differentiating between identifiable ‘attentive’ or ‘interested’ public (that is to say science fans) and those who do not care much about science and technology. Miller’s work questioned whether the American public had the following four attributes of scientific literacy:

  • Knowledge of basic textbook scientific factual knowledge
  • An understanding of scientific method
  • Appreciated the positive outcomes of science and technology
  • Rejected superstitious beliefs, such as astrology or numerology [12]

In some respects, John Durant ‘s work surveying British public [13] applied similar ideas to Miller. However, they were slightly more concerned with attitudes to science and technology, rather than just how much knowledge people had. They also looked at public knowledge in their knowledge, considering issues such as “do not know” boxes. We can see aspects of this approach, as well as public participation with science and technology, influenced by the Eurobarometer studies of public opinion. These have been running since 1973 to monitor public opinion in the member states, with the help of the preparation of policy (and evaluation of policy). They look at a host of topics, not just science and technology but also defense, The euro , enlargement of the European Union, and culture. Eurobarometer’s recent study of Europeans’ Attitudes to Climate Change [14] is a good example. It focuses on respondents’ “subjective level of information”; Asking “personally, do you think that you are well informed or not about …?” Rather than checking what people knew.

Frame analysis

Science communication can be analyzed through frame analysis .

Some features of this analysis are listed below.

  • Public accountability : public policy, public policy
  • Runaway technology : creating a certain view of technological advances, eg photos of an exploited nuclear power plant
  • Scientific uncertainty : the question of the reliability of a scientific theory, eg arguing how humans are still alive [15]

Heuristics

People make an enormous number of decisions every day, and to approach all of them in a careful, methodical manner is impractical. They often use mental shortcuts known as ” heuristics ” to quickly arrive at acceptable inferences. [16] Tversky and Kahneman originally proposed three heuristics, listed below, but there are many others that have been discussed in later research. [17]

  • Representativeness : to make assumptions about probability based on relevancy, eg how likely to be a member of category B (is Kim a leader?), Or that event C resulted from process D (could the sequence of corner tosses HHTT Occurred randomly?).
  • Availability : This item is printed on demand. For example, if you are a member of a college or a college, you may be interested in learning more about this.
  • Anchoring and adjustment : used when making judgments with uncertainties. One will start with an anchoring point, then adjust it to reach an assumption. For example, if you are asked to estimate how many people will take Dr. Smith’s biology class this spring, you may recall that 38 students took the class in the fall, and adjust your estimate Or in the fall.

The most effective science communication efforts take into account the role that heuristics play in everyday decision-making. Many outreach initiatives Focus Solely we Increasing the public’s knowledge, studies aim (eg Brossard et al 2012). [18] -have found That There is little – if any – correlation entre knowledge levels and attitudes Towards scientific issues. [19]

Simulation

The simulation heuristic is used to judge how a certain ending is based on the ease with which one can imagine a particular ending. [16] This heuristic can be used for many tasks, including prediction (Did Jim eat the last slice of pizza?). An application of this heuristic to the case of near misses. Consider the following example from Kahneman & Tversky: [20]

Mr. Crane and Mr. Tees were scheduled to leave the airport on different flights, at the same time. They traveled from town in the same limousine, were caught in a traffic jam, and arrived at the airport thirty minutes after the scheduled departure time of their flights.

Mr. Crane is told his flight left on time.

Mr. Tees is told that his flight was delayed, and just left five minutes ago.

Who is more upset?

Mr. Crane or Mr. Tees?

Almost everyone says, “Mr. Tees”, because they can not imagine how Mr. Crane could have caught his flight, while Mr. Tees might have made it impossible for that slow pedestrian, or the exceptionally long security line. The simulation heuristic has this ability to generate “if only” conditions, which can be used to understand the negative feelings of frustration, indignation, etc. That arise from near misses such as that of Mr. Tees.

