Search

Environmental issues, and the application of science and technology to those issues, are receiving unprecedented levels of attention in public and policy discourses. As this has been happening, differences over responses to climate change have broadened to much wider philosophical and cultural divergences over the authority accorded to science and the assessment and interpretation of scientific evidence. Many different views may be taken on the proposition that these developments mean we are moving into or already are in a post-truth world. Yet, it is evident that in authoritarian societies or once-liberal societies trending in that direction, it has become more difficult to advocate for evidence-based positions and policies on a wide range of topics, notably those related to environment and climate. In these conditions, environmental communication (EC) and science communication (SC) need to intensify their critical examination of their respective responsibilities and potentials; relations between EC and SC are an important aspect of that critical self-examination.

In this essay the authors reflect on some recent trends in science communication research, celebrating it as an inherently interdisciplinary endeavour. Some current tendencies in science communication are more limiting, however: they present theoretical and strategic prescriptions that do not adquately reflect the variety and cultural diversity of science communication internationally. Rethinking science communication in the context of such diverse practices and cultural reorientations, the authors revise some of their own views and revisit notions of communication as conversation to propose an inclusive definition of science communication as the social conversation around science.

The four essays in this Commentary examine contributions of universities to science communication's development but also challenges in consolidating those efforts.

Scientists are increasingly expected to engage in public communication, though they frequently report that they feel inadequately prepared for such activity. The necessary training for such activity has barely been discussed in the science communication literature. Drawing on country reports from the Monitoring Policy and Research Activities on Science in Society in Europe (MASIS) report, this paper reviews initiatives across Europe to support scientists' public communication. It examines these within a framework that distinguishes between training oriented to dissemination or dialogue, and to capacity-building of scientists or professionalisation of science communicators. It traces the uneven spread and diverse character of such supports and identifies the four principal groups of policy actors who play distinct roles and, in the case of higher education institutions, sometimes internally contradictory roles. The paper draws on the authors' own experiences to underline the value of communication training that is oriented to dialogue and stimulates reflexivity. Copyright The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com, Oxford University Press.

This article explores the factors that influence the volume and structure of science programming by European television broadcasters, focussing on differences among channel patterns. It proposes three factors as relevant to understanding differences in science programming: A) the segmentation/fragmentation of television markets; B) the presence of middle sized commercial channels; C) the dependency of public service TV channels on commercial income (trading/advertising). We identified countries whose channel patterns encourage a varied picture of science – namely Sweden, Finland and Germany. They are distinguished from those which show a less differentiated picture and present a smaller volume of science content on television – such as Great Britain and Ireland. Finally, we identified countries whose channel patterns don’t encourage a varied picture of science – namely Spain, Greece, Bulgaria and Estonia – and these countries present their small volume of science content at off-peak hours, in contrast to patterns in Great Britain and Ireland.

This chapter traces the short history of science blogs, with particular reference to blogs published by scientists. It situates the slow growth of scientists’ blogs in the contexts of the wider, emerging blogosphere and of the proliferation of science media published through the Internet. In published discussion of science blogs strong claims have been made about their potential to support broad social engagement with science. It has also been claimed that science blogging has had direct impacts on the conduct and governance of science. This chapter notes that much of this commentary has been written by advocates and, taking a more detached view, it focuses most on any evidence that scientists’ blogging opens the backstage processes of science (or science-in the-making) to wider view and public participation. A review of general characteristics of scientists’ blogs indicates they show low levels of interactivity and points to evidence of early disaffection with this medium of communication. It is shown that scientists’ blogs rarely facilitate access to science’s backstage processes. One exceptional case is climate science, as demonstrated in the “Climategate” affair. The chapter reviews the intense discussions of climate science in the blogosphere and the key role of blogs in “Climategate” and, drawing from the exceptional character of this case, discusses the factors constraining scientists’ adoption of blogs in their professional and public communication.

Over nearly three decades, science communication has become established as a subject of teaching and research in universities across the world. Its standing as an academic discipline continues to be debated, but graduate degree programmes and doctoral research in the field are increasing. Partly reflecting its inherent multi- and interdisciplinary content, science communication is embedded in different institutions in different ways. These developments have been driven mainly by individual champions, but in some cases also by institutional and government policies. The diversity of science communication programmes reflects in part the various histories and institutional affiliations of the programmes. The diversity can be seen as a sign of the subject’s vitality but it is also a condition of its vulnerability. Many science communication teaching programmes have given rise to consultancies, applied research, publishing and, perhaps most notably, doctoral research, but information from the promoters of science communication programmes indicates that some programmes are particularly exposed to the rationalisation affecting higher education institutions in many countries. Science communication’s position between and across disciplines and departments may mean it is not always well equipped to defend itself just when its need is most apparent.