This simulation of how events might -have occurred is Referred to as counterfactual thinking , and can be used to try to Identify a single gold That unusual circumstance lead to a dramatic outcome. For example, consider a man who is shot during a robbery while shopping at a convenience store. Subjects will award more damages to a man who was shopped at his home. [16]

Regarding simulations of future events, simply imagining hypothetical events makes them seem more likely to occur. [21] [22] This phenomenon can be extended to a person’s own behavior, as imagining oneself performing or refusing to perform an action causes changes in expectations about one’s future behavior. [23] [24] Interestingly, simulation is “more likely to increase perceived likelihood of a potential outcome … than to reduce perceived likelihood of a potential consequence”. [16] Thus, the implications of research on the simulation heuristic are particularly intriguing when designing outreach efforts.

Science in popular culture and the media

This diagram, designed by Thomas Edison in 1880, is intended to depict the workings of a light bulb .

Birth of public science

The scientific literature on the Renaissance and the Enlightenment was published in the early 1960s. [25] Most prior to science This Was funded by Individuals under private patronage and Was Studied in exclusive groups, like the Royal Society . Public science emerged due to a gradual social change , resulting from the rise of the middle class in the nineteenth century. As scientific inventions, like the conveyor belt and the steam locomotive entered and enhanced the lifestyle of people in the nineteenth century, Scientific inventions to be widely funded by universities and other public institutions in an effort to increase scientific research. [26] Since scientific achievements were beneficial to society, the pursuit of scientific knowledge resulted in science as a profession . Scientific institutions, like the National Academy of Sciences or the British Association for the Advancement of Science are examples of leading platforms for the public discussion of science. [27] David Brewster , founder of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, believed in regulated publications in order to effectively communicate their discoveries,

Scientific media in the 19th century

There was a change in media production in the nineteenth century. The invention of the steam-powered printing pressed furthermore, which resulted in cheaper texts. Book prices gradually dropped, which gave the working classes the ability to purchase them. [29] No longer reserved for the elite, affordable and informative texts were made available to a mass audience. Historian Aileen Fyfe noted that, as the nineteenth century experienced a set of social reforms that sought to improve the lives of those in the working classes, the availability of public knowledge was valuable for intellectual growth. [30] As a result, there were efforts to further the knowledge of the less educated. The Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge , led by Henry Brougham , attempted to organize a system for widespread literacy for all classes. [31] Additionally, weekly periodicals , like the Penny Magazine , were intended to educate the general public on scientific achievements in a comprehensive manner. [32]

As the audience for scientific texts expanded, the interest in public science did not. ‘Extension lectures’ were installed in some universities, like Oxfordand Cambridge , which encouraged members of the public to await readings. [33] In America, traveling was a common occurrence in the nineteenth century and attracted hundreds of viewers. These public lectures were a part of the lyceum movement and demonstrated basic scientific experiments , which advanced scientific knowledge for both the educated and uneducated viewers. [34]

Not only did the popularization of public science enlighten the general public through the mass media , but it also enhanced communication within the scientific community . Although scientists had been communicating their discoveries and achievements through print for centuries, publications with a variety of subjects decreased in popularity. [35] Alternatively, publications in discipline-specific journals were crucial for a successful career in science in the nineteenth century. As a result, Scientific journals such as Nature and National Geographicpossessed a broad readership and received substantial funding by the end of the nineteenth century as the popularization of. [36]

Communication of science in contemporary media

Science can be communicated to the public in a huge number of different ways. According to Karen Bultitude, a science communication lecturer at University College London , these can be broadly categorized into three groups: traditional journalism, live or face-to-face events and online interaction. [37] Traditional journalism (for example, newspapers , magazines , television and radio ) has the advantage of reaching broad audiences; This is way most people. [37] [38] Traditional media is also highly likely to produce information that is well-written or presented, As it has been produced by professional journalists. Traditional journalism is often also responsible for setting agendas and having an impact on government policy . [37] The disadvantages of traditional journalism include, which is taken up by the mainstream media, the scientist (s) involved in any given control over misunderstanding and misinformation. [37] [39] Also, this method of communication is one way, so there can be no dialogue with the public, and science stories. Not be able to understand the bigger picture from a scientific perspective. [37] [39] However, it is not clear whether this is the case or not. [40] The second category is live or face-to-face events, such as public lectures (for example, UCL’s public lunch hour lectures – museums , debates , science busking , sci-art , science cafes and science festivals . This article is about a two-way dialogue. Scientists are also able to control the use of this method. Disadvantages include the limited reach, it can also be resource-intensive and costly and also, it may be that only audiences with an existing interest in science will be attracted. [37]

The third category is online interaction, for example, websites , blogs , wikis and podcasts can aussi be used for science communication, as can social media . Citizen Science or crowd-sourced science (scientific research conducted, in whole or in part, by amateur or nonprofessional scientists) is another way that the internet can be used for science communication. [37] Online methods of communicating science have the potential to reach large audiences, can allow direct interaction between scientists and the public, and the content is always accessible and can be controlled by the scientist. Online communication also allows for one-way and two-way communication, And the author’s preferences. However, there are disadvantages in that it is difficult to control how it is picked up by others, and regular attention and updating is needed. [37]

S & T governance and S & T governance. [41] Therefore it is important to bear this aspect in mind when communicating scientific information to the public (for example, through events combining science communication and comedy, such as Festival of the Spoken Nerd or during scientific controversies). [38] Since the field of science communication is still new, more research is needed to find out how and why the public involves, and what the impact of science communication through journalism, events or online actually is. [39] [42] More recent research and research in the field of science and technology. For these scholars who are working from a contextualist / deliberative democracy framework, science-media interaction is a complex process. Scholars Who are working on the close coupling of science and media have two social (sub) systems (Following The systems theory tradition of Niklas Luhmann ) [43] argues That scientists Actively seek media visibility In Their attempt to generate more funds for Their research by Wooing the public. [44] Similarly, The media find it important to report to the public to enable citizen participation in risk governance in contemporary risk societies. [45]

The public understanding of science movement

The public understanding of science , the public awareness of science and public engagement with science and technology are all terms and conditions in the late 20th century . During the late 19th century , science became a professional subject and influenced by governmental suggestions. Prior to this, public understanding of science was very low on the agenda. However, some well-known figures such as Michael Faraday ran readings at the non-public, his being the famous Christmas Readings which began in 1825. The 20th century saw the foundations of a society that could be reached by the general public. In the UK, The Bodmer Report (or The Public Understanding of Science as it is more formally known) published in 1985 by The Royal Society changed the way scientists communicated their work to the public. The report was designed to “review the nature and extent of the public understanding of science in the United Kingdom and its suitability for an advanced democracy.” [46] Chaired by the Geneticist Sir Walter Bodmer Sir David Attenborough , The report was evidenced by all the major areas concerned; scientists , politicians , journalists and industrialized but not the public general . [46] One of the hand assumptions drawn from the report was everybody should have some grasp of science and this should be introduced from a young age by teachers who are suitably qualified in the subject area. [47] The postponement aussi Asked for further Top media coverage of science Including via newspapers and television qui HAS Ultimately led to the establishment of platforms Such As the Vega Science Trust . scientists , politicians , journalists and industrialized but not the public general . [46] One of the hand assumptions drawn from the report was everybody should have some grasp of science and this should be introduced from a young age by teachers who are suitably qualified in the subject area. [47] The postponement aussi Asked for further Top media coverage of science Including via newspapers and television qui HAS Ultimately led to the establishment of platforms Such As the Vega Science Trust . scientists , politicians , journalists and industrialized but not the public general . [46] One of the hand assumptions drawn from the report was everybody should have some grasp of science and this should be introduced from a young age by teachers who are suitably qualified in the subject area. [47] The postponement aussi Asked for further Top media coverage of science Including via newspapers and television qui HAS Ultimately led to the establishment of platforms Such As the Vega Science Trust . Journalists and industrialists but not the general public . [46] One of the hand assumptions drawn from the report was everybody should have some grasp of science and this should be introduced from a young age by teachers who are suitably qualified in the subject area. [47]The postponement aussi Asked for further Top media coverage of science Including via newspapers and television qui HAS Ultimately led to the establishment of platforms Such As the Vega Science Trust . Journalists and industrialists but not the general public . [46] One of the hand assumptions drawn from the report was everybody should have some grasp of science and this should be introduced from a young age by teachers who are suitably qualified in the subject area. [47] The postponement aussi Asked for further Top media coverage of science Including via newspapers and television qui HAS Ultimately led to the establishment of platforms Such As the Vega Science Trust . [46] One of the hand assumptions drawn from the report was everybody should have some grasp of science and this should be introduced from a young age by teachers who are suitably qualified in the subject area. [47] The postponement aussi Asked for further Top media coverage of science Including via newspapers and television qui HAS Ultimately led to the establishment of platforms Such As the Vega Science Trust . [46] One of the hand assumptions drawn from the report was everybody should have some grasp of science and this should be introduced from a young age by teachers who are suitably qualified in the subject area. [47] The postponement aussi Asked for further Top media coverage of science Including via newspapers and television qui HAS Ultimately led to the establishment of platforms Such As the Vega Science Trust .