The Irish workplace smoking ban has been described as possibly a tipping point for public health worldwide. This article presents the first analysis of the newspaper coverage of the ban over the duration of the policy formation process. It adds to previous studies by analyzing how health communication strategists engaged, over time, with a newsworthy topic, viewed as being culturally controversial. It analyzes a sample of media content ( n = 1,154) and firsthand accounts from pro-ban campaigners and journalists ( n = 10). The analysis shows that the ban was covered not primarily as a health issue: Economic, political, social, democratic, and technical aspects also received significant attention. It shows how coverage followed controversy and examines how pro-ban campaigners countered effectively the anti-ban communication efforts of influential social actors in the economic and political spheres. The analysis demonstrates that medical–political sources successfully defined the ban’s issues as centrally concerned with public health.

Introduction, Massimiano Bucchi and Brian Trench 1. Popular Science Books, Jon Turney 2. Science Journalism, Sharon Dunwoody 3. Science Museums and Science Centers, Bernard Schiele 4. Cinematic Science, David Kirby 5. Of Deficits, Deviations and Dialogues: Theories of Public Communication of Science, Massimiano Bucchi 6. Health Campaign Research, Robert Logan 7. Genetics and Genomics: The Ethics and Politics of Metaphorical Framing, Iina Hellsten and Brigitte Nehrlich 8. Survey Research and the Public Understanding of Science, Martin Bauer 9. Scientists as Public Experts, Hans Peter Peters 10. Public Relations in Science: Managing the Trust Portfolio, Rick Borchelt 11. Environmental Groups and other NGOs as Science Communicators, Steven Yearley 12. Public Participation and Dialogue, Edna Einsiedel 13. Internet: Turning Science Communication Inside-Out, Brian Trench 14. Risk, Science and Public Communication: Third-Order Thinking about Scientific Culture, Alan Irwin 15. Public Communication of Science and Technology in Developing Countries, Hesther du Plessis 16. Communicating the Social Sciences, Angela Cassidy 17. Evaluating Public Communication of Science and Technology, Federico Neresini and Giuseppe Pellegrini

This chapter reviews the discussion in science communication circles of models for public communication of science and technology (PCST). It questions the claim that there has been a large-scale shift from a ‘deficit model’ of communication to a ‘dialogue model’, and it demonstrates the survival of the deficit model along with the ambiguities of that model. Similar discussions in related fields of communication, including the critique of dialogue, are briefly sketched. Outlining the complex circumstances governing approaches to PCST, the author argues that communications models often perceived to be opposed can, in fact, coexist when the choices are made explicit. To aid this process, the author proposes an analytical framework of communication models based on deficit, dialogue and participation, including variations on each.

The impacts of the Internet on communication of science have been pervasive but also often paradoxical. Sources and formats of scientific information have proliferated, making it ever more difficult for Internet users to discern valid information. Many scientific institutions use the Internet mainly as a means to promote themselves to particular groups, thus adding to users’ difficulties. The traditional quality assurance of scientific information through peer review and formal publication is no longer effective. Those communicating science on the Internet have special responsibilities to help users, by making it clear how information have been gathered and processed

The demand for evaluation of science communication practices and the number and variety of such evaluations are all growing. But it is not clear what evaluation tells us - or even what it can tell us about the overall impacts of the now-global spread of science communication initiatives. On the other hand, well-designed evaluation of particular activities can support innovative and improved practices.

JCOM can enhance its contribution to the science communication community by greater rigour in selection and editing and by opening up to reader comment.

The PCST (Public Communication of Science and Technology) conference, held every two years, offers an opportunity to chart the progress and direction of the international science communication community. The most recent conference, in Firenze, gave indications of a growing interest in science communication as cultural practice.

Several publications have sought to define the field of science communication and review current issues and recent research. But the status of science communication is uncertain in disciplinary terms. This commentary considers two dimensions of the status of discipline as they apply to science communication – the clarity with which the field is defined and the level of development of theories to guide formal studies. It argues that further theoretical development is needed to support science communication’s full emergence as a discipline.

Northern Ireland, in the early days of the present conflict, was where journalists made their names, where reputations and legends were established. The tales are legion from that period of journalists pursuing their quarries relentlessly and of their brushes with the law and with the outlaws.

A new editorial board is guiding JCOM through a period of change and here opens out the discussion on what JCOM has become and what it could or should become in the future. The journal's readers are invited to make their contributions.