In both the United States and the United States, the second world war , public views of scientists swayed from great praise to resentment. Therefore, the Bodmer Report Concerns highlight highlighted from the scientific community That Was Their withdrawal from society Causing scientific research funding to be weak. [48] Bodmer promoted the communication of science to a wider more general public by expressing to British scientists that it was their responsibility to publicize their research. [48] An upshot of the publication of the report of the Committee on the Public Understanding of Science (COPUS), a collaboration between the British Association for the Advancement of Science , The Royal Society and the Royal Institution . The commitment between these individual societies caused the necessity for a public understanding of science movement to be taken seriously. COPUS also awarded grants for specific outreach activities. [49] Ultimately leading to a cultural shift in the way scientists publicized their work to the non-expert community wider. [50] Although the Coalition for the Public Understanding of Science .

See also

  • Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science
  • British Science Association
  • List of popularizers of science
  • Public awareness of science

Notes and references

  1. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e As summarized in Gregory, Jane & Steve Miller (1998) Science in Public: communication, culture and credibility (New York: Plenum), 11-17.
  2. ^ Jump up to:a b Hilgartner, Stephen (1990) ‘The Dominant View of Popularization: Conceptual Problems, Political Uses, Social Studies of Science, vol. 20 (3): 519-539.
  3. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e (October 23, 2009) “Randy Olson – Do not Be Such a Scientist.”(Includes podcast). Pointofinquiry.org . Accessed May 2012.
  4. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Miller, Lulu (July 29, 2008). “Tell Me a Story.” (Includes podcast). Radiolab.org . Accessed May 2012.
  5. ^ Jump up to:a b Grushkin, Daniel (August 5, 2010). “Try acting like a scientist” The Scientist Magazine . Accessed May 2012.
  6. Jump up^ Massimiano Bucchi(1998) Science and the Media (London & New York: Routledge).
  7. Jump up^ Wynne, Brian (1992) ‘Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science’,Public Understanding of Science, vol. 1 (3): 281-304. See also Irwin, Alan & Wynne, Brian (eds) (1996)Misunderstanding Science(Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press).
  8. ^ Jump up to:a b Priest, Susanna Hornig (2009) ‘Reinterpreting the Hearings for Media Messages About Science’, in Richard Holliman et al (eds) Investigating Science Communication in the Information Age: Implications for Public Engagement and Popular Media Oxford University Press) 223-236.
  9. Jump up^ for example, see Irwin, Alan & Michael, Mike (2003) Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge (Maidenhead & Philadelphia: Open University Press). Chapter 6
  10. Jump up^ Einsiedel, Edna (2005) ‘Editorial: Of Publics and Science’, Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 16 (1): 5-6.
  11. Jump up^ Martin Bauer, Nick Allum and Steve Miller, “What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research?”, Public Understanding of Science , Volume 16, 2007, pages 79-95.
  12. Jump up^ Martin Bauer, Nick Allum and Steve Miller, “What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research?”, Public Understanding of Science , Volume 16, 2007, pages 80-81.
  13. Jump up^ eg Durant, John, GA Evans & GP Thomas (1989) ‘The Public Understanding of Science’, Nature 340: 11-14.
  14. Jump up^ (September 2008)”Europeans’ attitudes towards climate change.”European Parliament and European Commission (accessed in May 2012).
  15. Jump up^ See, for example, Nisbet, Matthew C. (2009). Communicating Climate Change: Why Frames Matter for Public Engagement. Environment (Online athttp://www.environmentmagazine.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/March-April%202009/Nisbet-full.html, retrieved 20 October 2010).
  16. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Fiske, ST, & Taylor, SE (1991). Social Cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  17. Jump up^ Tversky, Amos; Kahneman, Daniel (1974-09-27). “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases” . Science . 185 (4157): 1124-1131. ISSN  0036-8075 . PMID  17835457 . Doi : 10.1126 / science.185.4157.1124 .
  18. Jump up^ Brossard, Dominica; Lewenstein, Bruce; Bonney, Rick (2005-01-01). “Scientific knowledge and attitude change: The impact of a citizen science project” . International Journal of Science Education . 27 (9): 1099-1121. ISSN  0950-0693 . Doi : 10.1080 / 09500690500069483 .
  19. Jump up^ Scheufele, DA (2006). Messages and heuristics: How audiences form attitudes about emerging technologies. In J. Turney (Ed.), Engaging science: Thoughts, deeds, analysis and action (pp. 20-25). London: The Wellcome Trust.
  20. Jump up^ Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1981). The simulation heuristic. (Report No. 5). Retrieved fromhttp://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA099504
  21. Jump up^ Sparks, Paul; Harris, Peter R .; Raats, Monique (2003-04-01). “Imagining and Explaining Hypothetical Scenarios: Mediational Effects on the Subjective Likelihood of Health-Related Outcomes” . Journal of Applied Social Psychology . 33 (4): 869-887. ISSN  1559-1816 . Doi :10.1111 / j.1559-1816.2003.tb01929.x .
  22. Jump up^ Gregory, W. Larry; Burroughs, W. Jeffrey; Ainslie, Frances M. (1985-12-01). “Self-Relevant Scenarios as an Indirect Means of Attitude Change” . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin . 11 (4): 435-444. ISSN  0146-1672 . Doi : 10.1177 / 0146167285114009 .
  23. Jump up^ Anderson, Craig A .; Godfrey, Sandra S. (1987-09-01). “Thoughts about Actions: The Effects of Specificity and Availability of Imagined Behavioral Scripts on Expectations on Oneself and Others” . Social Cognition . 5(3): 238-258. ISSN  0278-016X . Doi : 10.1521 / soco.1987.5.3.238 .
  24. Jump up^ Anderson, Craig A. (1983-08-01). “Imagination and expectation: The effect of imagining behavioral scripts on personal influences.” . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . 45 (2): 293-305. ISSN  1939-1315 . Doi : 10.1037 / 0022-3514.45.2.293 .
  25. Jump up^ “Who pays for science?” . Www.berkeley.edu . Berkeley University . Retrieved 29 October 2016 .
  26. Jump up^ “Science Technology Timeline” . Www.victorianweb.org . 2002 . Retrieved October 25, 2016 .
  27. Jump up^ “BAAS” . Www.victorianweb.org . 2002 . Retrieved October 25, 2016 .
  28. Jump up^ “British Science Association History” . Www.britishscienceassociation.org . British Science Association . Retrieved 30 October 2016 .
  29. Jump up^ Landow, George P. (25 May 2005). “A Review of Aileen Fyfe’s Science and Salvation: Evangelical Popular Science Publishing in Victorian Britain” . Www.victorianweb.org . Retrieved 1 November 2016 .
  30. Jump up^ Fyfe, Aileen. “Science Publishing” . Www.victorianweb.org . National University of Ireland . Retrieved 29 October 2016 .
  31. Jump up^ Ashton, Rosemary. “Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge” (1826-1846) . Oxford Dictionary of National Biography . Oxford University Press . Retrieved 2 November 2016 .
  32. Jump up^ Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge (2012). “The Penny Magazine of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge” . Archive.org . Archive.org . Retrieved 1 November 2016 .
  33. Jump up^ “About the University: Nineteenth and twentieth centuries” . University of Cambridge . University of Cambridge . Retrieved 31 October 2016 .
  34. Jump up^ “Showing off: Scientific Lecturing in the 19th century” . The Dickinsonia History Project . Dickinson College . Retrieved 2 November2016 .
  35. Jump up^ Fyfe, Aileen. “Science Publishing” . Brown University . Retrieved 29 October 2016 .
  36. Jump up^ Brown, Melinda (2015). Making “Nature”: The History of a Scientific Journal . Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press. ISBN  978-0226261454 .
  37. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h Bultitude, Karen (2011). “The Why and How of Science Communication” (PDF) . Retrieved October 25, 2016 .
  38. ^ Jump up to:a b Ipsos-MORI (2011). “Public Attitudes to Science 2011” (PDF) . Retrieved 27 October 2016 .
  39. ^ Jump up to:a b c McCartney, Margaret (2016-01-25). “Margaret McCartney: Who gains from the media’s misrepresentation of science?” . BMJ . 352 : 1355. ISSN  1756-1833 . PMID  26810502 . Doi : 10.1136 / bmj.i355.
  40. Jump up^ Shiju Sam Varughese.2017. Contested Knowledge: Science, Media, and Democracy in Kerala. Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
  41. Jump up^ Shiju Sam Varughese. 2017.Contested Knowledge: Science, Media, and Democracy in Kerala. Oxford University Press, New Delhi
  42. Jump up^ “Science for All: Report and Action Plan from the Science for All Expert Group” (PDF) . February 2010 . Retrieved 29 October 2016 .
  43. Jump up^ See the work ofPeter Weingart, Simone Rodder and Martina Franszen. See Rödder, Simone, Martina Franzen, and Peter Weingart (eds). 2012.The Science ‘Media Connection: Public Communication and Its Repercussions. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, and New York: Springer.
  44. Jump up^ See also, the pioneering works ofDorothy NelkinandMassimiano Bucchi. Dorothy Nelkin 1995. Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology, revised edition. New York: WH Freeman and Company; Massimiano Bucchi. 1998.Science and the Media: Alternative Routes in Scientific Communication. London and New York: Routledge.
  45. Jump up^ Hagendijk, RP 2004. ‘The Public Understanding of Science and Public Participation in Regulated Worlds’. Minerva 42 (1): 41-59.
  46. ^ Jump up to:a b Gregory, Jane; Miller, Steven (2000). Science in Public . Ingram Digital. pp. 5-7.
  47. Jump up^ Short, Daniel (2013). “The public understanding of science: 30 years of the Bodmer Report”. The School Science Review . 95 : 39-43.
  48. ^ Jump up to:a b Ipsos-MORI. “Public Attitudes to Science 2011” (PDF) . Retrieved 27 October 2016 .
  49. Jump up^ Bodmer, Walter (2010-09-20). “Public Understanding of Science: The BA, the Royal Society and COPUS” . Notes and Records of the Royal Society . 64 (Suppl 1): S151-S161. ISSN  0035-9149 . Doi : 10.1098 / rsnr.2010.0035 .
  50. Jump up^ “Science and Technology; Third Review” . Parliament.uk .

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *